35mm vs 24-70 is there a big difference?

[Roxanne Baggott]

This is a newbie question but I don’t understand. Is there a difference in the quality of an image with one shot with a 35mm f/1.8 shot at 2.8 and the second shot with a 24-70mm f/2.8 at the same focal length of 35mm? Both are L series lenses
With everything being equal, why the huge difference in price for the lenses?

 

[jcass]

Being unfamiliar with Canon's wide angle primes and zooms... are you referring to L-series lenses in both cases or not. I wouldn't want to mistakenly compare "L" glass to non-L.

In the most basic sense, prime lenses are sharper and cheaper and zoom lenses are more versatile and more expensive. Between L and non-L , those distinctions blur, yet are still relevant.

I own the RF50mm 1.8 (non L) and the RF28-70 2.0L. Both are fantastic. The 50mm cost me about $200 on sale. The 28-70 cost me about $2500 on sale. I rarely use the 50mm, but when I do, it never disappoints. I love the 28-70, but it is heavy and many folks say the bottom end (28 mm) is too wide and that the more common 24-70mm 2.8L is the lighter and better choice.

Specifically, your question really hinges on whether you looking at the RF 50mm L versus the RF 24-70mm 2.8L

 

[Roxanne Baggott]

Being unfamiliar with Canon's wide angle primes and zooms... are you referring to L-series lenses in both cases or not. I wouldn't want to mistakenly compare "L" glass to non-L.

In the most basic sense, prime lenses are sharper and cheaper and zoom lenses are more versatile and more expensive. Between L and non-L , those distinctions blur, yet are still relevant.

Yes. I edited my post to say they are both L series lenses

 

[jcass]

Versatility versus image quality. I don't think that normal folks will ever notice a difference. But the 50mm will deliver sharpness and pleasing bokeh throughout all apertures. The 24-70mm will do the same, but folks looking for absolute perfection may notice a difference. Furthermore, the wider maximum aperture of the 50mm means that is capable of capturing images in lower light. So, if low light is critical to your use-cases, then that is an advantage to the 50mm.

Like I said above, primes (the50mm) generally have that advantage in low-light (aperture), sharpness, and cost. Quality zooms have the advantage of flexibility, yet still maintaining imagine quality and bokeh that only the most discriminating critics may discern. No easy answer on a recommendation. That is always based on your needs.

 

[jcass]

Personally, I used to own the 24-70 4.0L and wish I had bought the 24-70 2.8. I also have the nifty-fifty, non-L 50mm and think it is great, but rarely use it. It really is down to versatility vs. budget imo opinion unless you are taking professional portraits.

In every case where I chose the 4.0L of a zoom lens versus the more expensive 2.8L, I have regretted it. Prime lenses versus zooms is a much harder choice. Given if you can afford it and that you're not comparing you iPhone to your camera, I generally recommend that the investment is worthwhile.