35-85mm f2.8 instead of 24-70mm f2.8?

Forums: 
Lets say you are an FF user - will you find a 35-85 f2.8 more useful than 24-70 f2.8? I have always found the longest focal length of 24-70 zoom odd, it seems to me that 85 mm instead of 70 would be a lot more useful. I know, a 24-85mm f2.8 would be even more useful, but I have no idea how much that will cost and weigh. So lets just say you have only two options available - 35-85mm f2.8 or 24-70mm f2.8. Which one would you take? I am just trying to find out - is it only me or some others also find the 35-85mm range (with constant f2.8) more useful.

KLO82 wrote: Lets say you are an FF user - will you find a 35-85 f2.8 more useful than 24-70 f2.8? I have always found the longest focal length of 24-70 zoom odd, it seems to me that 85 mm instead of 70 would be a lot more useful. I know, a 24-85mm f2.8 would be even more useful, but I have no idea how much that will cost and weigh. So lets just say you have only two options available - 35-85mm f2.8 or 24-70mm f2.8. Which one would you take? I am just trying to find out - is it only me or some others also find the 35-85mm range (with constant f2.8) more useful.
Or how about a 24-105mm f/4 with IS?

Steen Bay wrote:
KLO82 wrote: Lets say you are an FF user - will you find a 35-85 f2.8 more useful than 24-70 f2.8? I have always found the longest focal length of 24-70 zoom odd, it seems to me that 85 mm instead of 70 would be a lot more useful. I know, a 24-85mm f2.8 would be even more useful, but I have no idea how much that will cost and weigh. So lets just say you have only two options available - 35-85mm f2.8 or 24-70mm f2.8. Which one would you take? I am just trying to find out - is it only me or some others also find the 35-85mm range (with constant f2.8) more useful.
Or how about a 24-105mm f/4 with IS?
I should have been more clear: F2.8 AND some focal length that you will find useful.

KLO82 wrote:
Steen Bay wrote:
KLO82 wrote: Lets say you are an FF user - will you find a 35-85 f2.8 more useful than 24-70 f2.8? I have always found the longest focal length of 24-70 zoom odd, it seems to me that 85 mm instead of 70 would be a lot more useful. I know, a 24-85mm f2.8 would be even more useful, but I have no idea how much that will cost and weigh. So lets just say you have only two options available - 35-85mm f2.8 or 24-70mm f2.8. Which one would you take? I am just trying to find out - is it only me or some others also find the 35-85mm range (with constant f2.8) more useful.
Or how about a 24-105mm f/4 with IS?
I should have been more clear: F2.8 AND some focal length that you will find useful.
OK 24-105 f2.8 IS L

birdbrain wrote: OK 24-105 f2.8 IS L
The size/ weight and price of that lens would be very very high, otherwise I (and many others) would want that for sure.

Yes for a 2 lens set up the 10-22 and 24-105 would be good . A good 3 lens set up would be the 10-22 , 24-105 and the 100-400 . I went with the 10-22 , 17-55 and the 70-200 mk II for low light . Sometimes the 10-22 just barely makes it tho .

It is my understanding that quite a lot of the bulk/weight of a standard zoom lens is driven by the requirements of the wide end. So if the wide end is limited to 35mm rather than 24mm you could probably achieve 35~105/2.8 rather than 35~85/2.8, and yes, that might be attractive in some circumstances. Similarly, an EF 28~135/4 would be interesting.

Despite being a prime shooter, I'd be very tempted by a 35-105/2.8 zoom on full frame... Tamron made one and it was 600g apparently. Not so heavy considering in my case it would pretty much do it all, although I might supplement it with a 50mm for extra low light / dof control in the middle. Make it an L or otherwise give it colour and contrast to match my canon primes and I may just use a lens like that a lot. The Tamron 28-75 kind of interested me, but I'd want more on the long end. 35mm is a useful documentary focal length for being in anongst what's going on, but I've always struggled to make an interesting picture with a wider lens than that. I know that's me and not everyone else! And 105mm 2.8 would cover head and shoulders portraits.

KLO82 wrote: Lets say you are an FF user - will you find a 35-85 f2.8 more useful than 24-70 f2.8? I have always found the longest focal length of 24-70 zoom odd, it seems to me that 85 mm instead of 70 would be a lot more useful. I know, a 24-85mm f2.8 would be even more useful, but I have no idea how much that will cost and weigh. So lets just say you have only two options available - 35-85mm f2.8 or 24-70mm f2.8. Which one would you take? I am just trying to find out - is it only me or some others also find the 35-85mm range (with constant f2.8) more useful.
This class began years and years ago with 35-70 f/3.5 zooms, bracketing around the 50mm normal. Next steps, in response to majority of users, was to f/2.8, then 28-70 f/2.8, then 24-70 f/2.8. Closest to your desire is Tamron's 28-75 f/2.8. I think there would be a lot of resistance to giving up a very significant amount of wide angle for a very marginal amount of extra tele to 85.

I guess I am opposite of you... I wish someone would make wider version, like a full frame 18-50mm 2.8. Then I really wouldn't need 16-35 and 24-70. For portraits, using a 85 prime or 135 would be better. Or even the 70-200. I don't know. That's just me.

I've always thought a 35-105 f2.8 would be the ideal portrait/wedding lens. Since most pros are shooting with two bodies anyways, I guess a 24-70 and a 70-200 are a better combo.

For a general purpose zoom, most of my shots are at the wide end, and 35mm is not wide enough. Much prefer 24mm on the wide end. Certainly wouldn't mind if the long end were longer, but at f/2.8, my guess is that would make the lens much larger, heavier and more expensive, and would probably compromise IQ to some extent.

There already is the 15-85 , just kick up ISO . Then again there is also the 28-80 and 28-90 . I have the 28-90 , it is OK but my 28-135 is better - but a lot bigger and heavier . I do like the 2.8 on the 17-55 and 70-200 . I don't like the gap between 55 mm and 70 mm , but there is nothing in that range with 2.8 and IS [ by canon ]

but the 15-85 is limited to crop cameras. like others have mentioned before, i would miss the wide more, than i would benefit from the extra reach w/a 35-85.

I have a 16-35 and a 135 F2 - for me a 35-85 2.8 (L preferred) would be a perfect complement.

KLO82 wrote: Lets say you are an FF user - will you find a 35-85 f2.8 more useful than 24-70 f2.8? I have always found the longest focal length of 24-70 zoom odd, it seems to me that 85 mm instead of 70 would be a lot more useful. I know, a 24-85mm f2.8 would be even more useful, but I have no idea how much that will cost and weigh. So lets just say you have only two options available - 35-85mm f2.8 or 24-70mm f2.8. Which one would you take? I am just trying to find out - is it only me or some others also find the 35-85mm range (with constant f2.8) more useful.
I'm not saying that there's no place for a 35-85 / 2.8 -- I mean, why not? But I'd prefer the 24-70 / 2.8L II myself. However, what I'd really like is a 24-50 / 2L IS that was as good, stop-for-stop, as the the 35 / 2 IS throughout the focal range. Of course, depending on the size and price, I may reconsider.

A 24-50 would be great. As small as possible: f2.8 or f4+IS

Count me in :-). A superb prime-grade 35-50 could even be my lens of choice if it substantially reduced the size (compared with 24-70) while, presumably, offering even better optics. Peter

Since I have the 17-55 , I would not even consider it [ 24-50 ] To tell the truth , right now I want a faster 100-400 , a macro at 180 mm or above w / IS . I will be getting the 28-300 when I can afford it . If they come out with IS on 10-22 , I would probably look real close at it .

KLO82 wrote: Lets say you are an FF user - will you find a 35-85 f2.8 more useful than 24-70 f2.8? I have always found the longest focal length of 24-70 zoom odd, it seems to me that 85 mm instead of 70 would be a lot more useful. I know, a 24-85mm f2.8 would be even more useful, but I have no idea how much that will cost and weigh. So lets just say you have only two options available - 35-85mm f2.8 or 24-70mm f2.8. Which one would you take? I am just trying to find out - is it only me or some others also find the 35-85mm range (with constant f2.8) more useful.
The difference between 24 and 35mm is far greater than 70 and 85mm in practical terms. A 70 and an 85mm can both take a good portrait, but try squeezing that 35mm into a tight space with a bunch of people.

Add new comment

Image
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.