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



## JR (Oct 11, 2011)

I need some help to pick a wide lens mostly for inside portrait shots (family, child picture inside). I currently shoot a lot with a 50mm and 85mm for my portrait. However at 50mm i find I often run out of space to capture my daughter with other activity in the room. So I need something wider.

I know logically the 35mm 1.4L is a natural portrait lens but given it was so close in focal lenght to my 50mm, I tried the 24 1.4L II instead. I quickly realized it can be tricky to shoot at 24mm because it is so wide that composing the shot is hard, and if you shoot at a vertical angle to your subject, it can deform the shot quit a bit.

Has anyone experienced both the 35mm 1.4L and 24 mm 1.4L II? Given I already have a 50mm and a 85mm, which one should I lean towards? I also tried the 24mm for landscape but I dont do a lot of it... Would the 35mm still be the best choice to give me more room for inside portrait shot and should I keep practicing and learn how to do it with a 24mm?

I noticed I ended up croping almost all my 24mm shots taken over the week-end (at golf for landscape and inside portrait)! 

I really appreciate any suggestions/helps guys.

Cheers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2011)

The way your poll question is worded, the 24mm is a better answer. But reading your post, honestly, it sounds like the 35mm is the right choice for you. 24mm on FF is generally too wide for portraits - as you have found, it introduces quite a bit of distortion. 

I went through a similar choice a while back, and I set my 24-105mm at 35mm for a couple of days, then at 24mm for a couple of days. When I processed the images, I found myself cropping almost all of the images at 24mm, and for the shots inside the house where there was a known framing of reference, it turned out I was cropping the 24mm shots to the approximate angle of view of the 35mm lens. So, I got the 35mm f/1.4L - it's been a great lens. 

In addition to wide angle portraits (espeically indoors), I find that it's a great nighttime walkaround lens. Shooting with the aperture fairly open can produce some fun shots, too. Here are a few examples from a trip to China earlier this year:




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 100




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/50 s, f/2, ISO 200




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/250 s, f/2.5, ISO 1600




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 2.5 s, f/5.6, ISO 100


----------



## JR (Oct 12, 2011)

Thanks this is really helpful. Do you still find use for yourself to have a 24mm prime given you cover this focal lenght in your zoom? Also, do you think it is the right time to buy the 35mm 1.4L or should I wait to see what lens are announced (if any!) with the new EOS bodies hopefully being announced in the new few months?

Thanks again for your response! Much appreciated.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2011)

Actually, I do have a 24mm prime, but it's not very suitable for everyday use (the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II doesn't really lend itself to casual shooting). 

I haven't yet found a need for the 24mm f/1.4L II in my kit. I do know some folks who have both, though.

I have the 'holy trinity' (35L, 85L II, 135L) and it's a great and versatile set of primes. I have considered getting the 50L on occasion, though.

I always advocate buying the lens you need/want at the time you need/want it. While I do think the 35L is due for a refresh (every other L-series lens at 100mm and shorter has been newly-released or updated in the past 5 years), the current version is really excellent. IMO, the only lack is that it's not weather sealed. I'm sure it's on Canon's list, and the new version will be sealed, a bit sharper in the corners, and a lot more expensive.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2011)

Ps. Personally, if 50mm was my current widest lens, I might be inclined to the 24/1.4. When I got my 35L, I had the 24-105/4, but also the 16-35/2.8 II. Still, based on your description and testing of the 24/1.4, the 35L seems like a better choice.


----------



## JR (Oct 12, 2011)

I guess if I could I should get both! One thing I did noticed which I really liked about the 24mm 1.4L was for video. It is much easier to keep everything in focus given the depth of field of a 24mm compared to a 50 or 35mm. I was able to shoot very decent video without touching the focus inside using f5.6 and over... I could never do this with my 50mm.

Maybe with time I would learn to shoot with the 24 with some practice. I have only been serious about photography for the past 18 months and I remember when I started, I did try the 35 and found it very close to the 50mm indeed. I have the 24 right now, I just need to decide if I return it or keep at it! If I did not have the 50, I would have gone for the 35 without hesitation. I guess it is all about compromise at this point ...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 12, 2011)

I am assuming you have a FF camera, 24mm is not wide on a crop camera.

Having used my 24-105mm L extensively on my 5D MK II, I used lightroom to see which focal lengths were used most often for me.

I found that 35mm was used more than twice as often as 24mm, so I bought the 35mm L and have not been disappointed. I'd like to have the 24mm L, but really can't justify buying it for the few cases I'd use it. I was able to pickup a used Tokina 17mm f/3.5 for $150 locally, and I love it for ultra wide use.


----------



## AlikGriffin (Oct 12, 2011)

I have the 24-70 2.8L and I find for my photos I shoot around 30mm-45mm probably 90% of the time. So the 35mm prime would be perfect for me. I will get one as soon as they upgrade it hopefully in the next year. I want a weathered sealed lens and am not interested in investing in an L unless it is. 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. Also for video, you'll probably never shoot 24mm. I shoot a lot of vid and almost never go wider than 30mm unless I want a special look. Usually I shoot video around a 35mm or 50mm, and around a 70 or 85 for closeup portrait type shots. 

Since you're on the fence about it, Look at that sigma 30 since it's sort of between the two. 
Here is a comparison you can look at I found on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClgWpU4FgZc


----------



## KurtStevens (Oct 12, 2011)

I've shot 24 and 35 both at weddings on my 5d. I can say with confidence that the 35 blows the 24 out of the water. 35 is not as wide yes but you can still get a natural feeling from your photos without having to be inches from their face. 24 had too much distortion since I frame my photographs edge to edge. 

Shot with the 35L:







I have to mention as well, I am a huge prime fan, I love the 50 and 85 and I have used a ton of lenses. The 85 1.2 is excellent, the 35 would be a lovely combo.


----------



## Meh (Oct 12, 2011)

The question asked above about what camera you're using, FF or crop, is quite important. The example images and advice from the other posters seems to be based on experience with a FF.


----------



## JR (Oct 12, 2011)

I have a 5d mark II so FF it is. You guys are all making valid points. On a full frame, my 50 and 85 both produce very natural picture. So I am stating to lean back toward the 35mm for the look I am looking for. I know I would love the 24 from time to time, but I probably can get away in the majority of my situations with a 35 from all the comments. 

For the few occasions I might need wider then 35, then instead I should likely consider either one of the L zoom (I really got addicted to prime lens though) - maybe we will see a new version of the 24-70 with a new body!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2011)

AlikGriffin said:


> 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.


----------



## Meh (Oct 12, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlikGriffin said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## JR (Oct 12, 2011)

Its all good as I am so passionate about my passion for photography and my equipment, that for better or for worst, I am already sold to Canon L lens...only a matter of time better I get a whole bunch more.


----------



## Meh (Oct 12, 2011)

JR said:


> Its all good as I am so passionate about my passion for photography and my equipment, that for better or for worst, I am already sold to Canon L lens...only a matter of time better I get a whole bunch more.



The 50mm and 85mm f/1.2L primes are out of my price league. I am stuck with a lousy 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L II  And a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 that is OK.


----------



## AlikGriffin (Oct 12, 2011)

Meh said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlikGriffin said:
> ...



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 (Oct 12, 2011)

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 (Oct 12, 2011)

AlikGriffin said:


> 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).



AlikGriffin said:


> 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 (Oct 12, 2011)

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 (Oct 12, 2011)

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 (Oct 12, 2011)

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 (Oct 12, 2011)

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 (Oct 12, 2011)

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 (Oct 12, 2011)

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 (Oct 13, 2011)

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 (Oct 13, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlikGriffin said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Oct 13, 2011)

> 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.


----------

