Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 02 Feb 2011 (Wednesday) 06:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24mm f/1.4L and 35mm f/1.4L - What's the difference

 
TijmenDal
Goldmember
Avatar
1,214 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
     
Feb 02, 2011 06:26 |  #1

I am by no means an expert on photography; I know more than the average person on the street, but on this forum I'm pretty sure I'm with the 3% biggest noobies. N
othing wrong with that as I just started this (way too expensive) hobby, except for me buggering you with, probably stupid, questions.

I've been checking these forums a lot lately and learned a lot (high five for learning!), but there's some things I just don't understand. This being one of them:
Why would you buy either the 24mm or 35mm? They have the same specs, one has just a tiny bit longer FL than the other.
Take two steps forward or back, and you have exactly the same image in your viewfinder. They both aren't really wide angle lenses, and to be honest, I wouldn't know what type of photography they're suited well for. It's just that I'm wondering why you would buy one or the other, as taking a step forward or back will yield the same result.

The ónly thing I can come up with why you would get one is for the bokeh, because with one you'd be relatively closer to the object than the other, resulting in a slightly different bokeh.

Someone enlighten me please.


//Tijmen
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tijmendalexternal link

Gear
______________
flickrexternal link
_____________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tomme
Goldmember
Avatar
1,263 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Norway
     
Feb 02, 2011 07:10 |  #2

if you mean the 24L mk2 its weather sealed and probably better coating.

the 11mm is actually pretty big different in focal length since its on the wide end.. i would have choosen the 24L for crop camera ( that just me though ). you could set your kit lense to 24mm and see how you like that, then set it to 35mm and see if you like that better.


Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tomme
Goldmember
Avatar
1,263 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Norway
     
Feb 02, 2011 07:16 as a reply to  @ tomme's post |  #3

it also depends what you wanna take picture of, full body portrait, closer portraits, use it for indoor etc..


Flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Feb 02, 2011 07:28 |  #4

I own both and the 24L II is a better lens, which is a given since it is a newer design. For a crop, I'd take a 24L since it gives the equivalent FOV as ~38mm on a 35mm camera format (35mm is roughly 56mm FOV).

The 11mm does not seem like a lot, but it is (to me anyway).


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AntonLargiader
Goldmember
Avatar
1,825 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Charlottesville, VA
     
Feb 02, 2011 07:36 |  #5

TijmenDal wrote in post #11761698 (external link)
...one has just a tiny bit longer FL than the other.
Take two steps forward or back, and you have exactly the same image in your viewfinder.

For something that's a meter away, OK. For real-world things, they're not that similar. Frame something like a car or a house at 24mm, and see how far you have to back up to fit it into a 35. How about a landscape? :)


T2i . 18-55 IS . 70-300 IS USM . 70-200 2.8L IS . 28mm 1.8 . 100 Macro . 430EX II . TT1/TT5 . Bogen/Manfrotto 3021 w/3265 ball-mount

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Spaniard
Senior Member
424 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Singapore
     
Feb 02, 2011 08:19 |  #6

The 24L MKII colors are better.


Derrick
Burn Money Project : Canon 5DMKII//24L MKII//50L//Speedlite 580 EXII.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TijmenDal
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,214 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
     
Feb 02, 2011 08:55 |  #7

tomme wrote in post #11761822 (external link)
you could set your kit lense to 24mm and see how you like that, then set it to 35mm and see if you like that better.

That's what I did and I came to that conclusion. But yeah, I reckon when going bigger the difference gets a lot bigger really fast.
Thanks for the answers, though I'm still a bit skeptical on why someone would need both. I'm not contemplating buying either yet (or at all in the coming 10 years) but knowledge is power, eh?


//Tijmen
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tijmendalexternal link

Gear
______________
flickrexternal link
_____________

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kento
Goldmember
Avatar
1,207 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Innsbruck, Austria
     
Feb 02, 2011 08:56 |  #8

35L is sharper at f/1.4 then the 24L II. The 24L II still seems like the better lens. I use it a lot more often then my 35L.


My Tools
-Jesse
Unknown-Studio.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Shadowblade
Cream of the Crop
5,806 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 400
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Feb 02, 2011 09:02 |  #9

They have completely different focal lengths - you can't replicate the different perspectives just by changing your position.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpark42
Senior Member
307 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Feb 02, 2011 09:56 |  #10

TijmenDal wrote in post #11761698 (external link)
Why would you buy either the 24mm or 35mm? They have the same specs, one has just a tiny bit longer FL than the other.
Take two steps forward or back, and you have exactly the same image in your viewfinder. They both aren't really wide angle lenses, and to be honest, I wouldn't know what type of photography they're suited well for. It's just that I'm wondering why you would buy one or the other, as taking a step forward or back will yield the same result.

The ónly thing I can come up with why you would get one is for the bokeh, because with one you'd be relatively closer to the object than the other, resulting in a slightly different bokeh.

Someone enlighten me please.

-24LII is better in the corners.
-24mm is significantly wider than 35mm. This is especially apparent on full frame.
-It is often not as simple as "taking a step forward or back" to get similar framing.
-Even with similar framing, the perspective will be different. This will be especially noticeable when close to the subject.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpark42
Senior Member
307 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Feb 02, 2011 09:57 |  #11

Spaniard wrote in post #11762048 (external link)
The 24L MKII colors are better.

Can you back this up?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
m.shalaby
Goldmember
3,443 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2009
     
Feb 02, 2011 10:00 as a reply to  @ bpark42's post |  #12

Neither!!! Get the Sigma 30mm 1.4!!! :mrgreen:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hieu1004
Goldmember
Avatar
3,579 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Seattle
     
Feb 02, 2011 10:01 |  #13

mdgrwl wrote in post #11762546 (external link)
Neither!!! Get the Sigma 30mm 1.4!!! :mrgreen:

About time you saw the truth. :cool:


-Hieu
Gear | Blog (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattjns93
Senior Member
Avatar
765 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Lehigh Valley, PA
     
Feb 02, 2011 10:02 |  #14

Spaniard wrote in post #11762048 (external link)
The 24L MKII colors are better.

Even so, the 35L is no slouch in the color department. I figure it's a matter of a slight boost of saturation/vibrance to even it out.


5DII | 17-40L | 35L | 85L II | 50 1.8 | 430EX | flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) (Please like it! :D)
Follow my photoblog of my study abroad in Florence! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
m.shalaby
Goldmember
3,443 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2009
     
Feb 02, 2011 10:02 |  #15

hieu1004 wrote in post #11762551 (external link)
About time you saw the truth. :cool:

I thought that would get your attention... :p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,692 views & 0 likes for this thread
24mm f/1.4L and 35mm f/1.4L - What's the difference
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is wmkwok
877 guests, 213 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.