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

<< waiting for someone to post the 1200

Too funny Allen and Chris!

But seriously, I agree, they are very different lenses. 24mm feels substantially wider than 35mm. I rarely bring both though. These are my most common "kits" with 5D:

1) 35L (favorite)
2) 24 + 50
3) 35 + a longer lens.
4) 24 + 50 + 70-200/4IS (only for traveling with car).

Its no 1200 but it's almost there!

Lens spam!

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

arentol wrote in post #11763520
There is a WORLD of difference between bugging someone and buggering them....

Perhaps he is using it correctly?

In any case, they are fairly analagous to my wife.

ni$mo350 wrote in post #11763872
<< waiting for someone to post the 1200

Does anyone that posts here have one? I think my point is that worry about the images you make and not worry about how the tool looks that helps you take them because as you see there is something else that someone will always thinks looks more badass. But can you take badass images while looking badass

How was the 200mm f/1.8 not brought in on this?!?!?

hieu1004 wrote in post #11762560
^I've shot both side by side. Any color variation is absolutely negligible. There is VERY little difference.

I totally agree. Color & sharpness are the least of your concern between these two lenses. The real difference is the FL, pick the FL that fits you need.

I love this thread. I spend a lot of time in the 17-35mm space and one day hope to own both of these lenses (replacing my 24mm 2.8 and 35mm 2).

I can't speak to the quality of the lenses since I am clearly not up to that level yet...but I can speak to the focal length.

If you generally agree that difference with 24mm/35mm is 2/3 then to frame a subject that is 10 feet away is a few steps (between 24 and 35). It is about 1/3 or 3.3 feet difference for comparable *subject size* (even though the subjects are the same size, the background will be wider on the 24mm). Now, if the subject is 75 feet away, that same 1/3 difference is now 25 feet (which could mean jumping a river or cliff).

Here's one: on a full frame, shooting horizontal, with a 35mm lens:: the distance from the subject is 'nearly equivalent' to the subject width ... so if I am 10 feet away from a 10 foot wide object, the object will fill the frame. If I am 15 feet a way from a 15 foot object, it too will also fill the frame... hmm, at this point you are saying either duh or really.

Just understand that... On a 24mm lens at 10 feet, a 10 foot a subject will only fill approximate 2/3 of the frame (vs 35mm, which fills the full frame). So, at 24mm, if I am 10 feet away from a 10 foot wide object, it will fill approximately 2/3 the frame. If at 35mm, the subject fills the whole frame. NOTE: the the background will be wider with the 24mm.

Really hope this makes sense and contributes (as opposed to being obvious or confusing).

I wish I would have paid the extra $400 for the mkII version when I bought my mkI a couple years ago. The mkI is still a killer lens on crop of FF.

frankk wrote in post #11766774
I love this thread. I spend a lot of time in the 17-35mm space and one day hope to own both of these lenses (replacing my 24mm 2.8 and 35mm 2).

I can't speak to the quality of the lenses since I am clearly not up to that level yet...but I can speak to the focal length.

If you generally agree that difference with 24mm/35mm is 2/3 then to frame a subject that is 10 feet away is a few steps (between 24 and 35). It is about 1/3 or 3.3 feet difference for comparable *subject size* (even though the subjects are the same size, the background will be wider on the 24mm). Now, if the subject is 75 feet away, that same 1/3 difference is now 25 feet (which could mean jumping a river or cliff).

Here's one: on a full frame, shooting horizontal, with a 35mm lens:: the distance from the subject is 'nearly equivalent' to the subject width ... so if I am 10 feet away from a 10 foot wide object, the object will fill the frame. If I am 15 feet a way from a 15 foot object, it too will also fill the frame... hmm, at this point you are saying either duh or really.

Just understand that... On a 24mm lens at 10 feet, a 10 foot a subject will only fill approximate 2/3 of the frame (vs 35mm, which fills the full frame). So, at 24mm, if I am 10 feet away from a 10 foot wide object, it will fill approximately 2/3 the frame. If at 35mm, the subject fills the whole frame. NOTE: the the background will be wider with the 24mm.

Really hope this makes sense and contributes (as opposed to being obvious or confusing).

I think it's a tad bit confusing... but i get your point

arentol wrote in post #11763520
The second is slang for a specific sexual act, which is analogous (pun intended) to a guy bringing his "special delivery" in through the "exit only" door rather than through the "main entrance".

Thanks, that makes TWO things I've learned from this topic discussion.

ilumo wrote in post #11766983
I think it's a tad bit confusing... but i get your point

Thanks.

If I tried to summarize my points I'd make two points:

1) going from 24 to 35mm is a 46% increase in mm...wow...even though 24 and 35 seem close.

2) going from 24mm to 35mm by moving your body may 'frame' an equivalent subject size but it will not produce the same picture. Imagine a picture of a leaf from a 17mm 6 inches away versus a 300mm 6 feet away. The former shows the leaf with an entire wide background while the latter shows a background just a few inches wider/taller than the leaf.

Nicely summed up... seems to me 24 is the way to go with a crop frame.

The 24L is extremely useful shooting in small dimly lit rooms to get the atmosphere where space is a constraint, the 35 is not too wide for the job & Id miss the picture.

UPS is delivering a 35L to me today, I'll then have them both. I've had the 24L mkI for a couple years.

I'm as stoked to get a lens as I've been in a long time.