Both 35L AND 24L. Make sense?

ChucklesKY wrote in post #4609478
What I'm asking is that if it makes sense to have both of these wide angle L primes.

If money is not a problem, why not? 24 and 35mm are very different focal lengths.

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #4609660
Hoaving these two lenses is like having the 50mm and 85mm. There's just too close in focal length, and I think you'll find that you use one more than the other.

I'd have to agree with this. I had both and quickly got frustrated feeling like switching around was just too much of a PITA.

Wow, those comparison photos are amazing!! I really didn't realize there would be that great of a visual difference. If a difference of 11mm makes THAT much difference just imagine what 35mm difference would be between 50mm and 85mm!!

I know now that someday I would like to own both the 24L and 35L. Now the only problem is that I've gotten confused about which one to get first! I had always thought I would get the 35L next but now I'm really thinking about that 24L. . .especially on a crop camera. Maybe I could just come up with $2300 laying around and get them both!!

I wasn't sure which to get first, and went with the 24. On my 1d, it was wider than I'd like most of the time, so it wasn't long before I purchased the 35. Since my 1d has been in the shop a couple weeks, I'm back to the 24 with my 40d.

Just toss a coin and get one. Use it, and see if you still want/need the other. Maybe you'll guess better than I did Personally, on my 40d I like the 24 better.

ChucklesKY wrote in post #4614001
Wow, those comparison photos are amazing!! I really didn't realize there would be that great of a visual difference. If a difference of 11mm makes THAT much difference just imagine what 35mm difference would be between 50mm and 85mm!!

I know now that someday I would like to own both the 24L and 35L. Now the only problem is that I've gotten confused about which one to get first! I had always thought I would get the 35L next but now I'm really thinking about that 24L. . .especially on a crop camera. Maybe I could just come up with $2300 laying around and get them both!!

Chuck the 24 on a crop camera gives you about the same FoV and a 35 on a non crop. I could shoot just about everything with a 35 on my 5D. I couldn't do that with a normal or a 50. There are group shots in tight places a 50 on my 5D just wouldn't do it. My advice if you have crop camera is get the 24 first. It will give you a slightly wider than normal view, allot of photojounalist and street guys consider the 35 on a ff to be their normal lens. Its also sharper than the 35 between 2-5.6 ...

I may walk around with my 24-70L set on one of the two focal lengths just to experience that specific focal length. I also may rent one or both of those lenses. Of course, my wife just got me a 70-200 f/2.8L IS for Christmas so it may be a long, long while before I get another lens!!

airfrogusmc wrote in post #4614062
Chuck the 24 on a crop camera gives you about the same FoV and a 35 on a non crop. I could shoot just about everything with a 35 on my 5D. I couldn't do that with a normal or a 50. There are group shots in tight places a 50 on my 5D just wouldn't do it. My advice if you have crop camera is get the 24 first. It will give you a slightly wider than normal view, allot of photojounalist and street guys consider the 35 on a ff to be their normal lens. Its also sharper than the 35 between 2-5.6 ...

yea im leaning towards the 24L for my 40D .. if i had a FF, id probably go with the 35L first. now i gotta keep an eye on the for sale sections to see if a 24L will come up for a good price .. and after selling the 70-200 first

I had to laugh when I read this - I wish I knew where the original post was. For decades I shot MF prime lenses and I know for a fact that I MISSED a lot of shots as well as some creative opportunities by NOT having zooms.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that shooting wide is great. I did and still do a lot of work like that. But I also like to get as close as I can and isolate objects at times. You can't do that when you have a fixed WA and are already standing at the railing of the bridge, the edge of a cliff or the top of a ladder. There are times you need that zoom. And even with my current zooms, I still get plenty of exercise doing the "shoe leather zoom" for a lot of my shots .

I think perhaps it was the original author himself who was a bit lazy when it came to thinking and composing outside of the box. Convenience is not something I consider when shooting creatively. When there's a shot I conceive or want to get, I look into the toolkit and decide which device will best help me to execute it. That tool could be a fixed WA, or a zoom.

As for the OP's question about having both a 35 and 24, that depends. I did have a similar setup when I shot MF film, but the business was able to justify the purchase. The 35L equivalent was actually my "normal" focal length equivalent, and the 24 was used whenever I had to do large groups in small areas. So in that regard it made perfect sense. But I realize that not all folks shoot for a business like that and such a dual purchase will be quite pricey. - Stu

argyle wrote in post #4609845
Sounds like you read the 24L review that was posted here a few days ago:

.........
"If you are planning on building a life-time body of work
that has a signature quality, avoid zoom lenses. They are
for lazy wafflers. They are for people who aren't after a
"look" but want the convenience of just standing there,
zooming in and out, in and out. And all the resulting
photos add up to mush......."

With the 24L and 35L, you're looking at close to $3000 in lenses in search of a "signature look". That's a pretty big investment to see if they'll work for you. My guess is that you have a couple of zooms already...if so, why not set them at 24mm and force yourself to shoot at only that focal length? This way, you'll be able to tell if that will suit your signature without putting put out a lot of bucks first.

There are times you need that focal length. Are you sure it requires a zoom? I'll admit that I rely on zooms because I don't feel comfortable selecting focal lengths, nor do I have a diverse enough set of bodies to shoot a few primes, but that's not to say that you couldn't handle some of the aforementioned shots with a telephoto prime.

Certainly not everything requires a zoom. Before I shot MF in the 70's I used canon primes on my old 35mm.

A zoom is nothing more than another screw driver in the tool kit. I do a fair amount of wedding and event photography in addition to urban and rural landscape work. Using a prime telephoto and "zooming with your feet" will often cause a commotion in a church. Sure you could do it, but then you become intrusive if not downright rude.

And yes, I could handle some of the shots with a telephoto prime after a fashion. But when I physically cannot move around and select a better vantage point, then I am limited without the zoom. The shot does not get composed the way I envision the final image. I simply do not understand why he's giving the zoom such a bad rap. Perhaps he's speaking from his own limitations? I don't know.....

pjtemplin wrote in post #4614654
There are times you need that focal length. Are you sure it requires a zoom? I'll admit that I rely on zooms because I don't feel comfortable selecting focal lengths, nor do I have a diverse enough set of bodies to shoot a few primes, but that's not to say that you couldn't handle some of the aforementioned shots with a telephoto prime.

How old is the 24L and is there any chance of a new one coming out?

I'm thinking of skipping over the 24L for now and getting the 14L II.

The Canon Museum knows all:

http://www.canon.com …a/wide/ef_24_14​l_usm.html

So it's a decade old. Chance of replacement? Who knows. The 85mm f/1.8 was released in July 1992.

I think you are exactly right there. I found it an intriguing review and thought-provoking. But I found it humorous as well, especially when he starts talking about how poor autofocus is. It sounded to me like he was just pointing the camera and pressing the shutter without any thought to composition. Did not take into consideration the focus point at all.

Right . I think he had some bad experiences with the early AF SLR's of the 80's, and perhaps some mediocre zoom lenses. Because zooms are constructed with more elements than fixed telephotos there is a greater potential for optical flaw and aberration. Still, zooms have come a long ways since the author began shooting in the 1970's.

He did mention his hero Eugene Smith, one of Life Magazine's greatest photojournalists. Smith used many camera formats and focal lengths throughout his long productive career. Like others, he would match often match the tool to the task and circumstance.

I'm sure I'll buy some primes at some point. But right now I'm having WAY too much fun with my zooms, creating images I was not able to do with my MF lenses. But maybe it's because I go about things a bit differently than the author. I usually decide in advance if the shot will be wide or narrow, before I even bring the camera up to my face. By the time it reaches my eye the FOV has been determined and I'm pressing the shutter.

I do agree Chuckles that the article was though-provoking and thanks to argyle for posting it.

ChucklesKY wrote in post #4614918
I think you are exactly right there. I found it an intriguing review and thought-provoking. But I found it humorous as well, especially when he starts talking about how poor autofocus is. It sounded to me like he was just pointing the camera and pressing the shutter without any thought to composition. Did not take into consideration the focus point at all.

Is 35L on 5D wide enough to cover a typical size of a family room?
I'm thinking of buying 35L rather than 24L, because I've read many people saying that 35L is a sharper lens.
But, I'm not sure whether 35L is wide enough to take pictures in a typical family room gathering. (not a big family room...:lol