24L or 35L

[Random Orbits]

I'm have been in the same delema betweend the 24/35. I have the 14L, 50L & 85L. I know most say that the 24L would complement best however I too am swaying towards the 35L because I mainly shoot people.   I think the 35 is a better people lens and 24 better landscape for most instances.

+1.  I use both and find that I have that tendency.

[dmj]

I love my 24L, but if I had to choose between my 24L and 35L my 35 world win everytime . If we look past the obvious differencen in FL and that the 24 is weathersealed, the 35 just gives skærper spots ween shopping wide open, the general look of the shots are  møre leasing to my eye and it's buch less prone to CA.

Not saying the 24 is a bad lense, just that the 35 is a wee  bit better.

[hyles]

I would get the 35... and sel the sigma 50 to get the 50L.
Diego

[Viggo]

Both, they can't really be compared... The 35 is sharper wide open, and way narrower and not weather-sealed.

The 24 has basically the same speedy focus as the 35, but waay wider.

They may seem a like, but at least on a FF, they have very different uses and looks.

The 35 is more general, if your general photo doesn't need to be shot at 24.

[Bosman]

24LII

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I shoot couples, starting to shoot some weddings, sports, etc.

EDIT: Forgot to mention I do not like zoom lenses, nothing against them, they just fit my shooting style.  So a 24-70 and 70-200 suggestion might help someone else out

With a 5D MK II, 35mmL is fine for group shots, but is getting pretty wide, certainly not a sports lens.  On FF, 85mm is the traditional portrait lens.  The 135mmL is great for portraits too.
 
I'd suggest you consider dumping the 50mm and get a 85mmL and for wide, a 35mmL  You will never want to use the 50mm once you get the 35L and 85L

[Tcapp]

I recently had the same question... so i went into lightroom with one of my weddings and sorted by focal length on my 24-70. i had about 150 shot at 24, and only 15 at 35. Since its a zoom and can be used at focal lengthes around 35, i added up all the shots from 30-40mm and it was still less than at 24.

So i bought the 24.

Maybe you can do the same? rent the 24-70 and shoot an event or something, then see what you used most!

[kbmelb]

I owned the 24L mkI when all I had was a crop camera. When I went FF the 24 was too wide for me so I sold it. I bought the 35L and loved it but then I bought the 50L and loved it too. I found myself using the 50 more so I sold the 35 thinking they were to close in FL. Then I bought the 24L mkII and found 24 was still too wide for me and returned it. So I came to terms I need the 35 and 50 so I bought the 35L again and I am very happy now.

I love the 35L. The images from it are really have something different about them much in the way the 50L, 85L and 135L have something special about the images they produce. It might be the focal length but the neither the 24s images really rang my bell. Bokeh at 1.4 on the 24 just looks odd to me. The mkII is definitely sharper but the 35 is sharper.

I think the shooting with a zoom and checking FL of your shots is a great idea. I did this and the funny thing is most of my wider shots were at 30ish so I figure it is more complimentary to the subjects to shoot 35 and take a half step back then shooting 24 and taking a step in.

[l0pht]

I shoot couples, starting to shoot some weddings, sports, etc.

EDIT: Forgot to mention I do not like zoom lenses, nothing against them, they just fit my shooting style.  So a 24-70 and 70-200 suggestion might help someone else out

With a 5D MK II, 35mmL is fine for group shots, but is getting pretty wide, certainly not a sports lens.  On FF, 85mm is the traditional portrait lens.  The 135mmL is great for portraits too.
 
I'd suggest you consider dumping the 50mm and get a 85mmL and for wide, a 35mmL  You will never want to use the 50mm once you get the 35L and 85L

Exactly what I'm thinking.  Ordered the 35L last night and plan on picking up the 85 eventually once I get my 50 sold.

My reasoning?  I figured with the 35, 85 and 135 I have a 50mm gap between each lens.  I shot for over 2 years with an XSI + 50mm (actual of close to an 85) so I should be good.

Thanks for all the good feedback, hopefully this helps someone else out.  I'm not against renting a 24-105 and figuring out what I shoot with but to be honest once I throw a zoom on a camera body I get lazy and zoom in and out instead of moving around.  Just my personal preference, YMMV.

[Fandongo]

I'm have been in the same delema betweend the 24/35. I have the 14L, 50L & 85L. I know most say that the 24L would complement best however I too am swaying towards the 35L because I mainly shoot people.   I think the 35 is a better people lens and 24 better landscape for most instances.

I was in a similar position and chose the 24.  It's incredible for video, and it essentially becomes 38 on aps-c and 50 on m43.
One of these days they'll perfect single-sensor cropping (for photos too), and 24 1.4 is as wide and fast as you can get right now.

But one focal length on FF...35 is probably the way to go.

[neuroanatomist]

I recently had the same question... so i went into lightroom with one of my weddings and sorted by focal length on my 24-70. i had about 150 shot at 24, and only 15 at 35. Since its a zoom and can be used at focal lengthes around 35, i added up all the shots from 30-40mm and it was still less than at 24.

So i bought the 24.

Maybe you can do the same? rent the 24-70 and shoot an event or something, then see what you used most!

I've noticed that, for me at least, when I look over the EXIF metadata from shots with zoom lenses, something like 80% of the shots are at the extreme ends of the zoom range - that's true for my 16-35 right through my 100-400.  Honestly, I've got a lot more shots from my 24-105mm at 24mm than from 30-40mm - but here's what the EXIF doesn't tell you - many (most?) of those shots at 24mm are cropped a bit, often right into that ~30-35mm AoV.

I think there may be a natural tendency to rack zooms to one end or the other, so if testing with a zoom to determine the best FL for a prime, you may be better off setting the zoom to the possible FLs and shooting at each for a while rather that looking retrospectively.

[Marsu42]

but here's what the EXIF doesn't tell you - many (most?) of those shots at 24mm are cropped a bit, often right into that ~30-35mm AoV. I think there may be a natural tendency to rack zooms to one end or the other, so if testing with a zoom to determine the best FL for a prime, you may be better off setting the zoom to the possible FLs and shooting at each for a while rather that looking retrospectively.

Exactly! I discovered the same thing when researching what prime to get. And what the exif stats in LR don't tell, too: How often would having stepped back a bit given me the same or better shot but I was too lazy because my zoom does it all? For me, apart from indoor shots most of the time. That's why I think I'll get the 35L in the future - if I want to have wider angle shots, I'd have to be much wider than 24 to make a difference. Apart from that, the 24L2 is considerably more expensive, and that matters to me, too.

[AprilForever]

I recently had the same question... so i went into lightroom with one of my weddings and sorted by focal length on my 24-70. i had about 150 shot at 24, and only 15 at 35. Since its a zoom and can be used at focal lengthes around 35, i added up all the shots from 30-40mm and it was still less than at 24.

So i bought the 24.

Maybe you can do the same? rent the 24-70 and shoot an event or something, then see what you used most!

I've noticed that, for me at least, when I look over the EXIF metadata from shots with zoom lenses, something like 80% of the shots are at the extreme ends of the zoom range - that's true for my 16-35 right through my 100-400.  Honestly, I've got a lot more shots from my 24-105mm at 24mm than from 30-40mm - but here's what the EXIF doesn't tell you - many (most?) of those shots at 24mm are cropped a bit, often right into that ~30-35mm AoV.

I think there may be a natural tendency to rack zooms to one end or the other, so if testing with a zoom to determine the best FL for a prime, you may be better off setting the zoom to the possible FLs and shooting at each for a while rather that looking retrospectively.

Sorry to necropost! But I figured I would just use this thread instead of starting a new one. That's interesting that you usually crop to around 30ish...

I am looking at getting either the 24 or the 35, and I was wondering... what is the main difference in the feel of the two perspectives? On a FF camera, the 35 1.4 sees about the same as 24 on a 7D?

Also, which lens is typically better? Many seem to rave about the 24 1.4's contrast and colour rendition. Is the 35 similar, or does it fall short? Thanks!

[dirtcastle]

I just dealt with this question myself.

From a performance standpoint, I think Canon's 24mm L II is considered the better of the two lenses.

Focal length is a personal thing. For me, 24mm is too wide for a general purpose walkaround. And in my bag, it would get paired with a 50mm. But lately, I've been thinking that a 35mm + 85mm combo will give me optimal flexibility/quality for the way I shoot. I feel like most lens combos revolve around 24/50/100 or 35/85/135. But obviously, this is a super personal thing and I can think of situations for shooting every focal length.

I bought a refurbished 35mm f/1.4 L, but was underwhelmed by that particular copy and returned it. And so now I am considering the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 or trying a new Canon 35mm f/1.4 (rather than a refurb).

[Random Orbits]

The 35L is a good lens, but it is showing its age.  Not because it performs poorly but that now there are alernatives that are better: Zeiss and Sigma.  Choose based on the focal lengths you need.  If you are concerned about Canon coming out with a 35L II soon, then consider addressing your other focal lengths first and wait.  The 35L II should be better than new Sigma but it will also cost more.