Canon 24-1.4L or 35-1.4L for 30D

[remo]

Oh well, it's time to get nice prime for my 30D. And I can't decide which one to get for my 30D. Lens will be used for low light shots. I heard that 35L is incredible lens. But on 30D it's more like 50mm. Would 24mm be better considering that I have 85 1.8 already.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

24 if you want wide, 35 if you want normal. They're pretty much equal lenses. The 35 has a slightly better rep, but I don't know if there's any truth to it being "slightly better". I've only ever had the 35 for any length of time.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

You get the 24, and you'll basically have a 35 and 135. That's a big gap. Get the 35, and it's basically a 50 and a 135. Sounds nicer to me. I'd rather have normal and long than wide and long, and nothing in between.

[dontblink]

I would at least consider the 28 f/1.8. I find its a nice companion to the 85 f/1.8, and with the money you save...

The L's are nicer, but on a crop camera the image quality difference is very little imho.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

What does crop cam vs. FF have to do with the IQ difference? The L is still going to be way better built, sharper at max ap, more colorful, more natural saturation and contrast, and faster, more accurate focus. Whether it's worth the extra ~$800, well, that's up to the one doing the buying. Both are good values. It's just a matter of what you need or can afford.

[Lester Wareham]

What does crop cam vs. FF have to do with the IQ difference? The L is still going to be way better built, sharper at max ap, more colorful, more natural saturation and contrast, and faster, more accurate focus. Whether it's worth the extra ~$800, well, that's up to the one doing the buying. Both are good values. It's just a matter of what you need or can afford.

Yes the L's will be sharper in the corner if that is important, and should be lower in CA. But the differences in sharpness are not necessarily as high in the real world as they in test results. Check out:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=253&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=121&CameraComp=396&Camera=396

Very little diffference wide open on APS-C but more noticable on full frame. Not only cheaper but much lighter and smaller, less-in-your-face for some applications.

If you are using them as low light lenses you will probably be strugerling for shutter speed and more limited by that and DOF than lens sharpness.

Will you be using it stopped down, will you (really) need weather sealing - if not consider the 28/1.8.

[AeroSmith]

From my experience, in the real world, these lenses are equal in all respects but focal length. The 24 may have just a smidge more CA. I'd base your decision on whether you want a normal view or a moderate wide angle view. On a full frame camera I find the 35 to be very versatile and useful for indoor candids. My guess is that on a 1.6x body the 24 will give you that same versatility.

And I would agree that the 28/1.8 is one to check out. It's a lens that has often temted me. I have an old FD 28mm that I loved back in high school.

[Lester Wareham]

From my experience, in the real world, these lenses are equal in all respects but focal length. The 24 may have just a smidge more CA. I'd base your decision on whether you want a normal view or a moderate wide angle view. On a full frame camera I find the 35 to be very versatile and useful for indoor candids. My guess is that on a 1.6x body the 24 will give you that same versatility.

And I would agree that the 28/1.8 is one to check out. It's a lens that has often temted me. I have an old FD 28mm that I loved back in high school.

If you have the 35/1.4 you are probably covered unless you need something more compact. Was your old FD 28mm the 2.8? - I still have mine upstairs, used to be my mainstay landscape lens.

[AeroSmith]

If you have the 35/1.4 you are probably covered unless you need something more compact. Was your old FD 28mm the 2.8? - I still have mine upstairs, used to be my mainstay landscape lens.

Yes, mine is the FD 28/2.8. I used it to take interior shots for my mom, an interior designer, and other Philadelphia area interior designers that would give a young kid some photography work. LOL, you should have seen the crappy lights and tripod I used.

I actually have the 24L and the 35L and so I really don't need the 28/1.8. :rolleyes:

I'm just a bit sentimental for a FL that I gave a lot of good use in the past.

[Lester Wareham]

Yes, mine is the FD 28/2.8. I used it to take interior shots for my mom, an interior designer, and other Philadelphia area interior designers that would give a young kid some photography work. LOL, you should have seen the crappy lights and tripod I used.

I actually have the 24L and the 35L and so I really don't need the 28/1.8. :rolleyes:

I'm just a bit sentimental for a FL that I gave a lot of good use in the past.

Yes same here, a big factor in getting the 28/1.8 (plus I could get wifely approval easier), although I am on APS-C presently I look forward to full frame at some point.

[Anders Östberg]

Both are very good, the 35/1.4 possibly slightly better but it's also easier to make a not so wide lens. Choose the focal length you prefer.