Canon 24mm 1.4L or 35mm 1.4L

I am new to this forum, and need some opinions. I just upgraded to the 5DMII from a 20D, and decided I needed a newer/better wide angle lens to replace my older zoom lens. I planned on purchasing the Canon 35mm 1.4L until a Canon rep was at my local camera shop. I tried out the Canon 24mm 1.4L, and fell in love with it. Does anyone have any experience with both of these lenses, and what is your opinion? I have read the reviews on both, and am now undecided. Lens will be for portrait photography. Thank you for your input.

If you're going to do portrait on a FF, then I believe the 35mm will work better for you than the 24. Less chance for distortion.

I swear he's not my twin brother.

I actually like my 24L on my 1DMKII. Keep in mind at 24mm you are hovering over the UWA line.

They are both similar in IQ so I would say the biggest difference would be in focal length.

^ yep agree. both very similar. go with FL. as jwcdds says 35mm would be more flattering for portrait work- you wouldnt have to get in so close to have the person big enough in the frame, so there is less distortion.

nicksan wrote in post #8202275
I swear he's not my twin brother.

I actually like my 24L on my 1DMKII. Keep in mind at 24mm you are hovering over the UWA line.

They are both similar in IQ so I would say the biggest difference would be in focal length.

nicksan. I understand that you were the first nicksan on this forum. Twenty years ago, i was into engineering, not photography. At least you did not say that i was your evil older twin brother. (i have more gray hair).

I will go with my first choice, the 35mm. thank you for your input.

Both are very good but I use my 35L for portrait work more than anything though for environmental portraits 24mm is very good too

yep they're both great...

echo wrote in post #8202600
Both are very good but I use my 35L for portrait work more than anything though for environmental portraits 24mm is very good too

I was originally going to purchase the 35L, but when I tried out the 24L, I was impressed. However, I can only purchase one of them. I have not found any good environmental areas in Eastern PA, although there probably are plenty. The 24L would probably be better then.

FWIW, B&H has the 35L listed as "out of stock". I have asked them to email me when they have it. thank you.

I have both 24LII and 35L. You can get some great, interesting portraits with 24L as long as you embrace both the possibilities and constraints this near UWA focal length imposes, but 35L is certainly more versatile and requires less thought when capturing portraits. I tend to use my 35L for general indoor and occassional outdoor portraiture and 24L for indoor group shots and fun outdoor environmental portraits.

I’m an amateur and have only a few years experience - mostly family pictures and other events, but also nature, architecture and sports as I try to broaden the hobby.

The question that I’ve been thinking lately: what’s the allure of fast wide primes? Namely I’m speaking of the 35L and 24L. I have an 85L and can certainly appreciate it’s lowlight capability but it’s used mostly for portraits and the background is blurred away. With a wide prime at 1.4 you’ll get a wide angle of view but it’s all blurred away. I can see the appeal in that - in special cases - but it still feels like a real niche and not something people would rally to buy at $1500. Of course the two primes are also generally very sharp but it's not like the L zooms at that focal length are soft either.

What’s the point that I’m missing?

I purchased the 35L, and other fast primes, because they are fast. I have the time to change lenses. Portrait subjects don't move very much. IMHO, they are way faster than the zooms. They also complement the zooms. I like the DOF on them. I guess, what I am trying to say, is that it is very subjective. I like the fast primes. Ohers will only use zooms. It depends on the type of protography (sports/weddings/portr​aits/etc). To me, the 35L is worth the $1200 I spent on it. The 200L is next. (When I save up the money for it.)

Take a look at this: Search and you will find many similar ones here.

https://photography-on-the.net …226&highlight=2​4L+vs.+35L

Edit: I guess I was too late.

I bought the 35L because it was less expensive, would distort faces less, and would blur the background a bit more. In retrospect, there are some things I could really use a 24L for that the 35L can't do. However...for many of those things, an ultra-wide would be an even better option.

Hessu wrote in post #8231332
The question that I’ve been thinking lately: what’s the allure of fast wide primes? Namely I’m speaking of the 35L and 24L. I have an 85L and can certainly appreciate it’s lowlight capability but it’s used mostly for portraits and the background is blurred away. With a wide prime at 1.4 you’ll get a wide angle of view but it’s all blurred away.

well if you shoot low light and like wide FLs there's really no other choice. But it also comes down to the space you're working in. My house is very small (1150sf) and I shoot in it in low light all the time. In the house, the 24L is about the only lens I use. I'll use a UWA zoom occasionally, but 2.8 feels awful slow to me. I prefer the wider FL because I like to get close to my subjects (or have to some times) but I want the background blurred out so it'd not a distraction.

Basically, I use it for both the speed (low light) and also the ability to shoot wide FLs but still have shallow DOF (something a lot of people are not used to). On top of all that, the first version of the 24L is smaller and lighter than the 24L II and 35L and I LOVE it's size.

nicksan wrote in post #8202275
I swear he's not my twin brother.

I actually like my 24L on my 1DMKII. Keep in mind at 24mm you are hovering over the UWA line.

They are both similar in IQ so I would say the biggest difference would be in focal length.

I do the same it give me 32mm and if I need semi UWA put it on the FF but I wont change the lens until I have 2 FF cams...