jgrim8 Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Hi Everyone, I hope everyone had a great holiday and has a great new year. I am looking to purchase the Canon 24 f/1.4 L and the 35 f/1.4 L for my wedding lens collection. I'm just not sure which one to purchase first, since I can only get one right now. Despite the obvious (24 v 35), I was hoping to find some opinions here and perhaps some examples for sharpness and image quality in low light conditins. Also, I heard that a lot of times people get bad lenses and have to send them back to Canon to get callibrated because they were too soft. I am shooting with a full frame 5D. Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Jen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 35/1.4L is far more useful. It allows environmental portraits, group shots and processionals with the guests included ... without the distortion of the 24. I use mine 10 to 1 verses my 24/1.4. When I had a crop frame Canon, the 24 provided a FOV of a 38mm, and was my standard lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrim8 Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 I was leaning more towards the 35. Also, it seems when I need a wider shot than 35, it's for landscapes and I stop down anyway, so why not use my 24-70 for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken c oshkosh, wi Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I have both the 24L and 35L. Got them both used. The 24L gets used once in a while at a reception for a specific wide effect though it hasn't gotten much use since picking up the 35L. The 35L is my second favorite lens next to the 85L. I use those for the getting ready shots and often during the reception. I also use the 35L in combination with the 85L for all of my engagement shoots. I use a pair of 5D's also FYI. It's just wide enough but not too wide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshroot Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 After shooting with 1.5x crop dSLR's for (what seems like) forever, it's a big change to go back to the full frame with my 5D. However, being a fan of WIDE, I still use my 24mm a lot. Though I have to get used to managing the distortion again. That having been said, I find that I miss haveing a fast 35 prime (the 24 gave me aprox the 35mm field of view on the 1.5x sensor size cameras). So I have no doubt I will pick one up at some point. My suggestion would be to get the 35/1.4 first unless you are well practiced with the distortion effects of super wide lenses. Plus, 35mm is a more useful all-around focal length. The 24mm is great for tight spaces, but less useful in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I'm a dyed in the wool Nikon shooter, but I doubt that Canon QC is so poor """that a lot of times people get bad lenses and have to send them back to Canon to get calibrated because they were too soft""". That sounds like typical chat room BS, not actual facts. Canon's glass has set standards for years. In fact most of their L zooms, are considered the best on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 My 35mm lens, sees a lot more use than my 24mm, but I always carry both. The 35mm is as wide as I'd ever go for groups. Unless you are very careful, anything wider will distort. (I'm talking somebody in the front row with a head that looks like a jack-o-lantern!) The 24mm sees lots of use for 'environmental' type portraits. Bride and groom in church, or in gardens etc. I'm a dyed in the wool Nikon shooter, but I doubt that Canon QC is so poor """that a lot of times people get bad lenses and have to send them back to Canon to get calibrated because they were too soft""". That sounds like typical chat room BS, not actual facts. Canon's glass has set standards for years. In fact most of their L zooms, are considered the best on the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 > Despite the obvious (24 v 35), I was hoping to find some opinions here and perhaps some examples for sharpness and image quality in low light conditins.< For enlargements to 11x14 your clients will have no problems with either lens, you might notice, if you like working at F2 and larger, the 35mm is technically sharper. >Also, I heard that a lot of times people get bad lenses and have to send them back to Canon to get callibrated because they were too soft.< Very few happy owners make posts stating same. >Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.< Impossible to give professional and critical opinion regarding your choice without knowledge of your present lens cache and its condition, and generally your style and required shoot outcomes. [for example if you have a EF 20mm F2.8 then I would advise not considering the 24mm for a professional purchase for W&P]. To get precise comment you need to provide detailed information. Regards WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 The Canon EF 35L is one of Canon's Hall of Fame (HOF) lenses. Their 135mm is another. The 85 1.2L (mark 1 and 2) is probably an HOF too (it's just that novices to that lens freak on how slow it is to focus, though improved, but it's moving a lot of glass). A 35L on a 5D is One Nice Pro Setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lou korell Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 I use both lenses but for the 5D the 35 is awesome and for the 20D/30D the 24 is the one that shines. Each gives you a similar perspective on that respective setup. Both are great lenses and you'd certainly be happy using either. If I used the 5D exclusively I know I'd have the 35 on the camera most of the time. Lou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_newberry___northern_ Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Yes get the 35mm F1.4L I would LOVE to acquire that lens someday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chetn Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 The 35 f1.4 L is my wedding lens for 80% of shots, for close ups and group shots. The 85 for ceremony details and the fisheye for fun. (Lenses on full frame.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrim8 Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 Thanks for all your input. I'm definatly going to go for the 35 right now. Seems like the smart choice for wedding work and will fit nicely in my collection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmichaelc Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 I love the fast wide angle perspective. I purchased a Sigma 20mm f1.8 (26mm on 1.3 and 32mm on 1.6) mid through this past year and have worn it out. I would suggest getting the 35 1.4L and consider the sigma 20mm F1.8 for the wider end (for $400.00 it's an absolute steel for the capabilities of this lens). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgrim8 Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 Thanks Jammey. I'll look into those as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 <p>Did you ever buy the 24?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now