Full frame with primes, want wider than 50mm

If you can't justify 24L as a choice, the sigma is a really convincing lens as walkaround.
I made a test with a 50D. It can help you maybe.

https://photography-on-the.net …ht=sigma+24F1.8​+real+life

..

2.8 is ssssssssssslllllllllll​llllooooooooooooooowww​wwwwwwwww! Get a used 24 1.4L mk1.

The 28 1.8 is a great little lens. Its very underrated. I really enjoy mine. Its pretty wide on a 5D and its fun to have a fast wide prime like that. I highly recommend it.

Get the 24mm f1.4 L Mark I. Just because it's mark I doesn't mean that it sucks. I am very pleased with mine and it fights with the 35L and the 24-70L as my main walk around.

I've got my 28mm 1.8 for sale. Look at my signature. It's a fantastic lens.

+ on this. When in doubt, buying used makes lots of sense.

Thanks once again for the ongoing feedback...

I like the comment that was made about 35 being a decent substitute for both a 24 and a 50. It looks like its MFD is closer than the 50 (1' vs 1.5'), so I could still fill the frame with the same subject if I want to.

At this point I am pretty certain I don't want to drop the cash on a 24L, as a used mark I still seems to be around $1k. That's just too much for me to spend on a lens that I only expect to use occasionally. So I'm torn between complementing my 50 with a cheaper 24/28, or replacing it with a 35L. Decisions decisions.

I too have a hard time spending $1000 - $1600 for a lens I would only use occasionally. I too want a wide angle prime that is small and affordable for full frame. I might end up going back to the 28 1.8 that I really liked ( I wish it was 24 ) I tried out the 35L and 50L. The 35L is a fantastic lens while I thought the 50L was no better then the 1.4 but just like you I am not sure 35 is a prime I would really want but it may be what I end up with.

I keep hoping Canon would come up with a 24 2.0 or 35 2.0 like the 85 or 100 Non L USM lenses. For me half the fun of shooting with primes is the small inconspicuous setup. Most of the time when I shoot for fun I just take the 50.

Tommydigi wrote in post #11289605
I too have a hard time spending $1000 - $1600 for a lens I would only use occasionally. I too want a wide angle prime that is small and affordable for full frame. I might end up going back to the 28 1.8 that I really liked ( I wish it was 24 ) I tried out the 35L and 50L. The 35L is a fantastic lens while I thought the 50L was no better then the 1.4 but just like you I am not sure 35 is a prime I would really want but it may be what I end up with.

I keep hoping Canon would come up with a 24 2.0 or 35 2.0 like the 85 or 100 Non L USM lenses. For me half the fun of shooting with primes is the small inconspicuous setup. Most of the time when I shoot for fun I just take the 50.

Great post. I agree 100%. The 35L is an amazing lens, and worth every penny. I do love being able to carry my 5d2 and 50 1.4 around and most ppl think I have a cheap Rebel. haha.

I wish we could have a 35 f2 USM. That would be welded to my camera.

Tommydigi wrote in post #11289605
The 35L is a fantastic lens while I thought the 50L was no better then the 1.4

I've heard that about the 50L not being a huge difference over the 50 1.4. Do you have any feelings on how the 35L stacks up against the 50 1.4, to whatever extent they can be compared? I have been so satisfied with my 50 1.4 that I don't see a tremendous amount of room for improvement by replacing it with something that's just a tad wider but costs 3x as much.

Well it cost more then 3x as much :-} so is it worth it is really hard to say. Its a much better build lens then the 50 1.4 and focuses much better and was very sharp at 1.8 and good wide open. I would say its worth it but again its not really a small lens, kinda like a 17-40, not big but not small. For now I am going to hold out since I enjoy the smaller lighter 50 1.4. The 50L is good too but for the money the 50 1.4 is excellent.

Hmm, I have no doubt that the 35L is worth every penny... but the more I think about it the harder it seems to stomach the idea of trading the 50 1.4 for something that costs multiples of what it's worth. It doesn't make a lot of sense to give it up because it offers so much bang for the buck, nor do I relish the idea of owning two focal lengths that are so close together.

I think I might be down to the point of deciding between the cheaper, wider options. Do I want a faster but narrower Canon 28mm f/1.8? Wider but slower Canon 24mm f/2.8? Or get wide and fast with the Sigma 24mm 1.8? I am biased against Sigma in general, but the specs certainly make it tempting.

The 28 1.8 is much better then What it gets credit for. I sold it to fund my 24-70 but I was very happy with it. I never used the 24 or the sigma. The sigma looks interesting because you can get very close but I guess its autofocus is not so great I too am not a big sigma fan but I hear it's a pretty good lens but its also not small like the Canon 24 2.8.

I used the 35L exclusively on my 5DmkII for a year. I only recently (last week) bought a 70-200 2.8L mk II to complement it for far away stuff and/or head shots. (which I am still deciding if I should return the 70-200L and buy the 135L)

The 35L does pretty much everything awesome. Its great in low light - its color, sharpness, brokeh, etc is all near perfect. It does group shots, semi wide angle landscape, full body, half body, and even head/shoulders shots. Its a tad wide for close headshots but it can be done without much distortion. All in all it does a lot of things extremely well for a single focal length. Its my best lens by far. For a walk around on FF, I really don't think there is a better focal length. I guess I am biased but I agonized over this for awhile knowing I didnt want too many lenses, and I wanted the utmost IQ.

Get the 35L. Dont look back

Now, to decide to keep the 70-200 or buy the 135L lol...