35L or 24L II

Both.

Depends what and how you like to shoot.

For what I use it for, I know the 35 would not work out for me. I have the 24LII and it's perfect for my intended use. If I could have both, I could use the 35 for other types of shooting I, sometimes, do.

bohdank wrote in post #14797448
Depends what and how you like to shoot.

For what I use it for, I know the 35 would not work out for me. I have the 24LII and it's perfect for my intended use. If I could have both, I could use the 35 for other types of shooting I, sometimes, do.

what do you find yourself using the 24II for mostly?

tylerpaulphoto wrote in post #12598631
Know what about on a 1.3 crop?

With a little bit of math, both lenses on a 1.3 crop won't give you a true 35mm or 50mm feel. That being said, if you want close to a 50mm feel - 35 L. 35mm feel - 24 L. Both are a little off, in fact a little wider then the true focal length.

I got the 35 L and am 110% satisfied I funded the prime by selling two zooms.

MrNothing wrote in post #14797764
With a little bit of math, both lenses on a 1.3 crop won't give you a true 35mm or 50mm feel. That being said, if you want close to a 50mm feel - 35 L. 35mm feel - 24 L. Both are a little off, in fact a little wider then the true focal length.

I got the 35 L and am 110% satisfied I funded the prime by selling two zooms.

which 2 zooms did you sell?

thegfxman wrote in post #14797983
which 2 zooms did you sell?

17-40 and 24-105.

I had the 35L, and was bored with what it produced. It was wider than the 50L I have, but didn't really do it for me as I didn't find the images having the almost 3D snap that the 50L produces.

And I found the 24LII produced a more dynamic image because of the wider FL. For me, 24LII and 50L is the way to go, and the 35L wasn't worth keeping.

I swear by my 35L

On my 550D my favorite lenses were my Sigma 30 and my Canon 10-22 (which I quite often shot at 22mm). When I moved to 5D I bought a Sigma 50 straight away. I had issues with 3 of them and didn't feel confident in keeping it, even if it involved a Sigma repair.

So I looked at other options and realized that the 22 end of my 10-22 was quite comfortable (apart from the f4.5 lol) so I saved for the 35L.

Only had my 35L for a few weeks, but man do I love this lens - best I have ever owned. The FL is brilliant on a 5D, I quite often find 50mm to be not quite wide enough, with the 35 I can shoot a bigger range of subjects, and it is also quite a wide lens for close up stuff with its nice MFD.

I would ideally like a wider lens to go with the 35, and the 24 f1.4 II or a TS-E lens is what I'd possibly look at, I just wish there was an UWA zoom that had prime-quality IQ (I may end up saving for a 16-35II, am unsure about the 17-40 - am hesitant on both though due to the less than stellar results when compared to primes and other Canon L zooms).

But to be honest, the 35 FL feels quite nice - a bit wider than the human eye standard, and not too much distortion - I see it as a perfect compromise between 24mm and 50mm, in the one lens. I personally would not have lived with JUST a 24, I'd either want a 35 or 50 to go with it. But I feel I can go for a longer time without a wider lens now I have the 35 - if that makes sense. 24 for me would not be used nearly as much as 35.

It all comes down to what FL you prefer to shoot at out of 24mm and 35mm though - I am sure comparing the 2 lenses would result in a brain ache. Those claiming the 24 is better than the 35, if that is correct then it must be better than perfect, because the image quality from my 35L is jaw-dropping.

thegfxman wrote in post #14797666
what do you find yourself using the 24II for mostly?

Concerts, where it is usually permanently attached to one of my cameras, environmental portraits and closeup still life. I rarely just "walk-around" with a camera, but when I do the 24LII is often my walk-around lens.

I rarely shoot grand vistas but when I do, I tend to use a much longer lens and stitch the images together.

When picking a focal length, IQ is secondary to the focal length that works best, imo. Also, you can always crop if necessary...nothing you can do about the opposite situation.

thegfxman wrote in post #14797330
I've been looking at this (shot on a 1Ds Mark III though)
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

that is set to the MK1 24mm lens not the MKII

bohdank wrote in post #14797448
Depends what and how you like to shoot.

For what I use it for, I know the 35 would not work out for me. I have the 24LII and it's perfect for my intended use. If I could have both, I could use the 35 for other types of shooting I, sometimes, do.

I've just got a 35L and although I've only taken it out a couple of times I'm a bit confused by it. I couldn't decide between the 24 and the 35, I have already got a Sigma 24 1.8 which, despite it's lukewarm tech reviews, I absolutely love. So I opted for the 35L and have to admit that whilst there is nothing wrong with it, the images it gives me are a bit bland. I think it's a style thing - I guess I'm just more suited to 24 and 50mm.

I'll give it a bit longer but it might be sold or traded for a 24L - then we'll see whether the Sigma stays in the bag or gets replaced by the 24L.....

There is a pretty dramatic difference in focal length. I find myself stopping down more at 24 so the 24-70 or 17-40 covers that well for me. The 35 has the unique ability to work well on FF, 1.3 and 1.6 cameras and the 1.4 seems to be more usefull when you want to blur the background.

Dr.TC wrote in post #12598198
which one would you prefer on FF?

I went through this thought process couple of months ago, and after some research, ended up purchasing 24 TSE II. It is a remarkable lens for landscape photography.

ask jordan voth....... go for the 35L. seriously . especially on a full frame