35mm or 24-70mm?

[DGMPhotography]

Hey folks!

So, with the release of the new Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4, I find myself tempted to sell my 24-70 f/2.8 G2 and replace it with the 35. I've really fallen in love with my 85mm prime, so I think I may feel the same way with the 35.

I've read that it's a pretty common thing to do, and was hoping to get thoughts and opinions from those who may have gone that route. Do you think it was a good choice? Do you regret it? Did you decide on something else?

For reference, I mainly shoot portraits and weddings (including video), with the occasional nature adventure. My current lenses are the Tamron 24-70 G2, Tamron 70-200 G2, Tamron 85mm f/1.8, Tamron 150-600 G2, and Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. I feel like without the 24-70, I still have a decent range covered, but to fill the wide end I'm also considering perhaps a Rokinon 14mm.

Thoughts?

 

[weepete]

For portraits I'd keep the 24-70mm, I think the 35mm is a different propositon entirely especially if you shoot portraits.

 

[Derrel]

I would rather have the flexibility of the zoom rather than the past 35 prime

 

[DGMPhotography]

For portraits I'd keep the 24-70mm, I think the 35mm is a different propositon entirely especially if you shoot portraits.

I almost never use my 24-70 for portraits. Typically I use my 85 or 50.

 

[Derrel]

You are still young. Instead of getting rid of equipment I think it would be better to add more equipment, and not eliminate essential pieces. I consider a 24 to 70 mm zoom lens to be a very essential piece of equipment, and a 35 mm F1.4 is not a replacement for your wide-angle to short telephoto F2.8 Zoom lens, but is itself a specialty tool. I would consider that you have already bought the 24 to 70, so don't take a loss on it and instead just add the 35 mm F1.4. A good lens should last at least 20 years, so consider that you will have a 24 to 70 and a high-speed 35 mm. One piece of advice that I got years ago was "never sell a good lens."
If your 24 to 70 mm zoom lens is in reality "a good lens",then it is not a good idea to sell it to raise cash to buy a less versatile single focal length lens

A 14 mm prime lens is really a specialty tool, and it is in no way a replacement for a 20 mm or a 24 mm or a 28mm.

 

[Derrel]

Over the past three decades I have had two 35 mm F1.4 lensed made by Nikon,an old horrible 35 mm F2.8 from the 1960s made by Nikon, and a couple of 35 mm F2 lenses. The old 35 mm F2 O. C. Nikkor had beautiful,soft out of focus character, and like an idiot I gave the lens to my sister-in-law around 1999, replacing it with the 35 mm F2 AIS, and a few years later I bought a 35 mm F2 Afd,whichI used for about 15 years until it broke down. I am pretty familiar with the 35mm lens, And it is a very good semi wide-angle lens, but the difference between the 24, and 28 mm, and a 35 mm lens is huge. The 24 to 70 has much more focal length flexibility, and being stuck at 35 mm is it really bad thing at events like weddings,parties, Press conferences, and many types of events. The 24 to 70 is designed to allow you to cover an event seamlessly and rapidly no matter how close you are to people: with the 35 mm prime you must step back all the time.

 

[weepete]

I almost never use my 24-70 for portraits. Typically I use my 85 or 50.

Xd. So what is it that makes you think you'll suddenly find a 35mm prime useful then if that's not a focal length you normally use?

To be honest the 85mm I totally get, it's really good for portraits. If you really want to fall in love with a focal length get a 135mm or similar would be my advice. A 35mm just seems so out of whack with the whole lens distortion thing, that yes you could get ultra sharp photos in raw but I don't think the end user would be able to tell at the resolutions you are likely to print at.

You know, I do get "it". A 35mm prime is super sharp, but do you really feel that if it's not a focal length you use now it'll become something you use or just another box.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Over the past three decades I have had two 35 mm F1.4 lensed made by Nikon,an old horrible 35 mm F2.8 from the 1960s made by Nikon, and a couple of 35 mm F2 lenses. The old 35 mm F2 O. C. Nikkor had beautiful,soft out of focus character, and like an idiot I gave the lens to my sister-in-law around 1999, replacing it with the 35 mm F2 AIS, and a few years later I bought a 35 mm F2 Afd,whichI used for about 15 years until it broke down. I am pretty familiar with the 35mm lens, And it is a very good semi wide-angle lens, but the difference between the 24, and 28 mm, and a 35 mm lens is huge. The 24 to 70 has much more focal length flexibility, and being stuck at 35 mm is it really bad thing at events like weddings,parties, Press conferences, and many types of events. The 24 to 70 is designed to allow you to cover an event seamlessly and rapidly no matter how close you are to people: with the 35 mm prime you must step back all the time.

You make some good points there. I guess I should try to see if I can just add it, instead of replace my 24-70. I would agree that versatility is usually the best course of action, at least for the ceremony. Usually for portraits and reception I prefer to use primes, though.

I almost never use my 24-70 for portraits. Typically I use my 85 or 50.

Xd. So what is it that makes you think you'll suddenly find a 35mm prime useful then if that's not a focal length you normally use?

To be honest the 85mm I totally get, it's really good for portraits. If you really want to fall in love with a focal length get a 135mm or similar would be my advice. A 35mm just seems so out of whack with the whole lens distortion thing, that yes you could get ultra sharp photos in raw but I don't think the end user would be able to tell at the resolutions you are likely to print at.

You know, I do get "it". A 35mm prime is super sharp, but do you really feel that if it's not a focal length you use now it'll become something you use or just another box.

Sorry, I misspoke. What I meant was I don't typically use the in-between focal lengths of the 24-70. I'm pretty much at 24mm or 70mm if I'm using this lens for portraits. So my thinking is if I'm pretty much just using those two, then why not just get the prime equivalent for better image quality, bokeh, etc. (And I realize 35mm is not equivalent to 24mm, but I don't mind moving around more)