7D + 24L equal to FF + 35L?

I have a 7D, and my (newest, and) favorite lens is the 35L. It works wonders on my 7D, and I love it, though I am curious about something. I see tons of FF users raving about the 35L, which is no secret really. I'm wondering if the 24L on my 7D will give me similar results as the 35L on a FF. I realize it would actually be a 38.4mm due to the 1.6 crop factor on the 7D.

I may need to rent a 24L soon to see what's up I thought I'd just post it here to see what your thoughts are, as you guys are sure to love a good discussion. Thanks!

I've shot weddings with the 7D and my 24L-II and the results are nothing but stellar. Like any fast lens, hitting the focus can sometimes be a pain at f/1.4 - f/2.0. To me it's at least as good as the 35mm results I see taken on a FF, and whenever they look better with the 35mm I remind myself that the 5D-II (III) does have a way to make things look slightly better than a crop camera overall (personal opinion).

I'm waiting on the 35L-II before I buy it so I can't compare more than from my own 24mm pictures vs. those I see taken with the 35mm with FF on here and Flickr etc. But the 24mm is stunning.

Length wise you're literally at 38.4mm (24*1.6 on 7D) so it's a little less wide than the 35mm.

everything is multiplied by 1.6:

FOV
aperture speed (DoF)
etc

It is still a 24mm lens though.....

You will have similar FF 35mm FoV but it is effectively slower and bigger DoF also so you can't have the same perspective AND the same DoF as FF w/35. It is the same thing as 35/7D vs 50/FF.

Rent 5dmk2 also at same time. That is best way to know for sure what works for you. Personally if I was using 35L, I would use it on FF and I am not FF fanboy.

24mm on crop is not wide enough, kind of like 35mm on FF. I'm starting to find that this FL is kind of quirky. A little too wide for flattering shots, and not wide enough for environmental shots, but does ok for a little bit of both if it's your only lens solution. I guess that's why so many people love it.... that and some remarkable results provided by the pro's that use it.

Good thinking on renting a 5d II along with it. I don't necessarily want to switch to full-frame, as I shoot hockey fairly often, and really like the 1.6 crop factor with my 70-200 for that. I suppose I could shoot FF and 1.6 though.

Thanks for the replies guys. I may have mentally spent a bunch of money just now

Charlie wrote in post #14213955
24mm on crop is not wide enough, kind of like 35mm on FF. I'm starting to find that this FL is kind of quirky. A little too wide for flattering shots, and not wide enough for environmental shots, but does ok for a little bit of both if it's your only lens solution. I guess that's why so many people love it.... that and some remarkable results provided by the pro's that use it.

This is merely one person's opinion and may or may not apply to you.

Personally I don't need a 24 all that often on my crop cameras either... I prefer to use 20/2.8 when I want a prime... But, hey, we all have different likes and dislikes among focal lengths.

I would just recommend renting the 24mm and seeing how you like it on your camera. Or the 20/2.8, if you wish. I don't see the point of trying out a FF camera too, unless you are considering that switch as well. Of course, the 24mm vs the 20mm, there's a lot of difference between an f2.8 lens and an f1.4 lens, too.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14213502
..

You will have similar FF 35mm FoV but it is effectively slower

Its not effectively slower. It still lets the same amount of light in.

But yes, the effective FOV will be about the same as a 35L on FF.

Sirrith wrote in post #14214891
Its not effectively slower. It still lets the same amount of light in.

But yes, the effective FOV will be about the same as a 35L on FF.

What I meant to say is the lens isn't literally slower but on a crop you will need more shutter speed for the same exposure so vs a FF sensor, the overall experience is effectively slower.

^
What?

windpig wrote in post #14215288
^
What?

Art is open to interpretation.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14215273
What I meant to say is the lens isn't literally slower but on a crop you will need more shutter speed for the same exposure so vs a FF sensor, the overall experience is effectively slower.

No you don't.

Same settings, same exposure.

A key difference between the crop+24mm and FF+35mm is that the depth of field will be different at the same aperture due to the change in camera to subject distance.

Higgs Boson wrote in post #14215545
Art is open to interpretation.

Hmm? I thought you were talking about sensor size and exposure.

wunhang wrote in post #14215650
A key difference between the crop+24mm and FF+35mm is that the depth of field will be different at the same aperture due to the change in camera to subject distance.

Why would the subject distance change? The effective field of view is pretty much the same +/- a few degrees.

To answer the OP's question, the main difference between a 7D + 24mm f/1.4 lens and a FF with a 35mm f/1.4 lens will be depth of field. The reason is because the FF camera is using a longer focal length to achieve roughly the same field of view. Longer focal length results in less depth of field for a given aperture/subject distance.

The difference between FF and 1.6 crop is about 1 1/3 stop of depth of field, assuming equal fields of view.

So shooting with a 7D and a 24mm f/1.4 is about like shooting with a FF camera with a 35mm f/2.2 lens.