# Worth Getting 24L & 35L both?



## jmac1 (May 1, 2012)

I shoot wedding and portraiture, I am targeting to shoot most of my weddings with shallow DOF and available light. I currently have the 14L, 50L & 85L already and the standard zooms 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200/2.8.

I am looking at the getting one or both the 24L and 35L and although I am favoring the 35L for portraits but I am wondering if it is worth getting both? Is there enough of a difference to also get the 24mm?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 1, 2012)

The difference between 35mm and 24mm is a lot more than it sounds like. I have the 35L and it's excellent. I made the choice between the two, initially, by setting a zoom covering that range to each focal length for a while, and seeing which I preferred - I found myself wanting to crop most of the 24mm images in post. Still, I ran across a 1 month-old 24L II on CL today for $1100, and I admit, I am sorely tempted...


----------



## Random Orbits (May 2, 2012)

If you don't mind shooting almost exclusively with primes, then yes it does make sense. With those two lenses added to your kit, you might as well retire the 17-40L and 24-70L. The 35L is a more useful focal length for wedding/portraiture, so if you were to get one only, I vote for the 35L.


----------



## Bosman (May 2, 2012)

You have 14/50/85 is there a reason you would want a wide angle for portraits when you have the best portrait lenses already?
I personally have been pushed into a corner tightly at 24 mm even at times a 35 would stop me at times. This is about you though and to me a 24 fits in between your working range of primes better. The 24L II is built much better than the old 35. If you have the money get both! You can always sell the 35 when a new 35L II comes out. Let us know what you end up with. always love a good lens purchase story.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 2, 2012)

Why not get both? They're both good lenses. If you are unsure which is for you, maybe do a search of your current photos to see if you're favouring one focal length over another. Personally, I find 24mm a very versatile focal length. Good for group shots. Plus, you can take a full body photo of someone in which they take up a reasonably large part of the frame and you can still get some good background detail (or bridesmaids/family) in. But if you're getting in very close, the 35mm, might give you slightly more pleasing results.


----------



## vlad (May 2, 2012)

I have the 24 and now I want to get the 35. I assume if I had gone with the 35 first, it would be the other way around now. 24 is great for capturing groups - see the first image. Not ideal for closer portraits if you want to avoid distortion - as in the second image. You are destined to get both


----------



## jmac1 (May 4, 2012)

Thanks for the feedback. I ended up getting both as I got a good deal on the two of them new. I knew that a year down the road I would probably get the other anyway. I enjoy shooting low avail. light and if worst case scenario I don't use one that much I can sell it as used prices go for about 80-85% of new.


----------



## swrightgfx (May 4, 2012)

Definitely the 35L, as the 24L risks the advent of fat-head/fat-leg syndrome. It is also a nicer lens in the hand, in my opinion, and the focus ring feels better for video for me, should you wish to get some wedding footage, too.


----------



## Bosman (May 4, 2012)

The distortion is an easy fix and the 24 actually has very little its how you shoot with it. Same with my fisheye but that has lots of distortion and i can make it look like pretty normal wide angle pre software. The 50mm actually has more distortion but that doesn't seem to matter.


----------



## keithinmelbourne (May 4, 2012)

I have both and use both for portraits. I guess I would use the 35L the most, but I often have situations where context or groups call for the 24L. They are both fabulous lenses. If you can afford both and don't mind having one that's not used as much as the other then, why not lash out


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2012)

Bosman said:


> The distortion is an easy fix and the 24 actually has very little its how you shoot with it. Same with my fisheye but that has lots of distortion and i can make it look like pretty normal wide angle pre software. The 50mm actually has more distortion but that doesn't seem to matter.



Really, you can fix the *perspective distortion* in post? That's news to me, is there some new CS plugin that does this magic? Barrel distortion, sure. But perspective distortion comes from standing very close to your subject (which you need to do in order to fill a reasonable portion of the frame with a person shot at 24mm) - that's the fat-head/fat-leg syndrome, and I'd add 'big nose' to the list of unflattering effects.


----------



## vlad (May 8, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Really, you can fix the *perspective distortion* in post?




Lightroom lens correction -> Manual
ACR lens correction -> Manual
Photoshop Edit->Transform->Perspective
Photoshop Filter->Lens Correction->Custom->Transform

Still, I'd rather fix it with the right lens than sit around in post


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 8, 2012)

vlad said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Really, you can fix the *perspective distortion* in post?
> ...



I think you're talking about a different kind of distortion. Corrections like Photoshop Edit->Transform->Perspective are intended to correct what is formally called keystoning, and that's different from perspective distortion (I have seen references where keystoning is called perspective distortion, which leads to confusion). 

Here's an example of perspective distortion:







In the 18mm image, you can see barrel distortion and some keystoning - correcting those would make the pink water bottle 'straight'. But perspective distortion is what results in the bottles appearing to be different relative sizes at the different focal lengths in the image - the corrections you list will not 'fix' that type of distortion.

Perspective distortion (seen with wide angles) and the related perspective compression (seen with telephoto lenses) are a property of the distance from the camera to the subject, independent of any geometric distortions introduced by the lens or camera angle relative to a vertical subject


----------



## vlad (May 8, 2012)

> Perspective distortion (seen with wide angles) and the related perspective compression (seen with telephoto lenses) are a property of the distance from the camera to the subject, independent of any geometric distortions introduced by the lens or camera angle relative to a vertical subject



Ah yes, you're right, I was indeed talking about keystoning, I didn't realize what perspective distortion actually means. "Correcting" actual perspective would indeed be tough - you'd need to make the background elements appear closer to the foreground. I could see doing that on a selective basis with cloning. I'd bet that some sort of plugin/filter could be made for that - perhaps requiring a user-created depth map to identify foreground/background.


----------

