24 1.4 vs 35 1.4

Can't believe I'm posting this thread/question... I shoot a large variety of things....own a 50mm 1.4, 15mm 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 17-40 4.0, among others and I shoot with a FF body.

Wanting to add to my prime lens arsenal...anyone have strong feelings one way or another on these two lenses?

I have both and often use them together during my editorial assignments and weddings. They compliment eachother nicely but provide two very different looks.

The 35 is much more versatile though.

Staszek wrote in post #17024033
I have both and often use them together during my editorial assignments and weddings. They compliment eachother nicely but provide two very different looks.

The 35 is much more versatile though.

Totally agree!

CatchingUp wrote in post #17024028
Can't believe I'm posting this thread/question... I shoot a large variety of things....own a 50mm 1.4, 15mm 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 17-40 4.0, among others and I shoot with a FF body.

Wanting to add to my prime lens arsenal...anyone have strong feelings one way or another on these two lenses?

I like spreading the primes out a bit and try to double the focal length with successive primes. So I'd suggest a 24mm in your case (I'm assuming that 15mm is the fisheye?). If you had an 85mm, I'd suggest the 35mm to complement it.

The classic trio is 35mm, 85mm, and 135mm

The 'new school" trio seems to be 24mm, 50mm and 100mm

As you can see by my signature, I would not part with the 24mm or my macro 100mm
I agree with the above posts, the 24mm and 35mm on FF create very different images
You could always save up and collect each prime from your 15mm to a 135mm

CatchingUp wrote in post #17024028
Can't believe I'm posting this thread/question... I shoot a large variety of things....own a 50mm 1.4, 15mm 2.8, 24-70 2.8, 17-40 4.0, among others and I shoot with a FF body.

Wanting to add to my prime lens arsenal...anyone have strong feelings one way or another on these two lenses?

Use your 24-70 at 24mm and 35mm and don't let it leave those positions. Which ever focal length really does it for you for the most part, is the prime you should look at.

Very best,

35 1.4 on a FF is a very nice focal lenght i find.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17024195
Use your 24-70 at 24mm and 35mm and don't let it leave those positions. Which ever focal length really does it for you for the most part, is the prime you should look at.

Very best,

This.

Anything else you hear will be opinion. Most people prefer 35mm, I prefer 24-28mm to compliment my 50mm (which is my favorite prime FL).

I'd go for the 24L II. The 35 IS is a wonderful lens. Shelling out another grand for 1 stop and no IS isn't for me. If the 24 IS were f/2, I'd own that, too. Still pondering the f/2.8 of it.

good input...thanks. I love my 50 but just would like a wider shot with that 1.4 at times...probably will go with the 35 but will dod the two side by sides using my zoom as suggested to nail it down.

24mm will give you an entirely different look compared to a 35mm even though they are not that far apart in FL.

35mm is almost like a 50mm in perspective. 35mm is semi wide so that can be more versatile.

Personal preference is what plays the major role in selecting the two FL primes. I seldom touch my 35L or 50mm. I'll use my 24Lmk2, 16-35 which is typically on my camera more often than not.

Separate your two lenses in folders. When you look at the photos, folder by folder try to get a feel of the perspective in your composition.

If you want less distortion the 35mm is your lens..... if your eyes are not enticed by the imagery/subject matter/emotional content by the 35mm "normal perspective" your photos can be boring (dare i say boring???!!!). Perspective to me is extremely important. Many non photog friends/family/clients are accustomed to point shoot camera's and smart phone photos. Very typical and "normal" perspective to their eyes. Please note camera gear is still "tools" of the trade and the operator is the determining factor of mundane to killer photos.

24mm is one of my favourite focal lengths since the 24L can shoot wideopen at f/1.4 and "pop" the subject even with a wideangle lens. That's unique compared to thick dof photos from a small sensor in an Iphone or typical point shoot camera.

To throw another thing into this thread. I'd use my 35L in a newborn photo shoot rather than a 24L because the need to be "normal". Parents have a preconceived notion of what newborn photography is "suppose" to look like. Throwing any distortion in the mix would probably not work well in this case.

Pick your "tool" for the imagery you style dictates or specific to the application you are using it for.

I have both, and I would not want to give away either of them.
Actually I sold my 35 L last Year, replaced it by the so much better Sigma 35 1.4 Art.

If I were to have only one, I would choose the 35, especially in your case where you already have a 15 mm.

Have both. 35 is used more. it is more versatile. 24 images are a bit more interesting however, have much more of PJ feel to them. 24LII is optically a little better, but both are excellent. Having a 50, I would pick the 24.

I also have both. This time of year (Edinburgh Festival), I carry both ~ 35mm on 5Dc and 24mm on 5D II.

The 35 is great for street performance and tourist candids, while the 24 and better ISO of the 5D II for intimate venues, pubs, and clubs.

As others observe, they may seem close in F/L, but actually give very different 'looks'.

I replaced my boring 24-70 2.8L with the Sigma 35 1.4 art.

-a 35mm prime force you to take other angles as not everything fits on the image, although it's reasonable wide on FF, the 50mm needs more space.
With a wider 24L most is on the picture, so you can stay lazy at your place like with a zoom, less creativity and you have perspective distortion, which some like/dislike.

-I picked the 35mm for less distortion (portraits) as you know portraits are mostly taken between 85-200mm, 35mm is the minimum for distortion free portraits + background, eg doctor in front of his practice. With the 24L you can't get too close or you get distorted noses, faces,...

I replaced my old 35L this year with the Sigma 35 1.4 Art as it's better in any aspect.
If I need wider for my hobby I use the new gem I recently bought : Tokina 17 f3.5 AT-X Pro.

So the 24 is between the 17 - 35, it's no wide-angle and the 35 is more flattering for portraits.
That's also the reason I never bought a 24 or 50 mm prime, it misses the 2 points above.

AlanU wrote in post #17024898
If you want less distortion the 35mm is your lens..... if your eyes are not enticed by the imagery/subject matter/emotional content by the 35mm "normal perspective" your photos can be boring (dare i say boring???!!!).