24L vs. 35L

i have a 5d and only have the 70-200 f/4 & 50mm f/1.8 at this point. im looking for something wider and want a prime because of the f/1.4.
i shoot mainly portraits for families & couples, etc. but i want a wide lens for my upcoming summer vacation at the beach. (just some shots for myself).

of the 24L and the 35L, which do you think would be best for me?
what are some differences between them? (i've heard many people say the 35L is sharper than the 24L. i like the focal length of the 24, but dont want to sacrifice quality...) thoughts?
thanks in advance!

Decide which focal length you need most. Many might have both the 24L and the 35L. Even rent a 17-40 zoom if needed to help you decide what MM is most suited to your style. Only you will know the answer.

I'll have to say 24Li (if you get a good copy) is plenty sharp. 24Lii (my copy and mostly all who have posted in the lens archive) is even sharper. I can't compare it with the 35L, but I couldn't imagine it being much sharper at all.

Since the 50 / 1.2L is my most used lens, the 24 / 1.4L makes more sense for me:


http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/24lgallery


But if you do not need the ultra shallow DOF, I cannot recommend the 16-35 / 2.8L highly enough:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/1635

In fact, if I can dare say, the 5D + 16-35 / 2.8L + 28-75 / 2.8 + 70-200 / 4L (IS) is one of the most killer combos you can own.

I have both the 24l and 35l and 5D.

I much prefer the 24mm focal length for wide angle work, so use this lens more often.

From what you write though I would reccomend the 35L to you. 24mm is very wide on FF and you have to be quite careful about distortion.

35mm I find to be a more general purpose FL- not too wide, can get in closer with less distortion etc, can shoot people with it more easily, yet is a great lens for all but the tightest wide angle situations for landscape/urban scape.

The 35mm is much more forgiving. Its also probably the slightly better lens optically than the 24L mk1- may be a tad sharper, maybe slightly better bokeh, colours maybe slightly more rich.

But these are mere quibbles- both lenses are outstanding optically- my 24L smokes the 17-40 I have for contrast and sharpness, and was sharper than my very sharp 24-105L.

But I use two bodies :- with a 24 on one and a 50 on the other. If I only had one camera and had to choose one prime only I would choose the 35L- its so versatile. But conversly, having two bodies with a 24 and a 50 combo, I hardly ever use the 35L. Go figure

Recently I was using the 17-40 a lot for convieniance.

I went out with my 24L at the weekend and the shots were so much more interesting because I had the thin DOF to play with.

You wont regret getting a 1.4, whichever FL

Theres no going back.............

Ob Com wrote in post #8071398
Theres no going back.............

Hmm - I did! I decided that the flexibility of a zoom was more important to me at that focal the length than having such thin dof at a short FL.

Both the 24L and the 35L are great, but I can also heartily recommend the 16-35L II - f2.8 gives scope for controlling dof & the zooming ability is great for creative options on a 5D.

If you are going with one of those primes on a 5D I think the 35L is the pick of the two - wide enough for landscapes, but also good for full body environmental portraits and a host of other things. I see the 24L as more specialist/niche on the 5D, but is a good 'walkaround' prime on a crop.

Phil