# 24L or 35L



## l0pht (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

35L


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 21, 2012)

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 (Apr 22, 2012)

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 (Apr 22, 2012)

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 (Apr 22, 2012)

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 (Apr 22, 2012)

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?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2012)

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 (Apr 22, 2012)

l0pht said:


> 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 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 (Apr 22, 2012)

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 (Apr 22, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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" (?!).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> 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 (Apr 22, 2012)

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 (Apr 22, 2012)

jmac1 said:


> 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 (Apr 22, 2012)

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 (Apr 22, 2012)

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


----------



## Viggo (Apr 22, 2012)

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 (Apr 23, 2012)

24LII


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 23, 2012)

l0pht said:


> 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 (Apr 23, 2012)

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 (Apr 23, 2012)

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 (Apr 23, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> l0pht said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot couples, starting to shoot some weddings, sports, etc.
> ...



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 (Apr 23, 2012)

jmac1 said:


> 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 (Apr 23, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> 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 (Apr 23, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Nov 28, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Nov 28, 2012)

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 (Nov 28, 2012)

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.


----------



## sandymandy (Nov 28, 2012)

I think 35mm is just more versatile in the end. You can also shoot people with a 35mm lens and get some kind of "journalist" look to the photo. The 35mm look shows the subject and its environment while with a 50mm its more focused on the main subject. 24mm is a bit too wide for people photography imho and is best suited for environment only photography. Something like classy holiday photos or scenes where there is just much to discover for the eye.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 28, 2012)

Tough question always. I don't have either and still resort to my 24-105 for anything wider than 50 (my main lenses are the 50L and the 135L). 35mm has always been a struggle for me. Not really that wide but too wide for people shots at least for me. In the film days I always went straight for either the 50 or the 28 while my old 35mm lens is in factory condition.

35mm gives a lot of context and some people like it for that. I like to go in a little more and draw attention to the details. Sometimes you need the context however and you want the same outstanding quality you get from your other primes. So I understand the question.

24 is not ideal either in my book though. I'm actually thinking about adding one of the TS lenses and a Zeiss 21mm to my bag at some point.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Nov 28, 2012)

I got the 35L. It´s great, not that fantasticly sharp as its hype (perhaps I should Micro Focus Adjust it again?) but where it really shine is in contrast and colours.

The wider it gets, the harder it is to make portraits look good. And 24 is not that crazy wide to give that superwide effect to a wedding photo. So the 24 is hard to use and still does not really "pop" like 15-20mm would.

At first I skipped the 35L and got the 28 /1.8 and while I find that lens better than what you hear in forums it never really worked for me as a enviromental portrait lens (heany distortion - faces look really strange). The 35 does way better. 

Usually wide portraits get static in composition since you have to keep the face of your subject in the centre of the fram in order to keep them from looking wierd. The 35 lets me compose in a more dynamic way and I like that.

As mentioned above the 24L is a "better" lens; sharper, better sealed an so on. 

My advice? Wait for reviews of the sigma 35 /1.4 and the canon 35 /2 IS. If you can wait a bit longer they might drop in price aswell. But anyway, have a serious look at the 35mm focal length. It is very useful.

Good luck with your choise!


----------



## Jesse (Nov 28, 2012)

35mm is the most boring focal length IMO.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 28, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> Sorry to necropost!



I love it. First time I've seen that term!


----------



## infared (Nov 28, 2012)

BOTH! ....of course!!!!!! LOL!


----------



## Bosman (Nov 28, 2012)

24 on crop bodies aps-h and aps-c, 35 on FF.
Check your images for what focal length you use most when you use a zoom and you will find the evidence there. I have the 24L II and it is an amazing lens ad it is incredible for product photography but i use it for weddings on aps-h and it is stellar. If i shot 2 5dm3's i'd prob do the 35 but I may stretch myself to shoot wide and stay with the 24 because I just get in closer and shoot which it is a more interesting perspective.
Also i recommend checking out another canon forum that displays an extensive amount of images in their image gallery.
for the 24L
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=649213
35L
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1121099


----------



## Kernuak (Nov 28, 2012)

AprilForever said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...


I can't comment on the 35 L, as I've never used it and budgets usually limit how many primes . It largely depends on what you are shooting though. I actually find my 24 to be wide enough for my uses and rarely need to go wider on FF (which is why I sold my 17-40). On the other hand though, I rarely crop my images taken with the 24, unless one leg decides to grow during the shoot and I have to straighten the images. I'm using it almost entirely for landscapes though and have only taken a few portrait shots with it and then it has been to show the environment surrounding the subject, rather than for any extreme effects.
One consideration, if you get the 24 and decide you need to crop, you can do, albeit at the expense of a few pixels, but you can't add in pixels if you decide you needed to go wider than the 35 allowed in the space available. If you have a zoom that covers the range, then I would add my voice to trying out what you would expect to shoot at the two focal lengths and see which suits your needs the best.


----------



## l0pht (Nov 28, 2012)

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. Picked up a 85 and I have a 50mm gap in all my lenses. 35L, 85 and 135L.

Shot weddings, families, sports, landscape with this setup and haven't wished for anything else. Other than a 100mm macro


----------



## Bosman (Nov 30, 2012)

l0pht said:


> 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. Picked up a 85 and I have a 50mm gap in all my lenses. 35L, 85 and 135L.
> 
> Shot weddings, families, sports, landscape with this setup and haven't wished for anything else. Other than a 100mm macro


Perfect selection. ^^


----------



## SJTstudios (Nov 30, 2012)

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 (Dec 1, 2012)

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 (Dec 1, 2012)

l0pht said:


> 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 (Dec 2, 2012)

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


----------



## CreationHeart (Dec 2, 2012)

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


----------



## wayno (Jan 3, 2013)

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 (Jan 4, 2014)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2014)

redhancer said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2014)

wayno said:


> That said, portraits from the 24L can be amazing



Are you serious ? Would you post some examples ?


----------



## Invertalon (Jan 4, 2014)

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 (Jan 4, 2014)

Invertalon said:


> 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 (Jan 4, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Invertalon said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Jan 4, 2014)

tron said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Invertalon said:
> ...



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 (Jan 5, 2014)

[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 (Jan 5, 2014)

Invertalon said:


> [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 (Jan 6, 2014)

Viggo said:


> Invertalon said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 6, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> (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 (Jan 6, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > (which is a true 24mm, unlike it's predecessor).
> ...



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 (Jan 6, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> 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 (Jan 6, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



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.


----------

