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

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.

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.

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

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).

TijmenDal wrote in post #11761698
...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?

The 24L MKII colors are better.

tomme wrote in post #11761822
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?

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.

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

TijmenDal wrote in post #11761698
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.

Spaniard wrote in post #11762048
The 24L MKII colors are better.

Can you back this up?

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

mdgrwl wrote in post #11762546
Neither!!! Get the Sigma 30mm 1.4!!!

About time you saw the truth.

Spaniard wrote in post #11762048
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.

hieu1004 wrote in post #11762551
About time you saw the truth.

I thought that would get your attention...