Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 11 Jan 2018 (Thursday) 13:23
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II or Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II

 
chuckmiller
Senior Member
400 posts
Joined May 2012
Tampa, Florida
Post has been edited 10 days ago by chuckmiller.
Jan 11, 2018 13:23 |  #1

If you were going to choose between these two for a wide angle indoor use lens, or just low light situations, on a full frame body, which would you pick and why?

Just for fun suggest another lens if you want to.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,982 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 11, 2018 16:31 |  #2

I'm cheap. As such my two wide primes are the 28 1.8 and the 35IS. I find the 28 to be not quite wide enough at times, and just bought a Sigma 24 Art, used. I know the difference between 24mm and 28mm is almost insignificant. The Sigma offers way better corners (as does the 24L II), and the 28 is my goto on crop. I can surely use wider than 28 on my 80D. I briefly consider the 20A, but I've already got 20mm covered on crop with the Tokina 11-20. I'd consider 20mm on full frame a 'specialty' lens.

I try to avoid really expensive gear like the title lenses, especially when I can get really close for a lot less money. The 28 1.8, 35IS and Σ24A fill the bill for me.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Tommydigi's Avatar
Joined May 2010
Chicago
Jan 11, 2018 16:34 |  #3

I opted for the 24 mainly because I can use it like a 35 on my crop camera. I can see a good reason for both. 35 is very practical but I like 24 and 50 as a combo.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G15 • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 24-70L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 1.4x • 600EX II • 270 EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,982 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 11, 2018 16:37 |  #4

Tommydigi wrote in post #18538887 (external link)
I opted for the 24 mainly because I can use it like a 35 on my crop camera. I can see a good reason for both. 35 is very practical but I like 24 and 50 as a combo.

You said that a lot better than I did! :)


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Tommydigi's Avatar
Joined May 2010
Chicago
Jan 11, 2018 16:41 |  #5

Bassat I used to own the 28 1.8 and I thought it was a fine lens and I've always been tempted to get the 35 2.0 but cannot justify it. I just use the 24 like a poor mans 35 :-


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G15 • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 24-70L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 1.4x • 600EX II • 270 EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,982 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 11, 2018 16:46 |  #6

Tommydigi wrote in post #18538891 (external link)
Bassat I used to own the 28 1.8 and I thought it was a fine lens and I've always been tempted to get the 35 2.0 but cannot justify it. I just use the 24 like a poor mans 35 :-

I agree, and still think the 28 1.8 is hugely under-rated. It absolutely sucks in the corners at any aperture, which makes it a poor landscape lens, I suppose. That's not how I use it. To me, it is a large-aperture, low-light lens, where it does just fine. F/1.8 is its selling point, not corner resolution. Right tool for the job, and all that.

My 24A should be here tomorrow. Can't wait to give it a run.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
notastockpikr
Senior Member
387 posts
Joined Aug 2011
Canada
Post has been edited 10 days ago by notastockpikr.
Jan 11, 2018 17:01 |  #7

35L II. Newer tech, has the BR element to name a few reasons. I think the 35 II is very sharp wide open. Hit and miss with the 24 II.

I had both and sold the 24 II after buying the 35L II

YMMV and my opinions are based on owning and using both.




LOG IN TO REPLY
chuckmiller
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
400 posts
Joined May 2012
Tampa, Florida
Post has been edited 10 days ago by chuckmiller.
Jan 11, 2018 17:04 |  #8

I should add, they will be used on a full frame body.

Thank you for the responses so far.




LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
JeffreyG's Avatar
15,218 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Joined Jan 2007
Detroit, MI
Jan 11, 2018 18:30 as a reply to chuckmiller's post |  #9

I just don't see these lenses as being directly comparable. In your situation, I would probably recommend the 35L as its slightly wide AOV is most likely to fit the goal.

To me, 24mm and 35mm are very different. None of the other considerations (which is sharper, or whatever) matters more than deciding if you want a very wide lens, or a slightly wide lens.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,982 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 11, 2018 18:36 |  #10

JeffreyG wrote in post #18538963 (external link)
I just don't see these lenses as being directly comparable. In your situation, I would probably recommend the 35L as its slightly wide AOV is most likely to fit the goal.

To me, 24mm and 35mm are very different. None of the other considerations (which is sharper, or whatever) matters more than deciding if you want a very wide lens, or a slightly wide lens.

Good point. The first step in any lens purchase is determining what focal length/range you need.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
Dillan_K
Senior Member
Dillan_K's Avatar
Joined Apr 2009
Calgary Canada
Jan 11, 2018 20:13 |  #11

I'd take the 24mm f/1.4 II. That's because I have a nice 50mm f/1.4, and 35mm seems like it'd be a bit too close to that.


Gear: Canon 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, 300mm f/4L IS, 5D, Elan 7, 420EX, Metz 52 AF-1
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Tommydigi's Avatar
Joined May 2010
Chicago
Jan 11, 2018 20:23 |  #12

Bassat wrote in post #18538966 (external link)
Good point. The first step in any lens purchase is determining what focal length/range you need.

This. Really both are excellent lenses so I don't see the point in comparing quality. When it comes to the FL I think most will use 24 with something else while the 35 is more of a general purpose FL.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G15 • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 24-70L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 1.4x • 600EX II • 270 EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
malcolmp
Senior Member
357 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Australia
Jan 13, 2018 08:31 |  #13

I had the 24mm f/1.4 II for a year or so before I sold it. I regret not getting the 35mm f1.4 L earlier. I don't have the 35mm f1.4 L II version.

The 24mm f1.4 is a very specific lens I think. It's amazing for landscapes because it's sharp edge to edge when stopped down, but then why do you need the f1.4? Also, 24mm is sometimes not wide enough for landscapes. I was originally interested in environmental portraits but the 24mm is too unflattering for portraits. These days I find the 16-35 f4 L great for landscape. I'm sure more skilled photographers than me can do wonders with the 24mm f1.4, but it didn't work for me.

The 35mm f1.4 is a great environmental portrait lens, not too unflattering, particularly if near centre. You can get groups in, and get nice individual portraits. Some scenery stuff. It's hard to get more than a few people in with a 50mm unless you have lots of room.

For indoor and low light the 35mm f1/4 is a great choice - sharp and wonderful bokeh.


malcolmp
5D Mk III | 16-35/4L IS | 24-70/4L IS | 35/1.4L | 50/1.4 | 85/1.2L II | 100/2.8 | 135/2L | 70-200/2.8L IS II |
α7R III | FE 16-35/4 | FE 35/2.8 | FE 55/1.8 |
m5 | 11-22 | 22/2 | 18-55 | 28/3.5 |

LOG IN TO REPLY
kmilo
Member
kmilo's Avatar
193 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Albany, NY
Jan 13, 2018 08:43 |  #14

I'd vote for the 35, it's useful in more situations. 24 on a full frame is pretty wide. Makes me sad to say this because I love the 10-22 on my crop and I use it all the time at 10mm for people. But if I had to choose just one ... 35.


Kris
I can barely afford this hobby. flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

601 views & 3 likes for this thread
Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II or Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00093 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is piggitou
985 guests, 512 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017