24 1.4 and 35 1.4 L

So tell me what you think about these two lenses?
I have the standard set of zooms and the big dog for longer lengths.
the only Primes I have are the 85 1.8, the Nifty Fifty and the 100 2.8
I have a 24-105 which works great on my 5D3 as well as the big dog which I like to call the 70-200 2.8 II
Also the f4 IS in that version as well.
But as much as I have the longer end covered I saw some really great shots come from a 24L and I'm wondering what you would do.
I asked my photog friend and he said the 50's were great but mentioned the 24.
I know the 35 is an older version than the 24 II but if you were going to compliment the lenses I have below with a prime what would your thoughts be?

Thanks

The 24 is in a Mk II version and it seems to have a bit of an image quality edge over the 35. The 35 is also maybe inferior to the Sigma in some ways.

Also, the 24mm is the widest f/1.4 available which might be handy to have.

I want both so I can't help you. I have the 35 and love love love it. well it's the sigma version but love it.

I want to get the 24 also and may sell the 24-70 to buy it. The "look" you get from the 24L is amazing.

I have owned the 35L a few times and currently do again. I rented the 24L II from Canon a few months ago and was disappointed. I much prefer the 35L. I think the IQ is better overall. Also a much more versatile focal length.

The 24-70 II I have may be the reason. It is sharper, less CA and better corners than the 24L II did. So it just did not impress me I suppose. Great lens, but 35L > 24L!

They're both excellent so your choice should be based on which focal length better suits your needs. I had the 35 for a few years then added the 24, but eventually sold the 35 because I never used it. I use the 24 all the time.

Talley wrote in post #16395095
I want both so

I want to get the 24 also and may sell the 24-70 to buy it. The "look" you get from the 24L is amazing.

That look is what I saw and when my friend said the 24 I figured I would see what all of you thought.

I have both, and although 11mm between F/Ls doesn't sound a lot - at the WA end, it is.

I tend to use my 35 as a wide 'standard' lens on all three Canon formats, but the 24 is used pretty exclusively on FF, once in a while on the 1D; and almost never on 1.6, where I find its 38mm FoV pretty much a 'nothing' focal length given its original 'mild' UWA intent.

YMMV

The 24LII struck me as a better lens than the 35L but just barely. I found it sharper wide open and the color contrast was a little better to me. I didn't do any serious testing, it was just my quick impression and any differences were minor at most. The 24 is weather sealed too so that may or may not matter.

I do think 35 is more practical, in fact its probably the most practical FL and for that reason I use it a lot on my 60D.

I would say either 35 or 24 with 50 for a wide end prime. 24 is pretty wide and honestly hard to use a times on its own. Most of the time when I have 24 on full frame I have another lens on a second body or I am switching it quiet often.

Focal lengths are all about preference and the "look" your trying to create.
For a safe no brainer the 35L will deliver "normal" perspective.

The 24mm prime will give you just a slight unique look to the photo (not talking about subject matter). I often find the 24mm on my camera while the 35mm collects dust.

You can take the same subject matter with both lenses and you'll find a touch of unique perspective with the 24mm.

I find with the 35mm the photographer must "make" the image with perfect composition and stunning subject matter. The normal perspective can be obtained by a standard point/shoot camera. The one thing the 35L has is being able to have shallow dof with f/1.4 aperture. Photos have a certain normal look that may possibly be "boring".

Not saying the 24mm is a magical lens but it has a different look compared to my other primes. Just think a 35mm and 50mm can "pop" an image with shallow dof but its still somewhat normal looking. An 85mm has compression on its side and it can "pop" and image and isolate subject in a world of cream bokeh much easier than a 35mm (depending on distance from subject). 135L is another cream machine.

On a full frame we can always get "LAZY" and shoot f/2.8 with a 24-70L and still "pop" the image. That can make clients/friends say "oooh ahhhh" due to obtainable background/subject separation.

35mm is my "normal" prime that I prefer to use shooting newborns or events where clients "wants" a normal look with little to no distortion. My 50mm prime is like brand new since I dislike the FL and normal boring perspective obtainable by a point/shoot (except shallow dof capabilities).

I'm opinionated due to my "preference" on certain looks I want to create. It all comes down to what "look" your after.

My next lens will be a 35L most likely, I would consider it to be among the most useful focal lengths. It is not an extreme of compression or distortion, but shooting at 1.4 gives some beautiful bokeh. I would not choose to use the 24 in a portrait as opposed to the 35, but it would be nice for landscapes etc.

What do you mainly shoot?

AlanU wrote in post #16395304
Focal lengths are all about preference and the "look" your trying to create.
For a safe no brainer the 35L will deliver "normal" perspective.

The 24mm prime will give you just a slight unique look to the photo (not talking about subject matter). I often find the 24mm on my camera while the 35mm collects dust.

You can take the same subject matter with both lenses and you'll find a touch of unique perspective with the 24mm.

I find with the 35mm the photographer must "make" the image with perfect composition and stunning subject matter. The normal perspective can be obtained by a standard point/shoot camera. The one thing the 35L has is being able to have shallow dof with f/1.4 aperture. Photos have a certain normal look that may possibly be "boring".

Not saying the 24mm is a magical lens but it has a different look compared to my other primes. Just think a 35mm and 50mm can "pop" an image with shallow dof but its still somewhat normal looking. An 85mm has compression on its side and it can "pop" and image and isolate subject in a world of cream bokeh much easier than a 35mm (depending on distance from subject). 135L is another cream machine.

On a full frame we can always get "LAZY" and shoot f/2.8 with a 24-70L and still "pop" the image. That can make clients/friends say "oooh ahhhh" due to obtainable background/subject separation.

35mm is my "normal" prime that I prefer to use shooting newborns or events where clients "wants" a normal look with little to no distortion. My 50mm prime is like brand new since I dislike the FL and normal boring perspective obtainable by a point/shoot (except shallow dof capabilities).

I'm opinionated due to my "preference" on certain looks I want to create. It all comes down to what "look" your after.

Good stuff Alan.
The rest of you as well.
Just what I was looking for in the way of "thoughts".

As for what I shoot?
A little of everything.
I just saw a couple images come out of the 24 of a girl near a campfire and that look is one that I knew I would never get from my 24-105.
Probably due to the isolation from shooting at 1.4 or 1.8 versus the f4 of what I have.
But the IQ was quite stunning.
Not to say a 35 wouldn't get you close to the same in the way of bokeh and isolation, I was curious about the two in relation to each other.
It almost sounds like the 35 is a bit more functional from a portrait POV.
But if you can get That much better IQ from the 24II maybe that's the one.
Feel free to keep offering opinions.

Thanks all.

IQ is close and I would not make that much of a factor. Go by the FL you prefer. Try it out with your 24-105. Shoot at 24 and 35 for a while and see what you prefer.

You may also want to look at the Sigma 35 which seems to be very popular.

Obvious answer is to get the focal length that matches your style better.

Another way - figure out what set of two to four primes suit you best. This takes into account cost and physical size and weight in your camera bag.
1) 24L, 50L, 85L (with or without 135L)
2) 35L, 85L, 135L

In my case I bought cheaper primes for my full frame DSLR to figure out what I like (e.g., 35/2, 50/1.4, 100/2). I found that I like shooting environment shots (i.e., subject with more of the background showing) more than I did standard FOV and liked to do upper body portraits. I rarely used my 50/1.4.

So it was easy to go 35L and 85L.

However, I noticed something else about myself: I like the flexibility of zooms coupled with DSLR bodies with decent high ISO than I do going all primes. So I would carry a standard zoom (24-70 or 24-105) and a 17-40 and/or 70-200 as needed. Going on a long vacation trip, my camera bag would have the three L zooms, and flash --- leaving me with room for just two L primes. The 35L and 85L made a great two prime combination, where I didn't miss the 50L or 50/1.4. I would have found a 24mm with a 85mm prime left too much of a gap which would have drove me to consider bring a 50/1.4 or a 50L --- which would have been three primes.

Another thought: if you get a 50L, get the 24L first over 35L.

KarlGB77 wrote in post #16395726
I just saw a couple images come out of the 24 of a girl near a campfire and that look is one that I knew I would never get from my 24-105.
Probably due to the isolation from shooting at 1.4 or 1.8 versus the f4 of what I have.

Well, subject separation will be better using a 35mm f/1.4 than 24mm f/1.4.

You people make me want to buy a 24L

One of the things I really like about the 24 is that I can use it in situations where I can't use the 35, such as sitting across the table from someone. I really like the effect of being able to capture the wide point of view that I see and still have a blurred background.