24 f/1.4L or 35 f/1.4L for 20D

[fly_guy]

I am looking to build a lens system for my new 20D, and being a

newbie to this whole DSLR thing, need your feedback.

 

So far I have 17-35 and 28-75 zooms, as well as the cheapo 50 f/1.8

II. I am seriously considering adding 70-200 IS in the very near

future. But in addition I need a good prime for low-light work, and

cannot seem to decide between the 24 f/1.4L and 35 f/1.4L (yes, I

know the 1.6x crop factor of 20D).

 

My decision would strictly depend upon the best optical quality

(sharpness, color rendition, bokeh, and contrast) delivered by the

lens. Which one of these two is the real winner in that department?

 

Also, when were these two lenses first released by Canon (the reason

for this question is, I don't want to see them release an update in

a few months after I buy one of them).

 

Thanks in advance for your time and opinions. Happy Holidays!

[citizensmith1664875108]

They are pretty much optical equals, and both have been around a while. If Canon do release an update next week it'll be a surprise to everyone.

 

I'd go for the 24 if only because you can crop unwanted stuff out of a wide shot later on, but if you can't get it with the 35 you just can't get it.

 

Then again, I'm the person that sold a 50 f/1.8 because that focal length just didn't work for me. I'm tend to be happiest around 24mm or 100mm it seems. You need to take that 17-35 and figure out which of the two focal lengths work best for you.

[rayn]

24/1.4L. No question.

[peter_foiles2]

Well, strictly on optics the 35/1.4 is considered by many (except Ray it seems) to be one of the special lenses in Canon's lineup. The 24/1.4 is certainly a top notch performer as well. The more important consideration is which focal length works for YOUR shooting style. You will have to play with your 17-35 to figure that out. Lenses, especially prime L lenses, are replaced far less often than other camera equipment so I don't think anyone is expecting either of these lenses to be replaced anytime soon.

[navarra]

I got the 24 1.4 and it's very good. I find it very heavy and big, and the 35 is heavier and bigger I'm afraid :)

 

Simone

[joseph_gledhill]

Check out this site - http://www.cmpsolv.com/photozone/resultEOS - which shows the 35mm to be better both interms of optical sharpness and vignetting.

[fly_guy]

Joseph,

 

Here's another link from the same site that puts the two lenses very close together on most counts:

 

http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html

 

This is the dilemma I have. Whichever site you look at, most would rate the sharpness of 35/1.4L as being somewhat better, but the differences are so minuscule (as is the price - both cost ~$1000+) that I am going to have to make the call on the focal length alone.

 

Still need a few days to sleep on this decision. More inputs certainly welcome. Thanks to everyone who responded.

[david_kieltyka]

>> This is the dilemma I have. Whichever site you look at, most would rate the sharpness of 35/1.4L as being somewhat better, but the differences are so minuscule (as is the price - both cost ~$1000+) that I am going to have to make the call on the focal length alone. <<

 

This is in fact what you should do. Do you prefer the field-of-view of a 24mm lens or a 35mm lens on your 20D? Answer that and you've chosen your lens. Performance stats don't mean anything if you don't like the view a particular lens gives you.

 

-Dave- (who believes "sharpness" is vastly overrated)

[jim_larson1]

Bah! Sharpness is not overrated! - BUT - sharpness is the only thing. Having the aperture you want and the focal length you want are more important.

[chaps]

There is a world of difference between the perspective / angle of view of a 24mm and a 35mm focal length. Of course you have to base it on the focal length!

 

-Paul

[joseph_gledhill]

Fly Guy, ratings vary between different reviewers but what is not in doubt is that either lens is top notch. I am currently trying to decide between the two and am leaning more towards the 35mm as I believe it is a more flexible lens for my requirements - landscapes, group shots and people in their environment. I shoot film so maybe 24mm is too wide to cover all my needs. I am not considering zooms as, like you, quality is priority so I am willing to loose the practicality of zooming. I don't believe either lens is too big or heavy - they are both smaller and lighter than the 24-70mm and even smaller than the 17-40mm.

[anna yu]

Hi Fly Guy, I have both the 24 and the 35. I think that both are superb optically. Why worry

about any forthcoming update if you have a good piece of glass in your hand? However as

others have said, there is a big difference in focal length between these 2. I find the 24 not

so good for portraits, too wide on a 10D or 1D2. However, it will get you wide angle shots

that the 35 will not. Personally I would go for the 24 first, because if there's any "update"

coming up I would expect a 50L prime.....rather close to 35... Just speculating.

Happy New Year!

/Anna

[fly_guy]

Anna,

 

Thanks for the tip. What a coincidence! I was just browsing your beautiful images from Stockholm shot with 85/1.2L (yet another lens that I want at some point), and they're making me itch for that lens too. I guess collecting fast primes is going to turn into an addiction of sorts....scary!

 

In the short run, I am going to play a little more with my new 20D using the 17-35 zoom and see which focal length I would prefer to have in the prime. But your suggestion has been noted, and I am in fact leaning toward the 24mm.

 

Happy Holidays!

[anna yu]

Thanks Fly Guy,

and yes it's going to be an expensive year for you next year :D

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>There is a world of difference between the perspective / angle of view of a 24mm and a 35mm focal length. Of course you have to base it on the focal length! </i> </p>

<p> My thoughts exactly. Personally I like both FoVs (I have the 24/2.8 and 35/2) but use the 35mm one more often. Thus, when I buy a DSLR (which, regretfully will not be a full frame due to price) I <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AWef">consider</a> the 24/1.4. </p>

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I'm not in the market for either lens, but if I were, I'd be choosing based on focal length. Both lenses have fine reputations. They're a few years old; <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_35_14l_usm.html" target="_blank">the 35/1.4 was introduced in December 1998</a> and <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_35_14l_usm.html" target="_blank">the 24/1.4 appeared in December 1997</a> . I very much doubt either one will be replaced any time soon. Primes tend to stick around in the lineup for many years. Other than for the addition of IS (which is not very likely on either of these lenses), few have been replaced; the only primes I can think of that were replaced with second editions were the 200/2.8 and 400/2.8.</p>

[john_nastelin1]

Fly Guy, you are at far more risk of these lenses being discontinued than of Canon releasing updates. With the exception of the 400mm DO lens, Canon hasn't introduced any new primes since 1999, when they released their ultra-telephoto IS series. Before that, I think that the 35/1.4 is the most recent. For a good reference site of Canon lenses, check out:

 

http://www.gallery1.co.uk/canon.html

 

I'll repeat a few points here that I posted recently in another thread that may help you decide: (1) By virtue of being able to hand-hold at slower shutter speeds, the 24mm is "faster" than the 35mm; (2) The 1.6x crop factor of your camera does NOT alter the wide-angle distortion effect of either lens, so neither is good for head/shoulders portraits; (3) The 35/1.4 is generally regarded in forums such as this to be one of Canon's most outstanding prime lenses, along with the 135/f2. But the 24/1.4 has a very devoted following too.