Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Oct 2013 (Thursday) 07:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24 1.4 and 35 1.4 L

 
KarlGB77
Senior Member
556 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Delaware
     
Oct 24, 2013 07:31 |  #1

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


Canon 5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, T2i (2), 24-105 f4LIS, 17-40 f4L, 70-200f4L IS, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 100 2.8, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, 15-85 f4-5.6 IS, 60 2.8, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 430 EX II, 580 EX II, Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod w/ 498RC2, Calumet 8121 Tripod, Manfrotto 679B Monopod w/ 234 RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Oct 24, 2013 07:35 |  #2

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.


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,086 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Oct 24, 2013 07:37 |  #3

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.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Oct 24, 2013 07:51 |  #4

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!


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
90c4
Goldmember
1,271 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2007
     
Oct 24, 2013 08:02 |  #5

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.


www.facebook.com/stage​shooter (external link)http://www.facebook.co​m/stageshooter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KarlGB77
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
556 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Delaware
     
Oct 24, 2013 08:56 |  #6

Talley wrote in post #16395095 (external link)
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.


Canon 5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, T2i (2), 24-105 f4LIS, 17-40 f4L, 70-200f4L IS, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 100 2.8, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, 15-85 f4-5.6 IS, 60 2.8, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 430 EX II, 580 EX II, Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod w/ 498RC2, Calumet 8121 Tripod, Manfrotto 679B Monopod w/ 234 RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xhack
Goldmember
Avatar
1,283 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Lothian
     
Oct 24, 2013 08:58 |  #7

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


~ Wallace
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 502
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Oct 24, 2013 09:18 |  #8

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.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,453 posts
Gallery: 126 photos
Likes: 1276
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Oct 24, 2013 09:31 |  #9

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.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thepilgrimsdream
Member
100 posts
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Philadelphia
     
Oct 24, 2013 10:36 |  #10

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?


6d, 5d Mark 2, 135L, 85L II, 17-40L, 85 1.8
http://www.danielfaehl​photo.com/ (external link)
Philadelphia / Bucks County Photography - Willing to Travel

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KarlGB77
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
556 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Delaware
     
Oct 24, 2013 12:25 |  #11

AlanU wrote in post #16395304 (external link)
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.


Canon 5D Mark III, 5D Mark II, T2i (2), 24-105 f4LIS, 17-40 f4L, 70-200f4L IS, 70-200 2.8L IS II, 100 2.8, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 50 1.8, 15-85 f4-5.6 IS, 60 2.8, 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 430 EX II, 580 EX II, Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod w/ 498RC2, Calumet 8121 Tripod, Manfrotto 679B Monopod w/ 234 RC2 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommydigi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,611 posts
Gallery: 51 photos
Likes: 502
Joined May 2010
Location: Chicago
     
Oct 24, 2013 12:28 |  #12

But if you can get That much better IQ from the 24II maybe that's the one.

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.


Website (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
Canon 5DII • 7DII • G7XII • 24LII • 50L • 100L • 135L • 40 STM • 16-35L F4 IS • 100-400L II • 600EX II • 270 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marcosv
Senior Member
775 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Oct 24, 2013 12:45 |  #13

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.


EOS-M | 40D | 5DII | 5DIII | EF-M 22 | EF-M 18-55 | 10-22 | 17-55 | 17-40L | 24-70L mk II | 24-105L | 70-200/2.8L IS mk II| 35L | 85L II |35/2 | 40/2.8 pancake | 50/1.8 | 50/1.4 | 100/2 | Rokinon 14/2.8 | 90 EX | 270 EX II | 580 EXII | 600 EX-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Oct 24, 2013 13:31 |  #14

KarlGB77 wrote in post #16395726 (external link)
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 :mad:


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
90c4
Goldmember
1,271 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2007
     
Oct 24, 2013 16:01 |  #15

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.


www.facebook.com/stage​shooter (external link)http://www.facebook.co​m/stageshooter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,342 views & 0 likes for this thread
24 1.4 and 35 1.4 L
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is FELiX86
854 guests, 320 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.