Standard focal length choices

divamum

Until recently, I favored fast primes. I finally caved and got the 70-200is 2.8 II, and have had it on my camera close to 90% of the time. I hate (hate hate hate hate hate) the weight and am still groaning from the expense, but my creativity, keeper rate, and quality of results have soared since I got it. The combination of ridiculous sharpness wide open AND IS has been fantastic for me - 95% of what I do is portraits so the longer focal lengths are helpful too - and I couldn't be happier with it (other than the weight. Did I mention the weight? ~stretches out permanantly aching right arm~)

So here's my dilemma: spoiled first by primes and now by the exceptional quality of the tele, I'm too-often disappointed by standard zooms. There is NOTHING WRONG with the 24-70 lenses I own (they're good lenses, work properly, focus accurately and have no functional "issues") but my expectations have gone waaayyy up. Exceptional glass makes you want more exceptional glass!

Enter the possibility of a 35mm prime, probably the Sigma. Is that focal length enough to replace a standard zoom? I also have the canon 50mm 1.4 (which I don't use nearly as much on my 5dII as I did on the 7d; I find it too wide for portraits and too close for "wide", and have only been using it for low light scenarios).

If I do this, my lineup (to be used on 7d/5dII combo) would be:
35 1.4
50 1.4
85 1.8
135 2.0
70-200is 2.8

Or do I take a chance on yet ANOTHER standard zoom and try the Canon 24-70II? (Currently on sale, which is kind of what got me thinking about this)

Thoughts?

/thinking out loud

jhefti

I think a lot of your decision comes down to the practical issues of framing your subjects properly, and how easy this is to do. Zooms are great for their flexibility, but even the best zooms don't have the same IQ as primes; they just don't. I use my 70-200mm f/2.8 all the time for sports because I need the compositional flexibility. I also have a 24-70mm f/2.8 which is a great lens too. That said, if it is at all possible I use primes. I have the same range of primes as you do, plus a couple of wider angle and longer ones as well, and I always use them if the shoot allows time to reposition and switch if needed. Usually I have two or three bodies in use at any given time, and just choose what I need. Heck, I even tried Canon's new 200-400mm f/4 super tele and prefer my 400/2.8 despite its lack of zoom.

I don't know much about Sigma lenses as I don't own any. The Canon and Zeiss primes are just spectacular--especially the Zeiss lenses--and once I got used to this it's hard to go back.

Again, it just depends on how much flexibility you have on your shoots to switch lenses and reposition yourself. Looking at your lovely galleries, I'd think primes are the way to go for you. But I wasn't present when you took your shots so don't know the challenges.

chrisjohnson

For a pro to drop the standard zoom would be very bold. I'm not a pro and prefer primes in the non-tele range but found myself last week using my old 40D and EF-S f2.8 17-55 combo to do a pro-bono job for a local charity. I simply could not have done it in the time available with a set of primes. I'll be keeping the 40D as my standard zoom solution (and macro and long tele )

I don't know why people are so attracted to the Sigma 35mm. I want a 35mm prime as my main lens on the 6D and chose the new Canon 35mm f2.0 with IS and USM. It is lighter and shorter than the f1.4 alternatives and the quality of the IS means I do not have to worry about low light. A 35mm is not a lens I want for bokeh - it is much more for the convenience and ease of getting sharp photos back to front with a natural aspect. It is also excellent for my new hobby of indoor video, but that is not on everybody's list. From an IQ perspective I do not feel I am sacrificing anything. Again, if I was a pro, I would worry more about build quality for shooting in the rain, lending my gear to second shooters, chucking back in the bag - but then the Canon 35mm L would be the obvious choice. And by the way, the bokeh on the f2.0 is not bad either. And it is the cheapest. And the build quality seems solid.

The Canon 24-70 Mark 2 is a marvel of lens technology. If I was at all serious about being a pro I would buy it now, while the cashback is on. Indulging in primes is more something we amateurs can afford - he says with a smile. Seriously though, I have followed your progress for a few years and think you can become a pro with good earnings potential. At this stage in your career I would advise you to buy the best tools, including the 24-70 Mk2. With the money you save on the cash back you could almost buy the 35mm f2.0 as well.

Kind regards, Chris

lensmole

Third party lens electronics are reverse engineered and have forward compatibility issues.The camera makers don't provide proprietary information to the 3rd party gear makers.

I have used both the Canon L 35mm f/1.4 and the zeize 35mm on Canon mK11 body you can't go wrong with either lens the zeis has beautiful tones you can not match but is a manual focal lens. The Canon L 35mm f/1.4 lens is a superb lens with a lighting fast accurate A/F .

divamum

Firstly, you all flatter me! Yes, I am "professional" in the sense I charge and do (I hope!) pro-level work, but this is a part-time endeavour and I would still consider myself pro/am. This means that while I'm willing to invest in great glass, the funds are not quite as easily spared as they might be if I were doing this 100% of the time (or, at least, not quite as easily justified).

Jhefti: thing is, the 70-200 Mk II really *IS* as good as a prime. It even almost (almost) rivals the 135L for "sparkle". It's *that* good. And while I'm more than happy to footzoom, I have found recently that I can get different - and sometimes more flattering - angles by standing back and zooming in (eg, standing on a stepstool a little further away).

Chris: my second shooter last weekend (dgrin's own Michael Glenn) gave me a lot of shots taken with the 35L, and I'm REALLY loving them - what a beautiful lens; I certainly haven't ruled it out, by any means (if I even go back to only primes). That said, I gather a good copy of the Sigma is often sharper wide open. AND the f2 is also on my list - I'm well aware that the IS in the long zoom is one of the things which gives me so many more keepers, so it would definitely be worth considering. Especially if it saves some money!

I'm wondering if should rent the 24-70II at some point. If it really is as good as the 70-200II, then I will like it very much, and with cashback it brings it down to ALMOST "affordable". (almost lol). But given my disappointment with the other 24-70 models I"ve tried, I wonder if I'm just expecting too much from a zoom in this range, hence my thought to maybe go to a prime (and rent the zoom if I do an event where it was needed).

Lensmole: manual focus isn't an option, even though I nko wthe Zeiss is extremely well-regarded. However frustrating AF may sometimes be, it's better than I am!!

jhefti

Perhaps a different perspective might help...

The most important thing as a professional photographer is to get the shot. If there are small differences in IQ between a prime and a zoom, only you and few other pro shooters will be able to tell. Your customers probably won't. However, they will notice if the shots they hoped for are not there.

I think any of the lenses you're looking at are great lenses. Sure, there might be small differences between them that you may or may not notice. And some of these differences are, well...just differences, not improvements.

At this point we're discussing really minute details so far as your customers are concerned. I have my favorite lenses for particular tasks, and I do notice differences between zooms (even the 70-200 II, which is a great lens) and primes. However, these are subtle and I can be compulsive to a fault.

The 24-70 II is a great lens; I don't think you'll be disappointed! And since you already have some primes in this range (at least I get this impression from your post) you really have the best of both.

chrisjohnson

Part of the discipline of shooting with primes is the endeavour to develop an own style. This is mostly why I am doing it, not to get the shot. Most professionals, like John says, are doing it for the bread-and-butter. If I was doing it for my bread-and-butter I would need the bread-and-butter pro zooms.

Perhaps the big question is where to go with photography. Another is what the word "almost" means. Yes, the top zooms are almost as good as primes. To me this means that primes are mostly better. Most of the customers will not see the difference so zooms are good enough unless you are a perfectionist.

Icebear

I've tried to shoot weddings/events with primes and gave up. Y'all are just way better than I am, I guess. I shoot Nikon, so YMMV, but Nikon's 2.8 pair (24-70 & 70-200) are moneymakers. I cannot imaging Canon's 24-70 is inferior. Yeah, it's a brick, but think how much you'll appreciate your toned biceps when you're my age.

divamum

See, that's the problem - it IS inferior. Or at least hte Mk I version. I'm currently using the Tamron with IS - it's better than the Mk I, but it's not in the league of the telephoto zoom. I gather the Mk II is quite a bit better... but is it better enough to drop close to $2k on it?!

I have no idea how much event shooting is in my future (jury's still out on that). I also know I like the lifestyle look you get with the 35 at wide apertures.

Alternatively, I'm just an over-thinking gearslut making things WAY too complicated. That is also an entirely viable possibility.

jonh68

I think for shooting events it isn't a bad idea to get the 35. I just bought a used Sigma 24 2.8. My strategy now is to use the 24 mm on one camera, and the 70-200 on another. I use full frame D700 and D3s for events. My reasoning is for actual events my style was at the wide angle and then the 70-200 range. I just wasn't using the 24-70 range. I have a very small and lightweight WA now. So, the WA is used for the establishing shots, and when I am in knife fighting range for closeup candid shots. The 70-200 gets the money shots. Afterwords for the formal shots, I pull out the 50 and 85 1.8 primes.

For my needs, I think a 35 1.4 is overkill. I get very good ISO performance so I don't need a fast lens, and if I need isolation then the 70-200 covers that during the event. 35 mm isn't quite wide enough sometimes for the establishing shot and I don't need a fast prime for that either. I just didn't want another heavy zoom to carry around while jumping all over the place during an event. A wide angle zoom and 70-200 cover all I need.

jmphotocraft

I had a 35L. Awesome lens, but not a whole lot smaller or lighter than a 24-70/2.8. The Sigma is a similar size/weight. If I were in the market for such a lens I'd get the Canon 35/2.0IS without hesitation.

A 24-70/2.8 seems pretty much required for weddings and events where you have to get the shots on the spot without knowing what to expect, but a 35 is great for candids and casual walking around.

divamum

Great thoughts, guys. The 35is might be a real possibility; it won't break the bank, and I could still keep the Tamron 24-70 for occasions when it's needed (it's an excellent and accurate lens, just not in the same league as the 70-200II). Hmmm........

And the 35L is THAT big? Whoa. I knew it was chunky, but didn't realise it was THAT chunky. The 24-70I is called The Brick for a reason, so if it's as heavy as that ...........

chrisjohnson

Maybe another idea is to pick up an EF-S 17-55 f2.8 for your 7D and have that as your standard zoom solution. Canon recently dropped the new price here so you can pick them up second hand for not too much, especially as people upgrade to FF. I think you never owned the 17-55 but it is a very good lens, and if you are carrying two bodies anyway ....

divamum

I suspect I'd love the 17-55 given what I've seen peopel produce with it, but it probably isn't the solution for me. I only carry two bodies for theater and the weddings I've done. The rest of the time - 5dII for portraits, 7d for anything that moves (which is a great deal less often, and usually just for me) I do need SOMETHING wider for portraits (full length etc in a small sapce). The more I think about it, the more I'm thinking a 35 prime + keeping the Tamron may be the way to go. Thinking about it.

All this discussion also begs the question: WHY is it so much more optically/technically challenging to produce a sharp, reliable zoom at the wide end than the tele end?

chrisjohnson

divamum wrote: »

All this discussion also begs the question: WHY is it so much more optically/technically challenging to produce a sharp, reliable zoom at the wide end than the tele end?

Something to do with physics I think. When I started with 35mm film anything wider than a 35mm lens was considered a fish-eye. Even now a 35mm lens gives weird effects when you get too close with a FF camera. The wide angle zooms you can get today are mind bogglingly good imho.

Mitchell

Now that you are a professional wedding photographer, you will need to strongly consider revisiting the 24-70mm zoom. I shoot the Nikon equivalent for events and receptions with that lens on for about 75% of shots. I do like to throw on the 70-200mm to get some stealth candids.

Yes, the 24-70mm is a beast and you are already griping about the weight of the 70-200mm. Does Canon have the equivalent of Nikon's 24-120mm, f4 VR? I just shot a holiday party with this lens on my body with a flash bracket and the decreased weight and VR were very nice. Most of my flashed group shots are at typically around f8. At that aperture, I cannot tell the difference between that lens and the 24-70mm.

divamum

I OWN the Canon 24-70 I; planning on selling it and keeping the Tamron 24-70 with image stabilisation... at least for now. Neither of them are "bad", but neither can match the 70-200 (they're both considerably, lighter, by the way - the 70-200 is crazy heavy!). I was actually just on The Digital Picture comparison page playing "what if", and I'm right - NONE of these lenses we're talking about match the telephoto. The only one which comes close is the 35L, and that needs to be stopped down to do so. The tele isn't only sharp, it's *accurate*. I can rely on it to get the shot no matter what. I just want that in the 24-70 range!

Either I have the most perfect copy of the 70- 200 ever (not impossible - it used to belong to Andy Wiliams! lol) or it really is in a league of its own (which means I need to get over it and stop demanding the impossible).

PS Jury still out on weddings. Enjoyed the two I did and will consider doing it again if they present themselves, but still not sure it's my "natural habitat". We'll see

Mitchell

Well then, I don't use my 24-70mm lens much for single portraits. It goes on for groups of three or more. For one or two subjects, I reach for my 70-200mm, f2.8 or my 85mm, f1.4.

jmphotocraft

divamum wrote: »

And the 35L is THAT big? Whoa. I knew it was chunky, but didn't realise it was THAT chunky. The 24-70I is called The Brick for a reason, so if it's as heavy as that ...........

It's not the same weight/size as the 24-70, it's just not appreciably lighter or smaller when using it. That is, it's still "heavy". Shooting it one handed is not pleasant. Considering how good zooms are these days, if I'm going to limit myself with a prime it better be small and light. The 35L doesn't have that value. Great piece of glass, but...

And I agree, my 70-200/2.8II is *that* good too. It's as sharp as my 300/2.8LIS.

NagoC50

We currently have a Canon 24-70 I and the cash back/rebate deal convinced me to get the new Version II now on the hope that it will be a shorter version of the 70-200 II -- which is beyond incredible. We must have the only two perfect copies. I also love primes and use them for getting ready shots but the 24-70 goes on for ceremony and group formals. Different tools for different uses to me, I don't look at it as a 35 or 24-70, even though the lengths overlap.

That said, even though my 24-70 is a workhorse that is used a lot during the day, I am not overly thrilled about it (or about dropping $$on the version II) and my copy of version I is decent. For me, it's just a "meh" focal length.

divamum

I'll be super-interested to hear what you think - we seem to have similar views on gear, including this. My copy of the I and the Tamron are also pretty good, I just never get the "wow" factor from them. But if there's a standard zoom out there that can approach the sharpness, accuracy, consistency and sparkle of the 70-200, it has my attention

Matthew Saville

Divamum, read this to get my philosophy on "investing the most in the lenses that define your style, and then merely covering the bases after that"

http://www.slrlounge.com/tutorials/best-gear-guides/wedding-photo-gear/cameras-lenses-wedding-photo-gear


In other words, dump that dog of a Canon 24-70 mk1, keep the Tamron only to use when situations absolutely dictate, and the rest of the time enjoy the glorious combination of focal length and bokeh that is the Sigma 35 1.4...

Honestly, you already know how you feel about heavy lenses. Why get another brick-heavy lens that costs a freaking fortune, only to achieve amazing sharpness at f/2.8? Yes, the Canon 24-70 mk2 is impossibly sharp, but it's also absurdly expensive for a lens that you already know is just a "fill the range" type lens that you would rather not have to put on your camera in the first place.

Personally, here is how I would roll to a wedding or portrait session if I had an utterly unlimited budget:

Two cameras, two 2.8 zooms, one ultra-wide and one 70-200.

Then, a 28 or 35 prime, a 50 prime, an 85 prime, and a 135 prime.

Ideally, the 85 and 35 would stay on my two cameras 90% of the day.

The 85 would only get swapped to the 70-200 for big churches, or if the reception hall is huge but only during the toasts and first dance.

The 35 or 28 would stay on the 2nd camera for all general candid time, while the ultra-wide would be used for venue shots, ceremony wides, and some dramatic ultra-wide portraits.

The 24-70 would only come out if there was really intense, fast-paced things like "table photos" ...and even then I bet I could get by with just a 16-35 and an 85 or something.

Of course the necessity for a 24-70 does rise if you're not into the whole ultra-wide thing. If you don't have a 16-35 or 17-40 or whatever, then you can't go from 24-40mm quickly which I find to be important for large group photos. So if I didn't have an ultra-wide, I'd probably use the 24-70 a bit more but I still wouldn't consider it a "style-defining" lens, and therefore I wouldn't invest more than $600-$1200 in it. Hence, the Tamron fits the bill quite nicely.

divamum

So tell us how you really feel about the 24-70L I

Seriously, you have pretty much nailed my exact thoughts (I had a lot of time sitting on a train today and thought about little else until my phone died and I couldn't keep reading reviews :giggle). I don't have $1800 to spend on the 24-70 II and, unless it is simply the 70-200 II's baby brother, I won't feel it was "worth" it anyway.

I keep coming back to the Sigma; it's very appealing (and the reviews have been crazy good).....

Think.Think.Think.Think.

divamum

Matt, your article made me think of one other thing: what is the 17-40 like - sharp enough wide open (which is where I would likely use it)? My thinking here is that I don't have a superwide for FF which could be fun in multiple contexts (distortion actually a bonus at the wide end, since I'd use it creatively and not for architecture/landscape), and that + the Sigma could be a pretty sweet and relatively affordable pair. Most of my headshots are taken with the 70-200 (70-100 is my favorite focal length for portraits really), but the wider zoom at 40 (or the 35 prime) would still cover me for full length. I have a 50mm 1.4 as/if needed, and that + a fast 35 would cover low light needs. Thoughts?

Classic case of "too many choices" (and "not enough money" lol)

jmphotocraft

I love my 17-40L. It is very sharp in the center wide open, and pretty much corner to corner by f/5.6. The 16-35/2.8 is a little sharper in the corners at f/4, but by f/5.6 there is no advantage. Colors are great. Its light weight is a breath of fresh air from the 24-70. I like that it doesn't change length while zooming. Its filter diameter is 77mm which is common but it needs slim filters if you want to use them at 17mm. AF is silent and quick. Its price is a very good value. You can just plunk down the plastic and not feel guilty about it. Mine has paid for itself several times over doing real estate listings.

divamum

Thanks Jack - will bear it in mind!

For the moment, my decision ~drumroll~

- sold the 24-70L I and my Canon 50 1.4 this morning
- Keeping the Tamron 24-70is for now (although may, in time, sell it and rent the 24-70II as needed)
- Sigma 35 1.4 on its way to me

Why sell the 50 1.4 as well? Well, I haven't been using it all that much since I moved to full frame (conversely, I use the 85 1.8 a lot more than I did on a crop). The 35mm look appeals to me more stylewise, and still leaves me with a fast standard prime in the bag. AND should I find I really need a "true" 50 at less than 2.8, I can move the 35mm to the 7d for ~48mm. Seems like win all around, especially since Amazon had a $100 price drop on the Sigma today!

Watch this space for my thoughts on the Siggy once it gets here...

PS Sold my stuff through one of KEH's on-site purchasing days. Had to drive out of the area, but they were GREAT - I got pretty much exactly what I had pre-calculated based on their listed prices, cleared everything I no longer use off the shelf, didn't have to stand in line at the post office to mail a bunch of stuff out (always at more expense than I figured beforehand), and didn't have to deal with unscrupulous buyers (too many of those recently have left a very bad taste in my mouth, making private sales less than appealing. Ironically, I've only had GOOD experiences buying privately. Go figure.) Also really nice people in line; very pleasant morning chatting, solving the problems of the world, and seeing some really cool older photo gear people brought in to sell. If you have the chance to visit one of these and are willing to accept institutional lower prices (versus a private sale), I can certainly say my experience was excellent.

cab.in.boston

Very nice. I am very much looking forward to your Sigma 35 experience. It has gotten so many glowing reviews, but it will be nice to hear what a "real person" has to say about it. It's definitely on my want list (pretty far down b/c I have so many other holes to fill first, but it's there).

Congrats on your soon-to-be new gear!

nak

Keep us posted, please.

babowc

I just read the reviews on the Sigma 35mm 1.4... it's THAT sharp, huh?
Keep us posted! I may end up selling my 1.4G for it!

jmphotocraft

Hope you enjoy it. Indeed, no need for a 50 when you have a 35 - just crop. Just realize that you'll pay for that 1 extra stop over the 35/2.0IS every time you pick it up.

But, 35/1.4 can make for some interesting results sometimes.

divamum

Since it weighs less than the 24-70 or 70-200 = WIN lol

Arrives tomorrow (since I have a shoot I hope to use it for on Monday). I got it with the dock, too, since both were on supersale. Yippee - new toys!