24L, 35L, or 50L?? (On a 40d)

I am in the same dilemma. (also on 40D)
Not considering the 50L because I allready have the 50/1.4
Leaning towards the 35L because of its reputation and because I consider 24 just a little too short for portraits.

On the other hand...
Quite recently a 24 mk II is released, should be more suited for digital, but is more expensive.
Cheap mk I might become available second hand or as rest-stock.
For low light, a factor 2 in Fl between 50 and 24 might mean you win a stop in shutter speed when hand-held.

Don't think you can go wrong with either of them, just pick one and enjoy it.

My choice would be the 35L, it's a very good lens indeed.

I'm a bit wary of the 50L because of the focus issues. I'm positive that there are excellent examples out there, but it does seem to be a little too much of a lottery for me to take a chance. It's a pity, and Canon should be able to do much better at this price level.

The 24L as far as I can tell is an excellent lens, But personally I prefer the 35L.
No logical reason that should sway you either way on this one, just personal preference.

cheers

Bill Roberts wrote in post #7003533
I'm a bit wary of the 50L because of the focus issues. I'm positive that there are excellent examples out there, but it does seem to be a little too much of a lottery for me to take a chance. It's a pity, and Canon should be able to do much better at this price level.

cheers

I agree Canon should do better especially given the price. I think it is a design issue with the lens, but some people think that they can re-callibrate the lens to minimise the effect of the fault. The 85L avoids the issue with a floating internal element.

Either the 24L or 35L would be great.

You could get Sigma 30mm f/1.4 + Canon 50mm f/1.4 for roughly half the price of the 35L.

Nifty-fifty!!

sleepo wrote in post #7004072
You could get Sigma 30mm f/1.4 + Canon 50mm f/1.4 for roughly half the price of the 35L.

And be disappointed and at a loss should you ever decide to go non APS-C and have to sell the Sigma. Been there, done that.

sml wrote in post #7003325
I don't understand why you have trouble "imaging" this---the idea is to have a lowlight capability.
time.
That doesn't sound too unusual, does it?
And, actually, I said I was looking at the 24, 35, or 50--NOT the 14 or 85.

I had the exact same choice range a couple of years ago, same as you - on a crop. I went to the shop with your list in mind, they didn't have a 50L to try or buy, I liked the length of the 35L better than the 24L. I ended up going with the 35L at the time, and have really enjoy using it - just the right focal length for most of my walk-around purposes on a crop camera. It focuses fast in daylight and low light, is sharp, good contrast and colours, good bokeh, and well constructed. No design issues.

I've recently purchased the 50L for my 5D, and will sell the 35 if I'm happy with the 50. The 35 is just too short for what I'd use it for on the 5D. First impressions on the 50 is that it takes a bit longer to focus, so isn't so great for moving objects such as slow-dancing people (comp to my 135L), hunts a bit in low light compared to the 35 - probably related to bit slower focusing. I'll be looking at my images tonight from a two week trip to Bali, so verdict on my 50 is still yet to be made. Maybe the bokeh and IQ are fantastic, but my impression of the lens, is that it's good for stationary or slow moving objects (portraiture, jewellery, sit-down dinner parties etc), but not great for any kind of action (fast walking/dancing people, street action). Just depends on what you want out of the lens - I'm still deciding. It is by far the slowest focusing lens I own, and I missed action shots that would have been nailed with my zooms, 35 and 135L - but then maybe now I'm spoilt, and need to give it a bit more time and TLC.

If I could have a 50mm equivalent of the 35L, I'd choose that over the current 50L - fast focusing, no back focus, no design flaws.

Fantastic responses so far!
What a help! This shows how great of a resource this forum can be!

smcclelland wrote in post #7005223
And be disappointed and at a loss should you ever decide to go non APS-C and have to sell the Sigma. Been there, done that.

Live for the moment, I say. All this talk of "oh my god, don't buy EF-S or DC lenses, just in case you ever go FF!" is ridiculous IMHO. Choose what's right for you now - you can sell in future for almost new price anyway, plus you'll have gotten a load of great photos in the mean time.

edit: Example: I just went from 40D to 5D2. I used an EF-S 10-22 with the 40D, and obviously it doesn't fit the 5D2. Did the world end when I went FF? No. Did I get amazing shots from the 10-22 while I was a 1.6x crop user? Absolutely. Did I have a hard time selling it? No - I listed it on eBay and broke even.

There's two other important points about "going full frame": first, nobody says you have to sell your crop body when you do so - you can keep your EF-S and DC lenses for use on it to great effect (e.g. 30mm prime is roughly 50mm FOV, 10-22mm is roughly 16-35 FOV). Second, decent lenses (by which I include the EF-S 10-22 and good copies of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4) hold their value well. Assuming you buy them at a reasonable price in the first place and look after them, you'll probably sell them for 75-90% of the new price when you decide to list them on here or eBay. There aren't many tech items that can be said for, and it works out way cheaper than renting.

So I'd say if you want a good lens and you currently use 1.6x crop, don't rule out EF-S or DC lenses unless you're planning to sell all your 1.6x crop bodies and move to FF today. Otherwise go ahead and enjoy them - that's what they're there for.

If your main reservation about the 50L is focus issues, then what about the 50mm f/1.4? It is only 1/3 stop slower and a lot cheaper.

Don't get me wrong, I really love my 35L and it suits my shooting style on a 1D3 perfectly. But since I got a 5D2 I find myself reaching for the 50mm f/1.4 more often than the 35L. The 50 1.4 bokeh isn't as creamy as the 35L perhaps, but it still has a character that I really like. And if you are choosing between these lenses to buy then the price difference is huge.

Still, I think 35mm is a much more versatile focal length on a crop body. It's better to be able to shoot a bit wide and crop in PP than lose the edges of a shot because you are indoors and don't have the room to zoom out with your feet. Favourite focal lengths are a very personal thing though.

Here are some sample shots taken with a 50mm f/1.4 on a 5D Mk2 and a 35L on a 1D Mk3. Obviously the FOV will differ slightly on a 40D, but as that's only a secondary consideration for you then that shouldn't matter too much.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

OK....if anyone's interested in my boring tale....!

So I went to the store today intending to decide between the 50L and 35L. I also looked at the 14 2.8 just for laughs...
Anyways, I put them both on my camera (40d) and shot a bunch of pics that I wanted to "analyze" when I got home. As an afterthought, I asked if they had the new 24 in stock and they had one, so I tried that, too.

While I had the 50L on my camera, a pro photographer (the salesman told me the guy is a working pro....) came in and told me he loved his 50L, but only for shooting wide open. He feels that the 50 1.4 is sharper when stopped down to the middle apertures. He also liked the 35L and he and the salesperson both LOVE the 85L, though I am not interested in that at the moment.

Here's where I stand as of now--
Option 1-Get the new 24L (much to my surprise!), and then perhaps add on the 50 1.4 in the near future. Sell my 17-35 zoom and MAYBE my 24-105. That would give me a 24, 50, 100mm Macro, and 70-200 2.8 IS.
The only problem with that plan is that I lose out on the wider focal lengths of the 17-35 lens, but I'd have to replace that at some point anyways since it's relatively old---it's been replaced by two versions of the 16-35.
But, I'd be improving my glass quality overall. And I don't mind fixed, prime lenses---that's all I used for years and years anyways.
Option number 2--(can't go wrong with this either)--get the 35L and hold everything else as is.
Both the 24 and 35 came out with very sharp results on my "in store" testing. When I think about it, I realize that I probably always preferred wider angle lenses, given the choice.
So....I'm gonna put my 17-35 lens up for sale now and see how that goes. That'll probably give me a few days or a couple of weeks to be sure that the 24 is the way to go. Then, I'll use the 24 (or 35) for a while and see if that affects the use my 24-105! Then, if I end up getting rid of the 24-105, get the 50.
Sounds like a plan!! (Either the 24 or 35...and then the 50 1.4.)

Thanks to all of you for your very constructive and useful input. I read and looked at each carefully and it all really helped with my thought process/decision making.
At least....so far!!

smcclelland wrote in post #7005223
And be disappointed and at a loss should you ever decide to go non APS-C and have to sell the Sigma. Been there, done that.

I am there right now. When I started with the 400D and 40D I didn't think I'd ever go FF. Now I have a 5D Mark II and am pitching all of my cropped lenses (tamron 17-50 and sigma 30mm) to fund a 35L, a lens that I think will be useful on both the 5D and 40D.

Sounds like you prefer wide - why don't you look at getting a second hand 24L mark I version? It has good reviews, and is much cheaper than the pricy newer model. The old 24L and current 35L are both not weather proofed, but then neither is your camera, so no need to get the new version just for that and a tiny bit of extra sharpness. Then you could keep what you were planning on selling and save some money.

And keep your 24-105!

Yep. I was briefly tempted with the 24L II. But a weather-sealed lens on my non-sealed 40D seemed rather silly to me. It'd translate to $600 of bragging rights, and $600 of stupidity on my part. And now I couldn't be happier with my 24L I.