24L or 35L

[l0pht]

Need honest opinions, the sooner the better since BH is accepting online orders soon

Currently I have a 5D II with the Sigma 50 1.4. I am purchasing the 135L and want to either keep the 50 and get the 24L or sell the 50 and purchase the 35L.

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

Just to let everyone know, I decided on the 35L. 35L, 85 and 135L is my setup and I can't say enough good things about it. Sold the 50.

 

[prakashanand]

35L

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Really, it's a chocolate or vanilla sort of thing.

The 50 plus the 24 will be more versatile than just the 35. However, the classic "holy trinity" of wedding primes is the 35, the 50, and the 85. The 24 can substitute for the 35, but 24 is getting quite wide for people shots. similarly, the 135 can substitute for the 85, but it's a bit tight and it's easier to crop the 85 than back up most of the time.

The other holy trinity of event photography is the 16-35 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8, and the 70-200 f/2.8. It's not quite as fast, but it's far more versatile. (And, of course, there's a comparable f/4 holy trinity for the cheapskates or those who always shoot in bright light.)

I think your best bet would be to rent the f/2.8 trinity for your next gig. You can then simultaneously see if you prefer the zooms or if there's a particular set of focal lengths you're drawn to. for example, if you not only never reach for the 16-35 but never even rack the 24-70 all the way in, then you know that the 35 is the lens for you.

Cheers,

b&

 

[vuilang]

if you have 135, then you'll need a middle range: 50mm and a wide angle: 24L

personally, I think the 24L kinda too wide on FF. it's good for venue/scene/creative shots, but couple shot maybe too much distortion. Well, maybe cuz i'm an 85/35 combo guy

 

[Seanlucky]

Knowing what you're shooting would be far more useful for this discussion... I would always say to keep the 50mm as your classic focal length. Agreed that the 24mm is a little wide for shooting people, but sometimes it's a fun look that can work for your purposes. I personally use it all the time. The other consideration worth thinking about is that the 24mm is a relatively new lens, and the 35mm is probably due for replacement. That being said, sounds like very many people are happy with the 35mm.

But again, hard to say what would be a better choice given that we don't know what your interests are.

 

[The_Shadow_Knows]

I have both the 24L II & 35 1.4. They are both excellent and serve their purpose. I use the 35L mostly as a walk around lens and the 24L for group shot and as a semi-wide angle landscape prime. I also previously owned the Sigmalux 50 but sold it after receiving my 35L. I found the 50mm quit boring. I also have the 100L 2.8 as my tele portrait prime. I love my modified Holy Trinity Prime set. In your case since your have the 135 instead of a 100, I think maybe a 50mm is better than the 35mm since you have a bigger gap to filled in-between 35mm-135mm.

 

[RLPhoto]

Get the 24L. It's a better piece of glass than the 35mm and weather sealed on top of that. If you shoot cropped and full frame bodies, it will give you the 24 & 35mm FOV.

I use the 24,50, and 135 combo and it's great.

 

[Random Orbits]

Both lenses are great, but the 24L might be preferable because you don't have anything that wide and would be more versatile for scenic/landscape shots.

 

[JR]

The 24 can be a bit wide for people shot unless you are really use to it. The 35 might be more versatile, however that said I would not get rid of the 50mm. With 135, 50 will be very useful for portrait. Then for group portrait the 35 would work. 24 would be more for group shot if you don't have the space with the 35, but again i think for wedding the 35 might be better.

I got the 24 because I had a 50 mm and I love it but as soon as the 35 II comes out i will get that one as well.

unless you need to place your order tomorrow, why not rent both lens tomorrow and decide this week?

 

[Loswr]

When I was faced with the same choice for my 5DII, I went with the 35L - I tested both focal lengths with a 24-105, and found 35mm suits me better. Optically, there's little to distinguish them (the 24L has a little more vignetting). As pointed out above, the 24L II is weather-sealed whereas the 35L isn't, but given that the 5DII isn't very well sealed, that's likely not an important criterion for your current kit.

 

[elflord]

Need honest opinions, the sooner the better since BH is accepting online orders soon

Currently I have a 5D II with the Sigma 50 1.4. I am purchasing the 135L and want to either keep the 50 and get the 24L or sell the 50 and purchase the 35L.

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

I have the 5DII with 35L, Sigma 85, 135L and 50 1.4. The only time I've wished for anything wider was on landscape shots.

I'd say for your subjects, go with the 35L. The 24L will probably be too wide.

 

[keithinmelbourne]

I like the 24L for groups, but the 35L is the most useful for your purposes. For portraits, it's a notch above the 24L, especially in terms of bokeh. The 35L is a very special lens.

 

[Marsu42]

As pointed out above, the 24L II is weather-sealed whereas the 35L isn't, but given that the 5DII isn't very well sealed, that's likely not an important criterion for your current kit.

I'll get the 35L if there is no 35L2 announcement in the next month - but the missing weather sealing of the 35L still troubles me (the 24L2 has it): What are your experiences? In which weather conditions and how fast does the 35L fail and needs expensive repairs? Did you successfully try anything to avoid that (like wrapping it in plastic)?

I think sealing on the lens is even more important than the body because it poses a large "rain-catcher" (?!).

 

[Loswr]

I'll get the 35L if there is no 35L2 announcement in the next month - but the missing weather sealing of the 35L still troubles me (the 24L2 has it): What are your experiences? In which weather conditions and how fast does the 35L fail and needs expensive repairs? Did you successfully try anything to avoid that (like wrapping it in plastic)?

I think sealing on the lens is even more important than the body because it poses a large "rain-catcher" (?!).

I think the real 'danger zone' is the metal-to-metal at the lens mount - water there will damage both lens and body.

I haven't tried using my 35L in the rain - only my 7D with sealed lenses.

 

[jmac1]

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.

 

[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