EF 24/1.4 L II & 35/1.4 L vs. 24-70/2.8 L II

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have a couple of fast EF primes, a 24/1.4 L II and 35/1.4 L, that have been basically languishing on the shelf since I acquired a 24-70/2.8 L II. As much as I hate to part with the primes, they just aren't getting enough use to justify keeping them. However, I don't want to regret selling them if it turns out that they would have been useful to me after all.</p>

<p>So my question is, do any of you have uses for fast wide angle primes that a slightly slower standard zoom cannot provide? (I do also have a Sigma 50/1.4 ART for cases when I need more speed, but of course it doesn't have 24mm or 35mm. And I tend to use flash when I'm shooting family photos indoors.) I have really appreciated the images that the primes have facilitated, but I need some convincing to keep them.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>What was the reason you acquired the 24-70 when you already had the primes? What reason(s) did you have to purchase the primes prior? How exactly did the 24-70 relegate the primes to sit on the shelf?</p>

<p>Both approaches involve some kind of compromise - the 24-70 isn't all that fast, and the primes required constant lens changes, among other things.</p>

<p>If I was shooting more events (particularly indoors), I would most likely prefer the 24-70. Since I don't, I enjoy having the Sigma 24/1.4 and Sigma 35/1.4 Art lenses that together cost me less than the 24-70 (I shoot Nikon).</p>

[doug_nelson5]

<p>I'd find the 24 and 35 L's too heavy and bulky for carry-around use like travel, although I'd have them if I shot professionally, such as press work or weddings. I like wide-angles, but rarely, if ever, need the super wide apertures of the L's. Would the 24mm f 2.8 IS USM and/or the 35mm f2 IS USM do what you need just as well? </p>

[William Michael]

<p>From previous conversations Mark, you probably already know I have the 24/1.4 (not MkII) and 35/1.4 and also both 24 to 105/4 and 24 to 70/2.8 (not MkII).</p>

<p>Since I stopped covering Weddings, I do not use the 24/1.4 very much. I do use the 35/1.4 as my additional travel lens, with my 24 to 105/4, but not much at all beyond that use. The 24 to 70/2.8 suits my needs and F/2.8 at 24 and 35 is ample and I have the very fast covered at both 50mm and 85mm – though again since finishing my working at Weddings I don’t use my 50mm lens that much at all either. I do use my 85 and 135 Primes quite often for my commissioned portraiture work though.</p>

<p>My main reasons for not selling either the 24 or 35 are:<br /> > firstly they are both paid for and whilst not often used – they do get used sometimes – even if it is the 24 just for fun in available light at some jazz clubs and the like; and for night skies - which is also for fun and it is fun.<br /> > secondly neither lens is ‘rotting away ’ whilst living in my camera cupboard<br /> > thirdly I have no eager requirement to acquire any other gear by the sale of either of them.</p>

<p>Typically, once making my buying choice, my personality type is to keep my tools forever; or until they wear out and they are unviable to repair. That opinion might hinder your thinking more than it helps it – sorry about that :) !</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I guess it depends on your shooting style, but in practical terms, the main benefit to the speed during normal shooting is the shallower DOF.</p>

<p>It used to be that those primes were significantly better by F2.8 than the zoom was, but obviously the 24-70 II is better WO (IQ wise) than these guys are at f2.8.</p>

<p>I would suggest that if you never shoot for ultra shallow DOF, or don't shoot extremely dark scenes, you should go ahead and sell them. I mean there is a lot of fantastic gear you can get in this day and age which more closely aligns with what/how you shoot. </p>

[robert_turner5]

<p>I have a 24-70 f2.8/II, funded by selling my 35/1.4L and the 24/1.4L II. For my needs the 24-70 is the smart choice, but both of those primes (as you know) have a special IQ that is sort of like your first sweetheart. You are happy with the current situation, but you fondly remember something that was really cool. I'd keep one of those if I were you. Sort of a compromise? <br>

Incidentally, is the Sigma ART up to Canon L par in your book? I know it's reputation is very good, just wonder what you think. </p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I use 35L, 85L and 135L for at least 90% of my portrait sessions. I haven't used my original version 24-70 in the past couple of years. The only time I use it is for infants, which I don't photograph very often. The focus distance is useful for that. Also, for when conditions aren't great for changing lenses, then I would throw it on for the day. It's a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/IanTaylorPhotography/photos/a.312361585492503.75620.171846589544004/407384662656861/?type=3&theater">nice lens</a>, but I am stuck on primes.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I don't think I would ever have need of a f1.4 24mm, and I found that the extra bulk of the 35mm f1.4 was just not efficient as I rarely shot at f1.4, so I sold it after 5 or 6 years. I personally use a 24 2.8/IS and a 35 f2/IS instead which I find a more satisfactory pairing than the two larger lenses. I also have a 24-70mm f2.8 which I use for events and anytime I am taking the whole kit. But occasionally I go back to the primes because they produce slightly different mindset and response to the subject. I like to pair a 35 with an 85, for example. The 35/2 IS in particular is one of the nicest lenses I have ever owned. The 35/1.4 was a great one two, but the 35 IS is up to the same standard, has IS and is much lighter.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Make sure your using Digital Lens Optimization to convert from Raw, so that geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc. is corrected at every focal length and aperture. DLO will elevate zoom performance to levels competitive with most primes. The only real advantage of fast primes is throwing up bokeh in certain situations, or in low light, with a camera that has poor high-ISO performance. </p>

<p>I use primes at the extreme ends of my focal range, 500mm and 15mm. Everything in between is covered with a couple of zooms.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks for your insightful advice, gentlemen, and for your patience in trying to answer a question that only I can.</p>

<p>I should have expected that the advice would run the gamut from "keep them both" through "hold onto one of them" to "sell them both," instead of hoping for an unequivocal way out of my "dilemma."</p>

<p>I think what I'm going to do is hang onto the primes through the spring and summer, and try to use them in tandem with my 24-70 to see if they offer any tangible advantage over the zoom. If I do end up letting one of them go, it'll probably be the 24/1.4. I've hung onto it primarily because I like the 35mm perspective, which is about what it offers on my 7D (I also have a 5DII), but whether f/1.4 offers any advantage over f/2.8 at 24mm is an open question.</p>

[mark_schafer1]

<p>The new 24-70 is an outstanding lens that few can best. As for your primes, i'd dig into why you acquired them in the first place.<br>

From personal experience, i always used the 35mm prime for low light situations where the zooms just can't focus or when shooting party shots at a set distance, stopped down for depth of field. Otherwise i never really used it after acquiring the 24-70 II.<br>

If you're shooting architecture, i strongly suggest looking into the 24 TS II (on full frame).<br>

Otherwise, no need for primes unless its an Otus (or TS), that's my general take on todays 35mm full frame camera/lens situation.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>The 24L II is a specialty lens but I find its probably my most used lens since I use it on crop and full frame ( thanks William W ) along with the 135L ( I too love primes ). I've thought about replacing it with a 24-70 2.8 II but I ended up getting the F4IS version since I could not justify keeping the primes with the 2.8 II and I usually fall back on primes. I've owned the 24-105 and 24-70 2.8 I and I've never really needed or liked a standard zoom. The F4 IS had me curious because of the macro and small size so I picked one up recently. </p>

<p>I feel your pain as I would find it hard to part with any of my main primes ( 24LII, 50L and 135L )</p>

<p>How long have the 24/35 been sitting? I would have a hard time justifying both the L primes with the 24-70 2.8 II. Since you seem to prefer the 24-70 I would say sell them or at least the 24. 35 is very practical and the 35 is dropping in value so its probably worth keeping.</p>