Has anyone here switched from the zoom to the prime? Or vice versa? Using both?
I've used the 24-70 extensively over the past year, and from an initial slight dislike, its versatility and all-around usefulness steadily won me around - however, I now find myself without a copy, but with funds available to replace it if I so choose.
I do like my primes though - their isolation and low light abilities make them attractive in many situations - bringing me to consider the 35 as a substitute for the zoom.
Aside from the inevitable lists of the obvious differences between them, I'm interested in hearing from anyone with personal experience of both lenses - which tends to get more usage, which produces more eye-catching images, personal preference, feel-good factor, general thoughts etc.
If it matters, most of the shooting that I actually get paid for is food photography - and I'm pretty well covered with glass for that. In my own time I'm a fairly eclectic shooter - anything from portraiture to landscapes, street to wildlife.
If you don't mind manual focus, and you seem to have funds, get the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4. One of the best glass ever made. But, if you do need AF you can't go wrong with Nikon 35mm f/1.4G. I think there's just about a million reviews on-line on this lens... It's good, just not as good as Zeiss.
Here is a good review on Nikon lens: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/596-nikkorafs3514ff
On that side you'll find other Nikon, or Zeiss, lenses reviews on both cropped sensor or FF.
