24L or 35L

[SJTstudios]

A lot of people use a 50 for thos candid shots, the 135 for portraits, and the 24 for group shots. This also works for other things. Ex. 24 for landscapes, 50, for normal view and sometimes other creative shots, it's a great standard on ff, and the 135 for sports, wildlife, and if you step back, some macro

 

[Marek Truchlik]

I had same dilemma. Friend advised me to go out with zoom and later to compare how many shots I did with 24mm and how many with 35mm. Ratio was 70:30.
Since that time I have 24 L II. It is and excellent lens, little bit soft wide open and suffers little CA.
I shoot landscapes and architecture with it.
Rarely groups if I´m asked.
If you would like to go to wedding or fashion, than 35mm is better choice.

 

[sandymandy]

I ended up going with the 35L and couldn't be happier. I actually sold my Sigma 50 1.4 and the 35 lives on my camera the majority of the time.

Told you I think 35mm is a really cool focal range.

 

[dirtcastle]

The iphone camera's focal length is around 35mm.

 

[CreationHeart]

good choice. 24L is too wide and not that wide, can be difficult to get used to.

 

[wayno]

I have both. The 24L ii is slightly sharper, has slightly better contrast and colour and I think is a bit better built. However the 35L is a great lens and is definitely more flexible/useful on a regular basis. That said, portraits from the 24L can be amazing and nothing else quite matches what it can produce. Certainly the practical choice is the 35L.

 

[redhancer]

sorry for digging that thread, but I have a question too. I'm going on a trip where it's quite cold and I needed the better sealing, so although I really love small cameras like x100 etc. the only thing I can work with is my dslr. I have a 1D II at the moment and have been using it with my 17-40 all of the time. I'm not sure though, wether I like 35mm oder 24mm most. Is the 24mm (I) version sealed too? This would be an option? I definitely need something for low light.

 

[Loswr]

Is the 24mm (I) version sealed too?

No, the original 24/1.4L is not weather sealed, nor is the 35/1.4L. The 24/1.4L II has sealing.

 

[Sporgon]

That said, portraits from the 24L can be amazing

Are you serious ? Would you post some examples ?

 

[Invertalon]

I much prefer the 35L myself. The 24L II did not impress me much. Great lens, but too wide to be very useful for versatile shooting. I think the IQ of the 35L is better as well.

Plus, I have the 24-70 II which has better IQ than the 24L II anyway at comparable apertures. Better corner and edge performance for one.

 

[Viggo]

I much prefer the 35L myself. The 24L II did not impress me much. Great lens, but too wide to be very useful for versatile shooting. I think the IQ of the 35L is better as well.

Plus, I have the 24-70 II which has better IQ than the 24L II anyway at comparable apertures. Better corner and edge performance for one.

The 24 L has MUCH less distortion where the 2470 II is frankly a dissapointment. That is on of the reasons I bought it, but serious AF issues and, as you say, I found my favorite lens in the 35 L as it is epic in (almost) every way, and why I am waiting so bad for the mkII to show up...

 

[tron]

I much prefer the 35L myself. The 24L II did not impress me much. Great lens, but too wide to be very useful for versatile shooting. I think the IQ of the 35L is better as well.

Plus, I have the 24-70 II which has better IQ than the 24L II anyway at comparable apertures. Better corner and edge performance for one.

The 24 L has MUCH less distortion where the 2470 II is frankly a dissapointment. That is on of the reasons I bought it, but serious AF issues and, as you say, I found my favorite lens in the 35 L as it is epic in (almost) every way, and why I am waiting so bad for the mkII to show up...

You compare a fixed focal length lens with a zoom. It is natural to have less distortion. If the zoom IQ even matches the fixed lens at comparable apertures it is enough of an accomplishment for me.

 

[Viggo]

I much prefer the 35L myself. The 24L II did not impress me much. Great lens, but too wide to be very useful for versatile shooting. I think the IQ of the 35L is better as well.

Plus, I have the 24-70 II which has better IQ than the 24L II anyway at comparable apertures. Better corner and edge performance for one.

The 24 L has MUCH less distortion where the 2470 II is frankly a dissapointment. That is on of the reasons I bought it, but serious AF issues and, as you say, I found my favorite lens in the 35 L as it is epic in (almost) every way, and why I am waiting so bad for the mkII to show up...

You compare a fixed focal length lens with a zoom. It is natural to have less distortion. If the zoom IQ even matches the fixed lens at comparable apertures it is enough of an accomplishment for me.

Well yeah, but as quoted above it was indeed compared
To the 2470 in the edges and corners. And for some users distortion is a big deal. So saying, just get the 2470, it is as sharp, is not the whole story. I use the 2470 very carefully at 24 and I really dislike the distortion, sharpness isn't everything.

 

[Invertalon]

[quote author=Viggo
The 24 L has MUCH less distortion where the 2470 II is frankly a dissapointment. That is on of the reasons I bought it, but serious AF issues and, as you say, I found my favorite lens in the 35 L as it is epic in (almost) every way, and why I am waiting so bad for the mkII to show up...
[/quote]

I did not notice much of a difference to be honest between the two with distortion... I know the prime is better, but lightroom can very easily correct if need be. I rarely even corrected the Samyang 14mm with its crazy mustache distortion unless it was required! So I am quite tolerant to most distortion unless it takes away from the final image where I will correct it!

Are you saying the 24-70 II had AF issues or the 24L? Because the 24-70 II is probably the most accurate, well performing AF lens I have ever used. The 24L II was very hit/miss, due in part to the f/1.4 aperture I would assume.

 

[Viggo]

[quote author=Viggo
The 24 L has MUCH less distortion where the 2470 II is frankly a dissapointment. That is on of the reasons I bought it, but serious AF issues and, as you say, I found my favorite lens in the 35 L as it is epic in (almost) every way, and why I am waiting so bad for the mkII to show up...

I did not notice much of a difference to be honest between the two with distortion... I know the prime is better, but lightroom can very easily correct if need be. I rarely even corrected the Samyang 14mm with its crazy mustache distortion unless it was required! So I am quite tolerant to most distortion unless it takes away from the final image where I will correct it!

Are you saying the 24-70 II had AF issues or the 24L? Because the 24-70 II is probably the most accurate, well performing AF lens I have ever used. The 24L II was very hit/miss, due in part to the f/1.4 aperture I would assume.
[/quote]

Correcting distortion kills microcontrast and going back and forth with correction in LR reveals that much of the pop is lost, again, others may not care about that at all, but I do, and correcting corners will make IQ in the corners worse due to stretched pixels.

I meant the 24 L has AF issues and it's not related to the large aperture, I had two copies replaced by Canon due to EXTREME inconsistency, my third was better, but not even close to the 35 L. And I am not the only one.

The 2470 II AF I agree with you is one of the best ever.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I much prefer the 35L myself. The 24L II did not impress me much. Great lens, but too wide to be very useful for versatile shooting. I think the IQ of the 35L is better as well.

Plus, I have the 24-70 II which has better IQ than the 24L II anyway at comparable apertures. Better corner and edge performance for one.

The 24 L has MUCH less distortion where the 2470 II is frankly a dissapointment. That is on of the reasons I bought it, but serious AF issues and, as you say, I found my favorite lens in the 35 L as it is epic in (almost) every way, and why I am waiting so bad for the mkII to show up...

Hi Viggo, that's pretty much the same thing I discovered with my primes too. The 24IIL is a little sharper but I use my 35L a lot more. The 24IIL has a lot less distortion than the 24-70IIL (which is a true 24mm, unlike it's predecessor). It also flares less and handles harsh light better too...although the 24-70IIL has better sunstars.
I've been using a 16-35II, 35L and 85IIL combot for professional weddings for years and they have served me well.

 

[Marsu42]

(which is a true 24mm, unlike it's predecessor).

As far as I remember the reviews the 24mm of the mk2 is *longer* than the mk1 - or what do you mean by "true 24mm"?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

(which is a true 24mm, unlike it's predecessor).

As far as I remember the reviews the 24mm of the mk2 is *longer* than the mk1 - or what do you mean by "true 24mm"?

I was referring to the 24-70L vs mkII at 24mm. There's a big difference between the mkI and mkII at 24mm.
The mkII is noticably wider at both 24mm and 70mm. The mkII doesn't focal length breath as much either. The mkI's focal length got a lot longer as the focus drew into MFD....which helps it create selective focus effects a bit easier. With intelligent use, the 24-70L was very easy to throw background out of focus, easier than the new mkII version. The bokeh was less agitated too, smoother and creamier. Apart from the sharpness improvement and flat plane of focus wide open...the mkI is better (in my opinion) in many regards.
The 24IIL is a little longer than the 24mm mkI but not by much. The 35L is a little longer than most 35mm lenses too. But most users won't be aware of this behaviour and mostly observed at close focus distances. Neither of these facts should deter their use.
I recently hired a 24-70IIL for a landscape workshop I was on. I spent a whole week with it. I've spent many years with the mkI and knw that lens very well. My mkI is a stellar copy and I have to say that I won't be buying a mkII. It's a good lens and a lot to rave about...but against a stellar mkI, there isn't any great benefit for the cost....oh and the 24-70IIL's hood is truely awful. One of the worse hoods from Canon.

 

[Marsu42]

My mkI is a stellar copy and I have to say that I won't be buying a mkII. It's a good lens and a lot to rave about...but against a stellar mkI, there isn't any great benefit for the cost

Thanks for the clarification, and it squares with lensrentals' review of the mk2 in which they say that the *average* mk2 is better than mk1 but a above-average mk1 can be about the same as a mk2 from the bottom of the pile. The distinction they see is the better built quality of the mk2 which is said to be more resistant to decentering after a bump.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation

 

[GMCPhotographics]

My mkI is a stellar copy and I have to say that I won't be buying a mkII. It's a good lens and a lot to rave about...but against a stellar mkI, there isn't any great benefit for the cost

Thanks for the clarification, and it squares with lensrentals' review of the mk2 in which they say that the *average* mk2 is better than mk1 but a above-average mk1 can be about the same as a mk2 from the bottom of the pile. The distinction they see is the better built quality of the mk2 which is said to be more resistant to decentering after a bump.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation

The other thing I considered when comparing my 24-70L vs mkII was that between 24-35mm, my 16-35IIL was a better performer than both lenses. Especially when shooting landscapes. Less distortion, a lot less flare, better sunstars, slightly brighter (although still f2.8) and sharp enough. Sure it's not as sharp wide open and the 24-70IIL, but it's certainly sharp enough, and there's more to a lens than critical sharpness. I've not had any build quality issues with my 24-70L, it seems very heavily built even by L standards but 've read enough people who have had genuine issues with theirs. I do wonder if Canon performed a silent upgrade to this lens during it's production life. Both mine and my 2nd photographer's copies are very good...in fact her copy is slightly sharper than mine. So while I say that mine is stellar, her copy is the best I've seen from a mkI.

The 24-70IIL certainly seemed a very nice lens, it's just not that great an upgrade to what I've already got. If I was in the market for a new 24-70, then I would snap one up...but unfortunatly, I have other lenses which are serving me just as well. If I need sharpness, I'll use my primes and stop down to f2.8.

My 16-35IIL is on it's second front element due to scuffing and really has had a hard life and it's the only Canon L lens which I've had any issues with. It was the result of the harsh realities of pro wedding abuse. It's the only lens I don't use a hood with (it's a pointless piece of plastic) and the front element is quite exposed as a result.