24mm v 35mm and f1.4 v f2.8v f2

Hi

I'm looking for a lens to help me photograph wide and close with good subject isolation and great bokeh.

Of course, I'd like light if possible but I'd accept this might not be possible.

I'm wondering if I'd notice massive difference for my needs between the Canon 24mm and 35mm offerings or the Sigma ART lenses.

I'd buy any of the 35mm f2, or f1.4 lenses or 35mm f2 or f1.4

I'm guessing I'd get better subject isolation from 35mm f1.4 of all of these, but maybe not enough more than with a 35mm f2 to justify the weight/price? OTOH maybe I'd get really good emotional appeal from the 24mm f1.4 or f2.8? In which case is the extra aperture difference massively significant if I'm photographing close - I imagine to get any isolation with such a wide lens I'd need to be pretty close anyway.

I'm wandering and appreciate anyone directing my thoughts more clearly than I'm currently managing.


Thank you

willie45 wrote in post #19119943
Hi

I'm looking for a lens to help me photograph wide and close with good subject isolation and great bokeh.

Of course, I'd like light if possible but I'd accept this might not be possible.

I'm wondering if I'd notice massive difference for my needs between the Canon 24mm and 35mm offerings or the Sigma ART lenses.

I'd buy any of the 35mm f2, or f1.4 lenses or 35mm f2 or f1.4

I'm guessing I'd get better subject isolation from 35mm f1.4 of all of these, but maybe not enough more than with a 35mm f2 to justify the weight/price? OTOH maybe I'd get really good emotional appeal from the 24mm f1.4 or f2.8? In which case is the extra aperture difference massively significant if I'm photographing close - I imagine to get any isolation with such a wide lens I'd need to be pretty close anyway.

I'm wandering and appreciate anyone directing my thoughts more clearly than I'm currently managing.


Thank you

Personally, I am not a great fan of Sigma lenses considering my experiences with them, but I do love Canon lenses, especially the L-variants .

My choice for a 35 mm lens would be the 35L II or the 35 F/2 IS, where thellatter is smaller and very close in sharpness to the L version. If you are plannign on shooting with an R-series camera, I have no hesitation recommending the RF 35 F/1.8 Macro, BTW.

You may also want to consider the Tamron 35 F/1.4, which is quite small, quite affordable, and according to Roger Cicala (of LensRentals; check their blog for a comparison) currently the best 35 mm lens out there.

The difference, especially in relative close focusing situations, like portraiture, certainly is significant going from F/2 to F1.4 with 35 mm lenses. The question is whether you really need that, because 35 mm and wider is generally used for environmental type portraits, which means you want at least some of the background to be recognizible, generally requiring at least F/2.8 or F/4.

My favourite lens for this sort of photography, however, is the EF 24L, basically because it has a wider AoV, which I relate to better than to the AoV of the 35 mm. I also just love the rendering of this lens and roll-off, well over the 35 mm variants of Canon. That is personal taste, however.

HTH, kind regards, Wim

Thank you for your thoughts which are very helpful. I have reservations about sigma lenses too though I’m reading a lot of people saying the newer editions are more reliable than previous ones. I don’t know how true this is as I’ve also read off a number of AF issues.

If I go with 35mm i would be undecided re the EF f2 and RF f1.8 offerings. I have an R6 on order but also own a 5Ds. Mind you the Tamron would be worth a look and is one I hadn’t thought to include. Hmmmm ....

I like 35mm as a standard prime size though 24mm is a lot of fun but I don’t want to get both.

On balanceIm more tempted by the versatility of the 35mm and the lightness of the RF appeals. Also, I’m looking to get some creamy bokeh stuff going on and 24m isn’t likely to be as good in that respect. I know the f2 gives good bokeh but probably a in real life pictures the RF f1.8 would be just as good.

Seems I’m leaning to the 35 mm RF

Edit: I just remembered the reason I hadn’t considering the Tamronn was the weight which puts me off.

Heya,

Depends on how much distortion you're ok with. While you can get closer with a 24mm and a 35mm, which will generate a more shallow DOF if focus closer, you also will distort features a bit. This may not matter much for your subject matter. But it is a thing.

F1.4 vs F2 for this is mostly just personal preference. A lot of the older affordable F1.4 lenses are not super sharp at F1.4. While some modern glass is very sharp wide open. Depends which ones you're interested in and what the budget is.

The 35 F2 IS is one of the sharpest ones with great IS (4 stops) for the cost.

Very best,

I have the 35F2 IS and it is very sharp with the advantage of good closup performance. It is handy and gets more use than any other of my lenses on a 6D. It is highly recommended.
If you need F1.4, then the Canon 35F1.4 is an excellent lens. Personally, it is very rare that I want F1.4, so the 35F2 is perfect for my needs. AF is very fast and accurate, the lens is relatively light, and the lens is sharp with excellent flare resistance. The bokeh is very good. If you are close, the background needs to be far for it to blur out, but this would be the case for any 35. A 35 is a perfect general purpose focal length, and I would find 24 too wide for my purposes.

I own both the Canon 35mm f2 IS USM and the Tamron 35mm f1.4. If you have the money, absolutely go for the Tamron. On my 5DS it was crazy sharp wide open; something no other lens I've owned has achieved. The bokeh is great and I really like the overall image it creates. Don't get me wrong, the Canon f2 is a fantastic lens, but the Tamron is unbelievable. The only downside to the Tamron is that it has a further minimum focus distance than the Canon does. If you really want to get up close, you can add some extension tubes that let you focus closer. You might lose out on some extreme corner sharpness, but if you're doing shallow depth of field work your corners will be out of focus anyways.

I keep vacillating.

My latest thoughts on awakening are:

I like 35mm as a general length and I thought I'd get better bokeh with 35mm and so am tempted by that but its quite close to my humble nifty 50 and I'd get more limited dof with that close up than even 35mm and even more so with my 85mm but without the perspective I'm looking for. I'm deciding that the 35mm would be more of an upgrade to my 50 rather than what I'm currently looking for which is a new perspective.

I guess what I'm really after is the wider aspect of the 24mm with a bit of subject separation, and I'm now wondering if I could use 24mm open for close up stuff with juicy wide-angle perspective and a nice bokeh, but also be able stop it down a bit to get a nice - still fast - general purpose wide-angle How possible is this?

I'm hoping it would enhance the qualities of a Fuji 16mm f1.4 I tried and liked ( which should equate to a 24mm f2.1 FF, so having f1.4 FF would make it even better.)

I'm now feeling the 24mm perspective would be more interesting to me and I've spotted a used Canon24mm f1.4 in my budget ( I'm nervous of Sigma ) and I'm wondering about that. I'm sort of concluding I should buy it and try it for a while and then sell it on at minimal loss if it doesn't fulfil my hopes. It would probably be cheaper than renting both and I feel I need to experience them for a while.

Would 24mm do the creamy bokeh? If close up surely, yes?

Take a look at the lens sample forum.

willie45 wrote in post #19121554
I'm now feeling the 24mm perspective would be more interesting to me and I've spotted a used Canon24mm f1.4 in my budget ( I'm nervous of Sigma ) and I'm wondering about that. I'm sort of concluding I should buy it and try it for a while and then sell it on at minimal loss if it doesn't fulfil my hopes. It would probably be cheaper than renting both and I feel I need to experience them for a while.

Would 24mm do the creamy bokeh? If close up surely, yes?

24mm on full frame is wide. At F1.4, at very close focus, you can get fairly soft backgrounds if the background is distant. If it's a wall 2 feet behind the subject, it will not be very soft.

Example, 24mm at F1.4 on a full frame focusing at 2 feet from subject will produce a DOF of 0.17 feet. So yes, you can get fairly soft backgrounds at very close distance. This can make very interesting shots in cramped space with subjects up close if the distance to the background is pretty vast.

But a 24mm F1.4 is a very big lens, very heavy.

You could rent a 24mm F1.4 from lensrental or somewhere just to get a feel for it for a few days.

Or you could just buy a used one and live with it. If you don't like it, sell it.

Here's an example of 12mm F2 (at F2) on a Fuji X-T1 (APS-C) at very close distance to subject, because its so wide, you can still get the perspective and yet still get soft backgrounds and shallow DOF. The same can be done with a 24mm F1.4 at very close distances; anyhow, just to show the "blur" amount from such a wide lens.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RRQL​4N

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/23ac​bPk

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2bNy​VHZ

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/RDGi​Nu

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2iUG​1Ne

willie45 wrote in post #19121554
I keep vacillating.

My latest thoughts on awakening are:

I like 35mm as a general length and I thought I'd get better bokeh with 35mm and so am tempted by that but its quite close to my humble nifty 50 and I'd get more limited dof with that close up than even 35mm and even more so with my 85mm but without the perspective I'm looking for. I'm deciding that the 35mm would be more of an upgrade to my 50 rather than what I'm currently looking for which is a new perspective.

I guess what I'm really after is the wider aspect of the 24mm with a bit of subject separation, and I'm now wondering if I could use 24mm open for close up stuff with juicy wide-angle perspective and a nice bokeh, but also be able stop it down a bit to get a nice - still fast - general purpose wide-angle How possible is this?

I'm hoping it would enhance the qualities of a Fuji 16mm f1.4 I tried and liked ( which should equate to a 24mm f2.1 FF, so having f1.4 FF would make it even better.)

I'm now feeling the 24mm perspective would be more interesting to me and I've spotted a used Canon24mm f1.4 in my budget ( I'm nervous of Sigma ) and I'm wondering about that. I'm sort of concluding I should buy it and try it for a while and then sell it on at minimal loss if it doesn't fulfil my hopes. It would probably be cheaper than renting both and I feel I need to experience them for a while.

Would 24mm do the creamy bokeh? If close up surely, yes?

Yes, the 24L, either version has great OOF rendering. The II is slightly better than the original, but both are great. And in both cases, you may actually be able to sell them on at more or less the same price you paid for them if they are not for you after all

I love mine, and will only replace it if a (better) RF version is released.

Kind regards, Wim

I'm tempted to buy the used 24mm L and if I don't like it, sell it on. I guess that'd be cheaper than renting and gives me a no-pressure and reasonable amount of time to try it properly. I do feel the 35mm is too close to the 50 for what I want and I'm a fan of Canon lenses. I will upgrade the 50 when I'm rich enough ie probably never

OTOH

I'm still tempted by the 35mm f2 and it's light, and I'm still wondering if the perspective is insanely different .......

I will keep you posted and thank you all for your help

You get what you pay for, bokeh, sharpness and contrast improve as you spend more money. The second versions are always better in all those categories and only you can decide what your budget is. I would rather have a Sigma if the Canon v2 are too much for you. I'm sure your expectations are higher than the F2.0 or 2.8 can produce so it goes back to budget.

tcphoto1 wrote in post #19122015
You get what you pay for, bokeh, sharpness and contrast improve as you spend more money. The second versions are always better in all those categories and only you can decide what your budget is. I would rather have a Sigma if the Canon v2 are too much for you. I'm sure your expectations are higher than the F2.0 or 2.8 can produce so it goes back to budget.

Due to a mix up with the store, I am receiving a used 24 f1.4L II tomorrow. ( I ordered then cancelled but they didn't ) I will probably end up giving it a trial since it's coming and I'm currently in two minds. It is within my budget but I'm wondering how much use I would get given I already have the 16-35mm f4L and it gives good results at 24mm f4 whereas I believe I'd need to stop the 24mm down to at least 2.8 to get similar quality and lose some vignetting. So am I only gaining a stop for a fair outlay?

Also, I thought the general view on 35mm f2 IS was that it was a good performer and that bokeh was pretty good?

If I would see a significant advantage on the 24 f1.4II over the same length on the zoom the budget is there.

willie45 wrote in post #19121885
I'm still tempted by the 35mm f2 and it's light, and I'm still wondering if the perspective is insanely different .......

The 35mm and 50mm are closer in perspective than a 24mm and 35mm. The wider you go and the closer you get to your subject, the more distortion and other things are introduced. Shooting with a 24mm is very different than even a 35mm. A 35mm and 50mm are just closer. And a 50mm and 85mm are closer yet. Things change rapidly, significantly, the wider you go. More of the FOV has to be looked at, noted, considered for your composition and what elements are in the image. Less blurring means you will see things that might have otherwise been blurred out of existance in the image. It's easy to "hide" bad composition elements with a blurry background image and subject isolation. But when it's not so blurry and you an see the elements in an image and its wide FOV, you have to consider a lot more that will be in the image for display. Big difference. Obviously it depends on what your subject matter even is.

If you liked the 16mm F1.4 on Fuji, you'll like a 24mm F2 basically on any full frame system, yet you'll get a 24mm F1.4 even so it will have a little more versatility (you can always stop down to F2 or more of course).

Just like lots of people go for 35mm and 85mm as their duo, rather than 50mm and 85mm (some do this, but more often they're doing 50mm and a 100mm or 135mm as a duo if they favor reach), having some gap between the lenses if you're not wanting to carry around a ton is going to give you more flexibility on the two extremes. It's that or get a zoom.

Very best,

Hi and thank you. Yes, did really like the 16mm fuji and that's a lens I preferred to the Fuji 23mm so I'm guessing my decision should be 24mm. I'm just slightly nervous as it seems to be a bit more niche than the 35mm which is obviously pretty versatile. I have decided - as the universe has presented me with it at the moment - that I am going to keep the one arriving tomorrow for a week or two and experiment. If I can't get on with it I can return it or sell it on.