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 29 Nov 2008 (Saturday) 12:10
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

24L vs. 35L

 
jwcdds
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
Nov 29, 2008 12:10 |  #1

I'd like some feedback/recommendatio​ns between the 24L vs. 35L.

I enjoy low-light photography using ambient light (though I do have the 580ex2 when needed).

I don't see myself moving FF for probably another 3 years. (Maybe the 5d3 :lol:) And I'll most likely keep the 40D around because it won't be worth anything in terms of resale value by then. But either way, I'm guessing either lens would be great when I do adopt FF. I'm more interested in real-world experience: AF speed, accuracy, etc...

For those who have owned or tinkered with both, how would you describe the AF performance (speed/accuracy)? The only lenses I can compare them to would be the 17-55 (which IMO is blazing fast), the 50/1.4 which is so-so, or my 100 macro which can take awhile because it's hunting from my nose to moon. Where would the AF speed on the 24L & 35L fall? It's not abysmally slow as the 50/1.2L is it?

It seems the price diff is only $10, but I see both FL being close so I couldn't imagine buying both.

Thanks in advance to those taking their time to help me decide on my next prime.

I know there's also the Sigma 30/1.4, but being for crop-only and a lot gentler on the pocket books. Although I'll move to FF someday (while retaining the 40D), I think it'd be wiser on my part to get something that works well, and works for both FF and crop, even if it's still quite a few years away.


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
suyenfung
Senior Member
763 posts
Joined Jul 2006
Canton, OH
Nov 29, 2008 12:14 |  #2

they are both equally fast to focus, as fast or faster than the 17-55. both produce amazing images. 35 is probably a touch sharper, 24 has better color. i think the 24 is the more interesting lens in general, especially on a crop. hope that helps.


cleveland ohio wedding photographerexternal link | gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
prinspaul
Senior Member
475 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Holland
Nov 29, 2008 12:16 |  #3

5d+35L seems to be ideal, so in that case the 24L would make sense for you (both are superb lenses) but if you prefer the 'standard' 50mm FL then go with the 35L

Only you can make this decision, what focal length do you see yourself using the most? and especially with a prime? You can't go wrong with either of these primes!!




LOG IN TO REPLY
J-B
Senior Member
J-B's Avatar
951 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Nov 29, 2008 12:18 |  #4

Before i moved to FF i had the 24L, now i have the 35L.

I traded the 24 for the 35 only because 24mm became too wide on FF for my taste. Both lenses are very similar. Both awesome! Image quality is about the same. The 24L is often underappreciated imo.
Focus speed is good and quiet, but maybe a littlebit slower than the 17-55 (which indeed is blazing fast).

You can't go wrong with either one of them, just decide which focal length you like best.


Websiteexternal link l Flickrexternal link l Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
jwcdds
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
jwcdds's Avatar
Joined Aug 2004
Santa Monica, CA
Nov 29, 2008 12:34 |  #5

Thanks for the responses so far. Shame that they're so equal in AF performance. I was hoping there was a difference to help me decide. :D

One other thing, any issues with front/back focusing or "focus shifts" for those who own either the 24 or 35L? The horror stories of the 50/1.2L that I read here have me skittish about such things.

So far, viewing the pics from the archives, I think I like the 35L better. (Whether I am capable of achieving such results is another issue.) ;)


Julian
Gear/Feedbacks | SmugMug (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | Instagram (external link) | YouTube (external link)
My Review | "The Mighty One" (external link)
Founding member and President of the BOGUS Photo Club (Blatantly-Over-Geared & Under-Skilled)

LOG IN TO REPLY
J-B
Senior Member
J-B's Avatar
951 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Nov 29, 2008 13:05 |  #6

Don't be afraid, the 50L is a different story. Both my ex-24 and 35 focus perfectly.
The archives can be a bit misleading, because different people with different skills post in these threads. (And there is the obvious difference between using them on FF or cropcam.)

I can assure you, both lenses will give you very similar results. Same color, contrast and both good sharpness.
Just base your choice on which focal length you like best...


Websiteexternal link l Flickrexternal link l Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
MinhThien
Goldmember
MinhThien's Avatar
1,640 posts
Joined Apr 2008
Vancouver, British Columbia
Nov 29, 2008 13:15 |  #7

I pick the 35L over the 24L because 24L is too wide for me!


Eric
5D III | 35L II | 200L IS | 85L II | 85A | 430EX | 190CXPRO4 | 498RC2 | Mindshift Backlight 26L | TT Airport Advantage| TT Restro 7 | F-stop Kenti |

LOG IN TO REPLY
KPBara
Member
KPBara's Avatar
136 posts
Joined May 2008
Texas
Nov 29, 2008 14:36 |  #8

For those who have both the 35 and 24, could you pls post comparison shots at f/1.4 ? I have heard some who say the 24 is sharper in the center. On the other hand, Photozone and WLCastleman showed that the 35 is sharper. I realize both are excellent, but am just curious as to the contradictory information.


7D 40D 24-105 28/1.8 35L 70-300L 12-24/4 1.4xSP

LOG IN TO REPLY
prinspaul
Senior Member
475 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Holland
Nov 29, 2008 15:37 |  #9

The differences will be minimal, and you really have to do your best to see those even at a 100% crop imo...don't worry too much




LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
Joined May 2007
Oak Park, Illinois
Nov 29, 2008 15:51 |  #10

KPBara wrote in post #6780076external link
For those who have both the 35 and 24, could you pls post comparison shots at f/1.4 ? I have heard some who say the 24 is sharper in the center. On the other hand, Photozone and WLCastleman showed that the 35 is sharper. I realize both are excellent, but am just curious as to the contradictory information.

I have both and they are very close. If you're crop get the 24L




LOG IN TO REPLY
TheHoff
Don't Hassle....
TheHoff's Avatar
8,804 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Vancouver, BC
Nov 29, 2008 15:59 |  #11

As everyone else has said; they're so close in quality, choose on the focal length.

In regards to owning them both -- yes, you certainly can. While the numbers seem close, realize when you're in the wide/ultra-wide territory, the small differences mean a lot more. 24 view is very different than 35 and a good kit can certainly have both lenses. I think having both 50 and 85 is redundant but not 24/35.

With AF speed, the Mark 1s wide primes are only "pretty good." It will be faster and more sure than your 100mm macro (I've owned all 3) but I'm not sure how it compares to the 17-55. The 16-35II is definitely faster and more accurate than either prime, I'd assume due to the design being much newer. I'd suspect the Mark II 24L will fix that. They're not slow just feeling a little outdated 9 years on.


••Vancouver Wedding Photographer external link••| [gear list] | Latest blog: 5 steps to stopping image lossexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
wimg's Avatar
6,592 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Netherlands, EU
Nov 29, 2008 16:31 |  #12

TheHoff wrote in post #6780417external link
As everyone else has said; they're so close in quality, choose on the focal length.

Agreed. On a crop, the 24 is a short standard lens, on FF a true WA, and a 35 on a crop is a slightly long standard lens, and an almost WA on FF. :D

In regards to owning them both -- yes, you certainly can. While the numbers seem close, realize when you're in the wide/ultra-wide territory, the small differences mean a lot more. 24 view is very different than 35 and a good kit can certainly have both lenses.

I agree with this too. Linear factor is 1.4, and area wise the 24 shows 100% more, or twice the area, than the 35 does from the same stand point, so very useful.

I think having both 50 and 85 is redundant but not 24/35.

Nah, I don't agree here (guess you saw that one coming :D). It's a factor 1.7 from 50 to 85, which means the 50 shows 3X the area an 85 does, from the same stand point.

With AF speed, the Mark 1s wide primes are only "pretty good." It will be faster and more sure than your 100mm macro (I've owned all 3) but I'm not sure how it compares to the 17-55. The 16-35II is definitely faster and more accurate than either prime, I'd assume due to the design being much newer. I'd suspect the Mark II 24L will fix that. They're not slow just feeling a little outdated 9 years on.

Kind regards, Wim


5D Mk II & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & a solitary zoom, OM-D E-M1 Mk II, Pen-F & Panasonic GM5 with 11 primes, 8 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

LOG IN TO REPLY
Perry ­ Ge
Batteries? We don't need no...   . . . or cards.
Perry Ge's Avatar
12,266 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Joined Jul 2007
Hong Kong
Nov 29, 2008 17:27 |  #13

I tried a 35L yesterday and the AF speed was ridiculous. So fast, so smooth, so silent, so accurate.


Perry | www.perryge.com (external link) | flickr (external link) | C&C always welcome | Market Feedback & Gear | Sharpening sticky | Perspective sticky

LOG IN TO REPLY
TheHoff
Don't Hassle....
TheHoff's Avatar
8,804 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Vancouver, BC
Nov 29, 2008 17:31 |  #14

wimg wrote in post #6780558external link
I agree with this too. Linear factor is 1.4, and area wise the 24 shows 100% more, or twice the area, than the 35 does from the same stand point, so very useful.
Nah, I don't agree here (guess you saw that one coming). It's a factor 1.7 from 50 to 85, which means the 50 shows 3X the area an 85 does, from the same stand point

Of course I'd expect that from a lens collector :D

True the fields of view are quite different with 50 vs 85mm, however in practical use, I'd only need one. In whatever situation I'm using one I could probably just as well use the other. Not so for 24/35.


••Vancouver Wedding Photographer external link••| [gear list] | Latest blog: 5 steps to stopping image lossexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
wimg
Cream of the Crop
wimg's Avatar
6,592 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Netherlands, EU
Nov 29, 2008 17:49 |  #15

TheHoff wrote in post #6780824external link
Of course I'd expect that from a lens collector :D

:P :D

True the fields of view are quite different with 50 vs 85mm, however in practical use, I'd only need one. In whatever situation I'm using one I could probably just as well use the other. Not so for 24/35.

Well, it is a matter of personal taste or preference. I really like 24/28 - 50 - 85 as a set, as it works well for me. I don't care much for 35 mm, neither on FF, nor on APS-C.

BTW, lately I use 24-50-85 the most, and occasionally the 17-40 and 70-200. Mostly low light and portraiture, and some landscapes. Too little time, too many lenses :lol:.

Kind regards, Wim


5D Mk II & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & a solitary zoom, OM-D E-M1 Mk II, Pen-F & Panasonic GM5 with 11 primes, 8 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

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

2,957 views & 0 likes for this thread
24L vs. 35L
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 0.00127 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is arsurendran
766 guests, 307 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016