Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G
  
 
M.Sanjeevan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


I've been shooting for about five years now and a Pentax APS-C sensor (K-5 currently which has the D7000 sensor) has been fine thus far. It most likely still is, but now that photography has become a long term hobby I want to experience the world of FF, especially after seeing the specs and price of the D800. I would most benefit from the cropping capabilities. I will enjoy the better AF and flash. I am hoping FF has something special some folks tallk about, but I am not holding my breath on that.

I will be getting the 70-200/2.8 VR II. I am just not too sure of the 24-70/2.8. I've heard great things about it. Pretty much all of the review sites rate it well (photozone, lenstip, slrgear). Reviews on this site is splendid as well. But, frankly I haven't seen many "wow!" pictures taken with it. I have seen some wow! pictures taken with the 30/1.4G however. My ideal walk around focal length is 35mm.

So, currently I am torn between either getting the 24-70 or the 35/1.4G. Eventually I will be getting the 14-24/2.8. Of the three f2.8 zooms, only the 24-70 is giving me trepidation, may be because I enjoy that range the most and want to get the best lens I can. (Besides I don't think anything can better the 14-24, it defies logic. I've seen some great subject isolation with the 70-200 VRII and the rendering is sublime as well)

I started out being a prime shooter, but ended up being a zoom shooter with my Pentax APS-C camera (Pentax makes some sweet primes). But, now I am willing to go either way.

QUESTION: Those who own both the 24-70/2.8 and the 35/1.4G, what are your opinion on this?
I am not concerned with the two stop advantage or the light weight. I am strictly considering IQ.

I know reviews just don't convey everything one needs to know to evaluate a lens (but, frankly even among shooters what constitutes a good lens could vary, but I have found within brands there is always some consensus on some cult lenses that reviews just don't differentiate from the rest).
So, to compare the two, I am not asking about sharpness, but overall 'rendering". . You know how when you see an image taken with the 200/2, it just has something special about it, or some of the finer Zeiss lenses too. Review site might quantify these lenses but it just doesn't convey the magic that some lenses can create. Is there a rendering chracterestic that's special with the 35/1.4 that the zoom just cannot deliver?

REQUEST: I would love to see some quality photographs taken with both these lenses.





Jul 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM
DavidWEGS
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


I no longer own the 24-70, but had it for a couple years and still have the 35/1.4.

Overall, (like for like) the 24-70 is a bit better from F4 IMO. The lens is better corrected for CA and distortion. Sharpness is pretty similar, across the lower end of the ap range, so that would not be my deciding factor.

On the FF versus crop question (not that you asked) I have both and still prefer the crop for many things. If you are shooting landscape, street and such, I think the D7k is better. However, if you shoot people or lowlight, the FF is better. Just FYI.



Jul 29, 2012 at 02:18 PM
KibblesNbitz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


I currently have the 24-70 and have used it for a while with my wedding work, but I'm most likely going to sell it and get the 35 1.4G and 24 1.4G....

The 24-70 is a great lens and all, but its just so...boring. Theres nothing really special about the images that come out of it. You know how the 70-200 has that "pop" to it with the subject isolation and the bokeh, the 24 1.4 has that amazing depth of field for 24mm, and the 35 just seems to have a special "draw" to it. The 24-70 is a technically excellent lens, I just find it to be a total snooze cruise. I always end up using it at 24mm anyways, and anything in its range is just boring...it never really isolates anything well, even at 70mm and 2.8, and I dont find the "versatility" to be worth it, especially when I'm never happy with the images it produces anyway. I've just yet to see a shot that made me say "Wow! That must have been taken with a 24-70!"....you know?



Jul 29, 2012 at 04:00 PM
M.Sanjeevan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


Thank you both.

That "wow" feeling when you see an image, that's what I am talking about. A couple of reviewers in B&H said the same about the 35/1.4 compared to the 24-70. But most importantly another person who uses Pentax lenses and Nikon said the same thing.

In Pentax we have these primes called limiteds, which in regular reviews don't fare too well but users know they are the best. We both like this limited prime 43mmf1.9 (The design was bought by Zeiss for their Zeiss 43/1.9) and to me one of the best lenses I've used of the many great ones, just because it can create shots that gives you that 'wow' factor. This guy said the Nikon 35/1.4 gives him the same feeling. This is the reason I am leaning a lot towards the 35/1.4 than the verstaile zoom which does so many things so perfectly well.

I think I will end up getting the D800, 35/1.4 and the 70-200.



Jul 29, 2012 at 09:37 PM
KibblesNbitz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


No problem.

If it means anything to you, I had both at different points in time. I originally had the 35G, then sold it to buy a 24-70 because I felt like I "should" have had the versatility and thought I might need it.

Now, I regret it. I wish I never sold the 35G, and am in the process of switching back to it. There's just something special about the way it draws an image, its hard to describe and no review I've seen ever mentioned it, but it just has it. Not just at 1.4 either, it does amazing at f/2 as well.

The versatility of the 24-70 is great and all, but honestly, any image I've taken with it at other than 24mm I've never liked, and ended up not delivering to clients. Anything past 24mm, and I always felt I was better of switching to a prime or the 70-200, because at least those lenses delivered a pop to them. The only reason I keep shots taken at 24mm with it is because its the widest focal length I have, so it gets used by default. This is something I know I will enjoy the 24 1.4G more for, because I'm just drawn to the 24mm focal length for some reason, and if I've going to keep it stuck to 24mm, then I might as well get the 24G. To me, anything past 35mm but below 70mm is just an awkward focal length anyway...

I feel like the 35G and 24G bring excitement back into the normal range for me...

Edited on Jul 30, 2012 at 07:17 AM · View previous versions



Jul 30, 2012 at 02:34 AM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


I own all three 2.8G zooms and 35 1.4G. To me, 24-70 and 35 1.4G are different tools for different purposes. 1.4G gives two more stops of light, which can be what you actually need in certain situations. On the other hand, 24-70 gives you the versatility at the expense of its size and weight. I use the zoom 95% of time for what I shoot. If you need a prime for walkaround, I'd suggest much lighter 28 1.8G.


Jul 30, 2012 at 02:51 AM
James R
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


I have both lenses and both are great. I would keep the 24-70 over the 35, if I could only have one of them. The only reason would be the versatility of the 24-70. IQ of each is too close to be an issue. However, the weight difference is pretty significant. The 24-70 is a massive piece of glass.

One other issue: To my knowledge, the 35 had more complaints about focus issues. At least that is how I remember the boards back then.

Enjoy you camera and future lens. BTW, posted pics are not going to help you much. Get the lens that fits your needs.



Jul 30, 2012 at 04:20 AM
honorerdieu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


I faced the same dilemma a year ago and I still have both lenses. The 35 f/1.4G is the lens I use when I'm working in extremely low light or portraiture. The 24-70 f/2.8G is the lens I use when I am second shooting at weddings or at events due to the versatility and faster focusing. The only "rendering" that the 35 f/1.4G has over the other is the ability to produce shallower DOF.

Bet you can't tell which of the following images below was shot with the 24-70 f/2.8G or the 35 f/1.4G:


























Jul 30, 2012 at 05:54 AM
Peter Bui
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


I've owned both the 24-70 and 35/1.4 and have shot both for years. My subjects were people. I preferred the 35 particularly for the thin DOF. At f1.4 it could be sometimes a bit softer than I wanted but sometimes it would seem perfectly sharp. By f2 it was always very sharp. By and large though, the best shots I got tended to be those at wide open apertures.

For a studio environment, the zoom's versatility made it the clear winner though. Also, the AF speed blows away the 35 by several orders of magnitude. Otherwise, I did find it 'boring'.

So, it kind of depends on what you are shooting

Here are some from the 35:


Untitled by I Shoot Kids, on Flickr


Untitled by I Shoot Kids, on Flickr


DSC_5479 by I Shoot Kids, on Flickr



Jul 30, 2012 at 06:37 AM
M.Sanjeevan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


KibblesNbitz wrote:
No problem.

If it means anything to you, I had both at different points in time. I originally had the 35G, then sold it to buy a 24-70 because I felt like I "should" have had the versatility and thought I might need it.

Now, I regret it. I wish I never sold the 35G, and am in the process of switching back to it. There's just something special about the way it draws an image, its hard to describe and no review I've seen ever mentioned it, but it just has it. Not just at 1.4 either, it does amazing at
...Show more

Thanks!

I agree with focal lengths from 35 to 70 being somewhat awkward...agreeing fully well when the normal '50' falls within it ....but my favorite is 35mm and not 24 though.



Jul 31, 2012 at 12:56 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



M.Sanjeevan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


mshi wrote:
I own all three 2.8G zooms and 35 1.4G. To me, 24-70 and 35 1.4G are different tools for different purposes. 1.4G gives two more stops of light, which can be what you actually need in certain situations. On the other hand, 24-70 gives you the versatility at the expense of its size and weight. I use the zoom 95% of time for what I shoot. If you need a prime for walkaround, I'd suggest much lighter 28 1.8G.


35mm truly is my walkaround focal length, so 28 will not work. I might at the end get the zoom and the 35/1.4. After viewing a bunch of images, I agree the special rendering is mostly below f2.8. Thank you for the reply.



Jul 31, 2012 at 01:00 AM
M.Sanjeevan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


James R wrote:
I have both lenses and both are great. I would keep the 24-70 over the 35, if I could only have one of them. The only reason would be the versatility of the 24-70. IQ of each is too close to be an issue. However, the weight difference is pretty significant. The 24-70 is a massive piece of glass.

One other issue: To my knowledge, the 35 had more complaints about focus issues. At least that is how I remember the boards back then.

Enjoy you camera and future lens. BTW, posted pics are not going to help you much.
...Show more

Yeah! it would definitely be frustrating to use a slow focussing lens, as that's one of the reasons to switch to Nikon from Pentax. This will definitely make me lean towards the 24-70 for now, and I am not really a wide angle guy, so may end up getting the 35/1.4 later, than the 14-24/2.8. I definitely want to enjoy fast, low light AF of Nikon with my normal range and the 3-D tracking with my 70-200. Other than the resolution, larger VF, this is the reason I am willing to spend about $8k for this purchase and grabbing a lens with slower AF kind of defeats that joy.



Jul 31, 2012 at 01:04 AM
M.Sanjeevan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


Nice images.

Well! it's not possible to tell which image is taken with what though, but overall a lens could render better with some images than another. It's especially difficult with B&W images. Having said that I would rate that third image to be more pleasing which it looks like is taken with the zoom as it appears to be wider than 35.

honorerdieu wrote:
I faced the same dilemma a year ago and I still have both lenses. The 35 f/1.4G is the lens I use when I'm working in extremely low light or portraiture. The 24-70 f/2.8G is the lens I use when I am second shooting at weddings or at events due to the versatility and faster focusing. The only "rendering" that the 35 f/1.4G has over the other is the ability to produce shallower DOF.

Bet you can't tell which of the following images below was shot with the 24-70 f/2.8G or the 35 f/1.4G:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8290/7625849058_6449dcf4e7_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7100/7177026376_9ab31ee35d_b.jpg

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6234/6280365483_65f396edb9_b.jpg

http://pcdn.500px.net/3503552/7769175008d9ab03aff41f01c0e6567b76e57d92/4.jpg



Edited on Jul 31, 2012 at 10:06 AM · View previous versions



Jul 31, 2012 at 01:07 AM
M.Sanjeevan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


Absolutely love that first image taken at Coranado Island. Love that 3D rendering which I doubt an f2.8 zoom fron 24-70 can replicate ?

Peter Bui wrote:
I've owned both the 24-70 and 35/1.4 and have shot both for years. My subjects were people. I preferred the 35 particularly for the thin DOF. At f1.4 it could be sometimes a bit softer than I wanted but sometimes it would seem perfectly sharp. By f2 it was always very sharp. By and large though, the best shots I got tended to be those at wide open apertures.

For a studio environment, the zoom's versatility made it the clear winner though. Also, the AF speed blows away the 35 by several orders of magnitude. Otherwise, I did find
...Show more



Jul 31, 2012 at 01:08 AM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


M.Sanjeevan wrote:
35mm truly is my walkaround focal length, so 28 will not work. I might at the end get the zoom and the 35/1.4. After viewing a bunch of images, I agree the special rendering is mostly below f2.8. Thank you for the reply.


Don't underestimate the weight of 35 1.4G as your walkaround lens. However, you can always put 28mm in1.2x crop mode, which gives you about 34mm equivalent FL.



Jul 31, 2012 at 02:27 AM
snooked123
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


Nikon 35mm 1.4g is surprisingly heavy even compared to Canon's 35L. 28mm 1.8g on the other hand is light and bright .


Jul 31, 2012 at 02:44 AM
KibblesNbitz
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


According to the EXIF data on Flickr for the first image Peter posted, it was shot at f/2, now just imagine 1.4


Jul 31, 2012 at 03:40 AM
AMaji
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


Absolutely gorgeous images. They indeed have a 3D feel to it, something that the Zeiss glass are so famous for. Nikon 35/1.4 is truly a great glass. The 24-70/2.8 zoom is the Jack of all trades, and will do them very well. However, it will not match the quality of a 1.4 prime, and that should not be expected also.


Jul 31, 2012 at 02:30 PM
honorerdieu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


M.Sanjeevan wrote:
Nice images.

Well! it's not possible to tell which image is taken with what though, but overall a lens could render better with some images than another. It's especially difficult with B&W images. Having said that I would rate that third image to be more pleasing which it looks like is taken with the zoom as it appears to be wider than 35.



The 1st and 3rd images were taken with the 24-70 lens while the 35 f/1.4G was used for the 2nd and 4th. If you want the absolute quality with the extra stops for shallow DOF, you obviously want to go with the 35 f/1.4G. The zoom may be boring, but it has bailed me out many times when I need to react quickly to take pictures.



Jul 31, 2012 at 05:11 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · Question: 24-70/2.8 VS 35 f1.4G


here is what I have observed in today's shooting environment. many advanced hobbyists tend to shoot prime more while many professional shooters do zoom.


Jul 31, 2012 at 05:58 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password