35L and 24L are adorable aren't they?

They're both great lenses, no doubt. The 35L having a bit of the edge. But is there any harm in owning both? They both seem like stellar performers and I think I can find a use for both of them. One wide low-light, one standard low light. Plus the I've heard the 24L is great for landscape shots, which is something I desire (whenever I start shooting.) So if I'm gonna knock it down to two lenses, would the 24L and 35L be too close to one another?

Nope. Two different FL's. Personally, I'd do a 35L and 24-70L. I've never found the need for 24 1.4 on FF. 35 is pretty wide, and you'll have 24 2.8 with the zoom.

The 35L is a phenomenal lens, rated higher than the 24. If you use that angle great. Otherwise pick up the 17-40L or with your habits, the 16-35 II. Best is probably to get a lens and actually use it to take pictures and if you need another lens, then whip out the wallet of unlimited cash and buy it!

feilb wrote in post #2983554
The 35L is a phenomenal lens, rated higher than the 24. If you use that angle great. Otherwise pick up the 17-40L or with your habits, the 16-35 II. Best is probably to get a lens and actually use it to take pictures and if you need another lens, then whip out the wallet of unlimited cash and buy it!

i agree.

theoretical photography can get quite expensive .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2983572
theoretical photography can get quite expensive .

ed rader

You're tellin ME.......:p

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2983545
Personally, I'd do a 35L and 24-70L.

You can probably buy a 24-70L from Ronald... That is until you decide to upgrade it...

august23 wrote in post #2983482
So if I'm gonna knock it down to two lenses, would the 24L and 35L be too close to one another?

Unless I am misunderstanding you... You thinking of only owning two lenses? If that is the case, the two of those might not be the answer. One of them, yeah, but that is a really shallow FL for such a gem as that 5D in your sig (which seems to be the only stable thing in there )! I think the recommendation of the 24-70 would suit FF incredibly well, and pair it with whichever prime your heart desires!

jklewer wrote in post #2983604
Unless I am misunderstanding you... You thinking of only owning two lenses? If that is the case, the two of those might not be the answer. One of them, yeah, but that is a really shallow FL for such a gem as that 5D in your sig (which seems to be the only stable thing in there )! I think the recommendation of the 24-70 would suit FF incredibly well, and pair it with whichever prime your heart desires!

You're understanding me just right lol.

24-70L and 35L for my 5D it is. Thanks everyone.

august23 wrote in post #2983636
You're understanding me just right lol.

24-70L and 35L for my 5D it is. Thanks everyone.

i think the 35L would be redundant in a two lens line-up. if i could only use two lenses on the 5d it would be the 24-70L and the 70-200L f4 IS.

in fact there are times that i carry only those two lenses.

i think you'll find that the DOF on the 5d is sometimes too narrow when shooting wide open.

ed rader

You're probably right about redundancy (I can see me coming here a month from now selling the 35L again). But I don't use tele either. And it sure as hell is not worth 1600 bucks for an extra 8mm on the wide end (16-35 MKII.) I like to shoot very few things....portraits, landscapes, and just everyday candids/family shots/hangout with friends. Maybe the 24-70L is all I'll really need on a FF camera. That'd be a pleasant surprise....

august23 wrote in post #2983685
You're probably right about redundancy (I can see me coming here a month from now selling the 35L again). But I don't use tele either. And it sure as hell is not worth 1600 bucks for an extra 8mm on the wide end (16-35 MKII.) I like to shoot very few things....portraits, landscapes, and just everyday candids/family shots/hangout with friends. Maybe the 24-70L is all I'll really need on a FF camera. That'd be a pleasant surprise....

You might consider something like a 100mm macro to compliment that 24-70. I know you're not a tele guy, but that would be my choice outside of a 70-200.

august23 wrote in post #2983685
You're probably right about redundancy (I can see me coming here a month from now selling the 35L again). But I don't use tele either. And it sure as hell is not worth 1600 bucks for an extra 8mm on the wide end (16-35 MKII.) I like to shoot very few things....portraits, landscapes, and just everyday candids/family shots/hangout with friends. Maybe the 24-70L is all I'll really need on a FF camera. That'd be a pleasant surprise....

the 70-200 range is much shorter on a FF camera and on my 5d i don't feel a need to have anything wider than 24mm.

if i thought it would do any good i'd recommend that you only buy the 24-70L and add lenses if and when you need them.

for headshot portrait like the one of you grandmother the 24-70L is too short unless you want to get right in the subject's face and distort their appearance a bit.

but with the 5d you have plenty of room to crop so it can de done tho i prefer a longer lens.

ed rader

august23 wrote in post #2983685
I like to shoot very few things....portraits, landscapes, and just everyday candids/family shots/hangout with friends.

But do you?

I would not recommend the 24-70 in place of a 24L. My 24-70 shows significant distortion at the far edges at 24mm. It is much improved at 28mm. I think you would be better served to get the 24L and the 24-70 and let the 24-70 do the 35mm duty instead of the 35L.

Didn't you JUST have the 35mm?!

Don't buy anything. You'll just sell it again. Get a G7.