Anyone regretted selling his 35 1.4L for a 24 1.4L II ?

Some sell their 35L for a wider newer 24L II, anyone regretted this?
35L is more for portraits with background or lowlight (I find it especially usefull for movie recording at party's with dj's).
24LII is more for ... ? (I guess if so much wider than 35L more distortion).
I'm doubting for this exchange, my 35L has lots of CA wide open, but 24L II probably also.

I am considering the same...my 35 is great, but somehow I like the 50mm focal length on ff more.

24L might just be the one to force myself to use wide angle more, you know for the distorted look.

i been thinking about getting the 24L but seems closer to the 35L hence, waiting for a wider prime fast from canon.

I was debating between the two and went with the 35L, love it so far! If i need anything wider, i'll use the 17-40 with flash

I once had the 35, 85 and 135 primes. I think I moved towards that set because they were kind of the 'standard' group for fast primes. The thing is, I figured out that they are not really the set for me. I found 35mm to be not quite wide enough and not quite long enough. The 135 was easily replaced by the 70-200/2.8 II.

So for me, the primes I like are 24mm, 50mm and 85mm. 24-50-100 would probably also be fine for me.

i sold my 35L for the 24L II and haven't looked back since it is a fantastic lens !!!! sharp wide open and even amazing when stopped down..

here are some samples

24 is better if you like to shoot at 24. 35 is better if you like to shoot at 35.

I really like the 35mm focal length on FF. It is very natural and not much distortion. I thought about going with the 24L but I think it would be a bit too wide for normal shooting for what I wanted. Plus you get better bokeh with the 35L IMO which I always enjoy. Less busy looking.

Any fast lens has CA. Very hard to avoid that in fast lens design.

Wow Neil. The first image in your post is awesome!

Bryan

thanks bryan ^

I am soo confused with Neil's photo. How can the guy and the railing nearest the lens be in focus at the same time? They don't look like equi-distance from the camera.

It depends on how you feel about the focal lengths. I had 35L first (2008) and loved it. Then I came across a really cheap 50L and liked its rendering even more, but always needed to bring something wider, so I bought 24LII. After a year I got tired of carrying two lenses and always wishing I had something between, so in early 2010 I started using 35L again. It was such a relief and I still feel that way. 24 and 50 are sold.

What I'm trying to say that if you're really into 35mm focal length like me you won't be happy trying to replace it with a 24 + 50mm.

Optically I found 35L and 24LII to be very similar. The 24 is slightly better, but both are very, very good, so in my opinion that's no reason for picking one over the other.

That is what I generally hear ^ That the 24L II and 35L are a wash in terms of which is sharper. You read the 35L is sharper by many, just as much as people saying the 24L II is sharper. It probably depends on the copies used by those specific people.

I found all (3) of my 35L's very sharp wide open. Sure, you have a little softness but it is 100% usable at f/1.4. I love using this lens wide open. Stopping down to f/1.8 or f/2 sharpens it up quite a bit. By f/2.8 it is extremely sharp... One of the sharpest I have seen actually. Using FoCal, the sharpest aperture appears to be f/2.8 and f/3.2 (about tied).

If the 24L II is anything like the 35L wide open and such, you can't go wrong with either. Really should pick just based off what focal length you want/need, as performance is really a wash between them.