35L or 24L II

the 24L ii I purchased weeks ago is pretty much static on the mark III ..really like and enjoy this lens!

thegfxman wrote in post #14804985
what body are you on?

Just a 5Dc

I would personally take a 35L over a 24L on FF. At the same token I would have a 16-35 or 17-40 at the same time. There would be only a few ocassions where I would want a 24L, in which that case I would rent one.

KO Pop wrote in post #14804350
just ordered the 35L as well. this is a virus.

haha awesome!

thegfxman wrote in post #14808871
haha awesome!

I'm also getting a loaner 24II so I'll hit you up in a week. let you know what I think. I have the 35L on already. sort of small/stealthy compared to some of my other lenses. like it thus far.

KO Pop wrote in post #14808942

I'm also getting a loaner 24II so I'll hit you up in a week. let you know what I think. I have the 35L on already. sort of small/stealthy compared to some of my other lenses. like it thus far.

yeah for sure, post photos in this thread too! (35 v 24)

you may be able to sell your 85 and 17-40, and get 3/4 of the funds for the 24 and just use that for wide. but maybe you'll miss the 17. so ahhh, whatever! I just love primes so much.

KO Pop wrote in post #14808979
you may be able to sell your 85 and 17-40, and get 3/4 of the funds for the 24 and just use that for wide. but maybe you'll miss the 17. so ahhh, whatever! I just love primes so much.

yeah primes are nice, but I do use my 17-40 quite a bit...just did a quick shoot of my office in Chicago w/ it:
http://photos.thegfxma​n.com/2012-07-23

thegfxman wrote in post #14809013
yeah primes are nice, but I do use my 17-40 quite a bit...just did a quick shoot of my office in Chicago w/ it:
http://photos.thegfxma​n.com/2012-07-23

Nice photos. I too really like the 17-40.

24 on FF

I have owned both. I presently own the 24L II and I absoultely love it! For me it is fantastic in low light situations, and the focal length is perfect since I generally shoot on the WA end for my landscape/cityscape shots. That doesn't go to say the 35L is just as amazing. For the work I do, the 24L II was a better fit for me.

-Nick

IMO All Canon L primes are very good but 35 and 50 are more practical and can cover a wide range of photo opps. so if your using it as a general walk around town, all purpose lens the 35 and 50 usually make the most sense. Lenses like 24, 85, 135 etc. are usually considered more speciality lenses so you are bound to find some limitations when using these, but while limited they also could offer more dramatic photo opportunities.

nburwell wrote in post #14809551
I have owned both. I presently own the 24L II and I absoultely love it! For me it is fantastic in low light situations, and the focal length is perfect since I generally shoot on the WA end for my landscape/cityscape shots. That doesn't go to say the 35L is just as amazing. For the work I do, the 24L II was a better fit for me.

-Nick

I've seen your work and yes you love the landscape work, so it makes sense. surprised you were trying to sell it.

Tommydigi wrote in post #14809586
IMO All Canon L primes are very good but 35 and 50 are more practical and can cover a wide range of photo opps. so if your using it as a general walk around town, all purpose lens the 35 and 50 usually make the most sense. Lenses like 24, 85, 135 etc. are usually considered more speciality lenses so you are bound to find some limitations when using these, but while limited they also could offer more dramatic photo opportunities.

Tommy, and nick, that's why while this OP and myself struggled over "which one", they are indeed very unique tools, and technically should not end up in the multitude of "which one" threads that they do. However, since they are relatively close in FL, they do. I'm guilty of it myself, so I don't blame anyone, quite frankly. It's a tough decision. It took me 2 weeks to come up with my choice and this :

"

Yes, they can each do landscape and portrait, but each is better suited for the opposite.
I find myself shooting people more often, so I got the 35L for now. I will use it for walk around and portrait.

"

I will trial the 24ii next week and decide whether I can "give up" my 16-35ii and just go with the 24 for wa. I really don't want to add another lens to my kit. so it'll be another tough decision.

Been debating this myself, I love the 17-40/24L II combo for many reasons but for wide angle 2.8 may be enough. I just like the images the 24 produces so its not just about the aperture. Still, having a 16-35 may be convenient because for me 2.8 is usually enough plus its a bit wider which is nice. Before I do anything I want to see how the new 24-70 II performs.

Tommydigi wrote in post #14810141
Been debating this myself, I love the 17-40/24L II combo for many reasons but for wide angle 2.8 may be enough. I just like the images the 24 produces so its not just about the aperture. Still, having a 16-35 may be convenient because for me 2.8 is usually enough plus its a bit wider which is nice. Before I do anything I want to see how the new 24-70 II performs.

$2299 for a zoom, prolly will pass. although apparently it's amzg eh?