24-70 or 35 1.4

P

pmac

Messages
1,792
Name
peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay I've been eyeing up the sigma 35mm 1.4 since it was announced, but can't afford to buy it.. Is it advisable to sell my nikon 24-70 to finance the purchase or not.

I'm no pro and currently have a d800 24-70/70-200 vr2/85 1.4g/50 1.8g.
I find my self using the 85 and 50 the most then the 24-70 and the 70-200 the least( love it just the weight and size can be a pain).

I mainly use the 24-70 when I need some thing wider than the 50, especially when I go on holiday to china yearly and I do like the close focus.

What the min focus distance of the 35 like compaired to the 24-70 and would you think that 35 is wide enough for most uses, I'm no land scape photographer, mainly portrait and street.

Any advise well come, I know a lot is personal preference as well .
 
pmac said:
Okay I've been eyeing up the sigma 35mm 1.4 since it was announced, but can't afford to buy it.. Is it advisable to sell my nikon 24-70 to finance the purchase or not.

I'm no pro and currently have a d800 24-70/70-200 vr2/85 1.4g/50 1.8g.
I find my self using the 85 and 50 the most then the 24-70 and the 70-200 the least( love it just the weight and size can be a pain).

I mainly use the 24-70 when I need some thing wider than the 50, especially when I go on holiday to china yearly and I do like the close focus.

What the min focus distance of the 35 like compaired to the 24-70 and would you think that 35 is wide enough for most uses, I'm no land scape photographer, mainly portrait and street.

Any advise well come, I know a lot is personal preference as well .
Click to expand...

No point keeping it if it sits at home all the time.

My 24-70 is the lens I probably get the most use out of. Surprised you mention the weight I guess it's different for everyone but weight and size wise it seems just about right for me. :thinking:

I am actually the opposite I have a 24-70, 70-200vr2, 50 1.8g and an 85 1.8d. When I go out I pretty much only ever take the 24-70 and the 70-200. The 85 I have only used once since I bought my 70-200 and I will likely sell it on at some point. The 50 I will keep just because it's a cheap little lens that even if not used often serves its purpose.

Not sure if a 35 would serve as a replacement for your 24-70 however if you go for it you might find the 50mm relegated to non use due to how close they are in focal length. You might also find that your 85 might be less missed, the 70-200 is also superb for portraits.

You could always sell the 50 1.8g and the 85 1.4g and replace with the Siggy 35 1.4 and the Nikon 85 1.8g which is supposed to be sharper than the 1.4g.
 
Last edited:
I'm another zoom lover. While there's no doubt that a 35mm prime is a lot lighter than the 24-70, it's nowhere near as versatile and the extra shallow DoF afforded by the wide aperture is only a stop, so not huge. I know one pro who has kept their Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 as well as having the Nikkor version since the Sigma has a closer min focus distance which they use at weddings when necessary - a quick Google will find the relevant MFDs of any lenses.

Have you considered an older 35mm lens? Even a manual focus one could be used with aperture priority on the D800 and with an aperture of f/8 or so and the focus set at 15' (3m), or so, street shots could be shot from the hip with a little practise.
 
pmac said:
Okay I've been eyeing up the sigma 35mm 1.4 since it was announced, but can't afford to buy it.. Is it advisable to sell my nikon 24-70 to finance the purchase or not.
Click to expand...

I was pondering the exact same thing not too long ago. I had no 1.4 primes, and just fancied having one. I sold on my 70-200 VRII - because it just wasn't being used, and my 105mm macro. I bought a 150mm macro to cover for the longer end [planning on buying a Sigma TC for that], and this allowed me enough to buy the 35mm 1.4 siggy, and keep the 24-70 - for now! I also bought an 85 1.8G, good filler lens for me between the 70 and 150mm, and it's too good a price not to have!

I have found that since buying that 35mm, the 24-70 has been idle a lot more. It's only getting used the odd time I want extra width, and that's more because the option is there than any particular need. I imagine I could well live without it, as I don't do weddings/large groups much - and I prefer tighter landscapes than wide when I do them. But, if I was to start doing some big events for the summer, I'd miss the 24-70. Shame to have it there unused for now though. I have thought on letting it go and buying something like a Zeiss 21mm!
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the input guys.

My worry is I will actually miss the 24-70 if I don't have it and wasn't sure if the 35 would be to close to the 50.

I may look at the 28 1.8G as that also looks like a great lens.

The issue I have with the 70-200 weight and size wise is when I'm traveling around all day its a lot to carry, in the heat. At home I generally have two kids with me when I'm out both under 5 and a buggy. The 24-70 isn't as bad.
 
Nod said:
I'm another zoom lover. While there's no doubt that a 35mm prime is a lot lighter than the 24-70, it's nowhere near as versatile and the extra shallow DoF afforded by the wide aperture is only a stop, so not huge.
Click to expand...

Two stops, and it can make a dramatic difference especially when you are close to your subject as you often are at 35mm.
 
My problem with the 70-200 was weight in the bag that just wasn't getting used. I have a duffed back, had surgery a few years ago and it's not been the same since. What I put in the bag, when I know I'll be carrying all day, is important. I have to think it through, where I'm heading and what type of shots I'd like to try.

I began to leave the 70-200 out a lot of the time. And same here, 2 kids, one is in a wheelchair most times we go for long walks, the other is a hyper 5yr old! so dealing with them and fumbling with larger gear is a no-no at times. If I'm out alone, not so much of a bother, but I still tend to use lighter lenses. The 24-70 is just grand, I wouldn't like much heavier than it for long treks.
 
jpw said:
Two stops, and it can make a dramatic difference especially when you are close to your subject as you often are at 35mm.
Click to expand...

You're quite right! My brane can't handle decimal multiplication before my 2nd cup of coffee!!!

I'm not a lover of ultra shallow DoF and it (ultra shallow DoF) isn't that easy with WAs. Besides, my suggestion of the slower lens was mainly aimed at either the zoom option (if there's an f/1.4 24-70, it'll be rather weighty!) or an MF prime set at a nominal hyperfocal distance and shot from the hip.
 
I'd miss the wide end of the 24-70 if 35mm was as wide I could go.

I've also got the 24-70, 50 and 85mm. Was thinking hard about getting the sigma 35mm1.4 , but recently went for the Nikon 28mm1.8. I figured 35mm was just abit too close to my 50mm.
 
I'm a Canon shooter and just acquired a Sigma 35mm f/1.4.

I rarely use zooms and wanted to plug the hole between my 24/1.4 and 50/1.2.

From a few basic tests the Sigma is extremely sharp wide open (better than the well regarded Canon 35/1.4), is very nicely made and handles well.

Phil
 
I have never seen a lens as sharp at f/1.4 the performance of the 35mm sigma is just crazy
 
I can't think of any zoom I'd rather have than a prime... except maybe the Sigma 12-24mm, but I'd rather have a prime than any "standard" zoom.
 
[slight hijack]Alan, a good copy (bad ones are apparently around...) of that 12-24 are something else! One of the best corrected lenses as far as rectilinear distortions go, especially given its extreme width on FF, although the exagerated perspective is fairly extreme at 12mm.[/slight hijack]
 
If I got rid of my Nikkor 24-70 2.8 it would be like losing an arm.
In short,don,t make the change.
 
Surely there's more people out there other than me who don't like using mid range zooms. I prefer a single focal length in that range that excels. Never liked mid range zooms from the day I began taking pictures. Maybe it's because I really started on primes. Now I really like the 70-200 for portraiture. Have always thought I'd like an f2 135mm as I enjoyed the 85mm on a aps-c camera although I'd ideally like VR
 
Nod said:
[slight hijack]12-24... One of the best corrected lenses as far as rectilinear distortions go, especially given its extreme width on FF, although the exagerated perspective is fairly extreme at 12mm.[/slight hijack]
Click to expand...

I know, I have one :D

I was a happy 12-24mm user on my 20D where it comfortably outperformed my previous Canon 10-22mm and it was one of the lenses that persuaded me to go FF, the other being the Sigma 85mm which I also own :D

As for bad Siggy copies, I've been luck in that every Siggy I've owned has been great straight out of the box whereas the two most disappointing lenses I've owned were the Canon EF-S 10-22 and 17-85mm. Both had great specs but ho hum performance at best and both looked and felt built to a very low standard and price.
 
I have 24-70 which i use for nightclub photography and other events , i have a Nikon 35mm F2 which i use when i go travelling as its a lot lighter , im selling it to upgrade to the sigma , had a play with it at focus and was impressed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top