Prime talk - 24 f1.4L and 35 f1.4L

[daniel j. alexander]

Hello,

 

What do you think of 24 f1.4L and 35 f1.4L? (This will be used on a

10D for now... eventual upgrade to a full-frame DSLR)

 

Which is a better buy?

[coconutdaydream]

i think that really depends on one of two things, maybe both: how wide you want to go(what it will be used for), and how much cash you're willing to spend.

[daniel j. alexander]

I did not see a price difference in B&H. It will be used for event (weddings, functions etc) work.

[coconutdaydream]

i use a 28-70 f2.8L for my wedding stuff. it's a great lens. also more versatile. unless you are really in the need for something lighter.

[joel_f]

The difference is that with the 35 1.4 you can still use it at weddings or events for portraits without distortion. The 24 1.4L can't do the same

[yakim_peled1]

You're breaking my heart. Those two are two of my dream lenses and I currently only have their humble non-L sisters.

 

To the point, the cropping factor is very much an issue here. On a 10D they "become" 38mm and 56mm lenses. On an FF they remain 24mm and 35mm. Now's the questions are to you. When will you buy an FF body? Which focal lengths do you like?

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[lotsawa]

That's a dilemma - building up your set of lenses for APS-C size sensor or for FF sensor. The same lenses become different lenses on those tho bodies.

 

Just a few thoughts that come to my mind. Since you don't seem to be a hobby photographer, maybe you should see it from another angle. What do you eventually really need? Ultimately that depends on the size you want to print your pictures. Do you need the 16 MP of a FF body? That is to say, do you need MF quality? A FF digital body is no longer the successor of traditional 35mm film, but that of MF. Smaller sensor cameras are the successor of 35mm film in terms of picture quality (they are even better, look at the possibility to shoot at very high ISO rates, impossible with film.).

 

If you need MF quality in the future, invest your money in that line. If the quality of (actually better than) 35mm film is enough, build your set on the APS-C size body. That is to say, invest in lenses built for that format. So something like the new EF-S 10-22 could be the right choice if you need true wide angle and a 24mm prime or a fast 24-x zoom if you need the angle of view of a traditional 35mm lens. And I'm sure more lenses will come for that format (but because of the high ISO quality the need for fast primes will probably be less, so I don't know if we will really see fast EF-S primes).

 

If you really want to upgrade to FF in the (near) future, I think the 35mm would be more practical for your purpose since I doubt that a 24mm lens is so much useful to shoot people, distortion would probably be too strong (you should know better since you have the experience).

 

On the other hand 16 MP is so much information that you have enough room to crop the frame. For 'normal' size prints (I mean the traditional domain of 35mm film) the extra MPs of the FF body are just not necessary. Print quality won't be better if you print at 600 dpi instead of 300 dpi for example. So you could still use the FF body in the same way you use your 10D. (Does anybody know how many pixels you get if you crop the 16 MP frame to the APS-C size?). So you could need the same 24mm lens for true wide angle shots and for cropped 35mm shots.

 

I for one would base the decision on the long term plan and not mainly on the transitional period (these lenses are expensive stuff!). So the question is wether you can make the basic decision now where you eventually want to go (and what you will be able to afford), MF film quality or 35mm film quality.

 

Just some thoughts. Good luck!

[john_nastelin1]

Some unrelated thoughts: First, the 35 1.4L has a very high reputation for quality on this and other discussion boards; not so for the 24 1.4L (although the 24 has its ardent defenders). Second, remember that a 1.6x DSLR only crops the center of the frame, so you will get the same wide-angle distortion regardless of whether you're shooting FF or 1.6x. Third, the wider angle of the 24mm means that it's a half-stop "faster" than the 35mm because you can shoot at slower shutter speeds.

[sheldonnalos]

I'd buy the 24mm now to use on the 10D. The 35mm would not be wide enough for me on a 1.6 crop camera. When you can afford a full frame DSLR, either sell the 24mm to pay for the 35mm lens, or just save up and buy the 35mm lens in addition to the 24mm.

 

They're both great lenses.

 

Sheldon

[david_kieltyka]

I choose lenses based on what I need now, not on what I might need years from now. I like the 35-40mm focal length with my film cameras so I bought the 24mm for my 10D (and now 20D). It's a great lens for low-light shooting. In daylight I mostly use my 17-40mm instead unless I want or need shallow DOF.

 

IMO the 24mm is rated lower than the 35mm mostly by people ogling full-res screen images. This activity ignores the fact that the 24mm covers a wider view than the 35mm but has to work with the same total number of pixels. All else being more or less equal pixel-level detail will be lower with the wider lens. Make prints and you'll find both lenses are fine performers.

 

-Dave-

[daniel j. alexander]

Thanks everyone for the valuable input. Looks like 24 is the answer, for now.

 

Merry Christmas and a happy holiday... Cheers!

[fxdonny]

Daniel, you won't regret buying it. I also agree with Sheldon Nalos & Dave Kieltyka. There are some people here and on other forums that rave about the 35/1.4 but I'd rather have the 24/1.4 for my 10D and that's what I have. If I can afford the FF camera one day, then I'll think of a way of buying the 35/1.4. If needed, I can sell the 24/1.4 but for now, I'm really happy with the 24.

[daniel j. alexander]

Thanks FD!