24mm 1.4L II versus 35mm 1.4L - help!

[AlikGriffin]

Otherwise I'd get the sigma 30 f1.4 Have you looked at that lens? It's a nice lens, half the price but not quite as bright as the canon, but still an awesome lens.

Sorry, but that's bad advice. As indicated in the signature line and in a subsequent response, JR has a 5DII. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a DC lens. While it will mount on a FF camera (unlike EF-S lenses), it has an image circle designed for APS-C that won't even come close to covering a FF sensor.

Only bad advice retroactively   at the time the comment was posted to consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 the OP hadn't added the signature line or stated in the post that he was using a 5D2.

No worries. I'm ashamed to recommend as Sigma over a Canon anyways.    Just depends how serious someone takes photography, what camera, and how much money matters.   One thing that is nice is canon L lenses hold their values. So it never hurts to buy the 35L, try it out for a few months or a year. And sell it if you hate it. You'll lose a few hundred bucks maybe, but you could always view it as a long rental.

[te4o]

I don't want to sound off-topic but why don't you try a 21 from Zeiss, I used mine the last two weeks on the North Island of NZ with a 5D2 and got stunning results ... Didn't crop anything. I just want to say that when you go for 35 which is more everyday-usable (at least I used it nearly twice as much on the trip as the 21) than the step to 21 in the future might be more justifiable from the focal point of view.
No, I'm not promoting German products, just offering an alternative approach to your question.

[neuroanatomist]

Only bad advice retroactively   at the time the comment was posted to consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 the OP hadn't added the signature line or stated in the post that he was using a 5D2.

Sorry, but the signature was in the first post, which is the reason I didn't ask what body the OP was using (no way to provide meaningful advice on focal length choice without that information).

Just depends how serious someone takes photography, what camera, and how much money matters.

Given that the OP listed a 5DII and two L primes, that's reasonably serious, IMO.  Generally, someone who chooses primes over zooms these days knows what they want or has a fair bit of experience (e.g. from shooting film - those were the days when a zoom would never beat a prime for IQ, but now thanks to the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, the world's gone all topsy-turvy  ).

[FOB2009]

I don't have a 50 or the 24, but do have the Zeiss 21 and 100, as well as the Canon L 35, 85, and 135. I end up using the 21 (mostly landscapes, some people/street), 35, and 100 most. I agree the 35 is much more versatile w less distortion. Tough call about waiting for next gen. Zeiss also has a 35/1.4 but of course it is not AF. Don't forget EgS focusing screen.

[sb]

Lots of great advice already, so I'll just add this:

I have both lenses(with 5Dmk2), but I've never used the 24mm II for portraits. In fact I bought that lens primarily for video (because of close infinity focus, useful FOV, and of course f/1.4), as well as, to have a 35mm equivalent on my secondary body (7D).

For portraits and wedding work, I use 35mm 70% of the time, 50mm another 25%, and longer lenses (which includes the 85 f/1.2 and up) only 5% of the time.

Long story short, if you're only buying 1 lens, 35mm will definitely give you most bang for the buck.

[alipaulphotography]

My widest lens is the 35mm L and it is working great for me so far. 80% of my wedding shots are on the 35. I would like a 24mm mainly for the wide angle 'look' but as for fitting things into the frame and being able to tell a story from a wedding, 35mm is great.

Next purchase would likely be a 135mm f/2 over a 24mm.

[JR]

Thanks a lot guys.  All the comments have been most useful.  I will definitively add the 35 1.4L to my collection now instead of the 24 and follow that with the 135mm 2L as well.  As for wider angle then 35, I will wait and see if Canon comes out with a new version of the 24-70 L zoom or the 24-105L zoom and buy one of those to shoot at 24mm instead.  It will not be the sharpnest of the 24mm 1.4L II but until I can justify more use for a 24, that will do!

[87vr6]

Do you need a L lens? If not, and you can't decide on the 24 or 35, go in the middle and try the 28mm 1.8... I know it doesn't make a mans phallus bigger like lenses with the red ring does, but it's not too wide on FF ( I too have a 5D2) but it's less than half the cost of the others. The aperture is plenty fast at 1.8.

[savale]

24mm on a FF and portraits... no... way too wide for the usual stuff. Maybe when you shoot extreme sports / skating portraits it can be cool in some kind of way. The 35mm is a way better choice imo. If you're still in doubt: buy 2 manual focus lenses, a 24mm and a 35mm (easy to get some good ones for $100) and try out what you like more. Maybe you like manual focus anyway since it's very easy with wide angle lenses because of the big DOF.

[sjvln]

You guys all have valuable points!  I myself find 24 1.4 II much more challenging to compose than the 35 1.4, it's also harder to focus for some reason.   35 1.4 produce an unique creamy image quality that's absolutely amazing.  I would start with 35 1.4 first as it's more usable for me.  My 24 1.4 II has been just sitting at the corner of my studio for months now (I should really pick it up again...) 
Also you should try the Zeiss 35 1.4 (if you can handle the manual focus, has a 3D quality that's the Canon can't beat.

[Meh]

Only bad advice retroactively   at the time the comment was posted to consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 the OP hadn't added the signature line or stated in the post that he was using a 5D2.

Sorry, but the signature was in the first post, which is the reason I didn't ask what body the OP was using (no way to provide meaningful advice on focal length choice without that information).

Well I guess I have to give you a hard time all in good fun of course.   The signature line wasn't in the original post (I looked for it at the time) and actually it couldn't have been because it was his 10th post exactly and the forum doesn't allow signature line until after the 10th post.   JR added his signature line a couple posts later and it retro got added to all his posts back to his very first.   However, he did mention the body and lenses he had in an earlier post in another thread so that must be where you remembered it from.... good memory!

[smallFish]

I noticed I ended up cropping almost all my 24mm shots taken over the week

If this is the case, then 35/1.4 for you.

But I have to say 24mm grows on you really fast.
I got my 35/1.4 thinking that 24 is too wide. (just like you)
Then about a year of using 35mm, I found it to be too tight and got the 24/1.4 instead.
Now I love both of my 24 & 35. For me they are totally different lens.