24 or 35 with a 50?

[will_sohn]

I own a 16-35 and a 50. I have my telephotos covered and not interested in the 85 1.2.

With the 50 1.2 should i purchase the 35 1.4 or the 24 1.4 taking into account i have the 16-35. I use the 16-35 mainly at 16.

[John Crowe]

<p>If you <em>need</em> one of them, I'd recommend the 24mm. I have always found 35mm to be too close to 50mm, and you already have the 16-35 to cover you if you need to shoot at 35mm.</p>

<p>Now, having said that, what do you need one of these two fast primes for. I have always thought the 35/1.4 would be awesome for some of the wedding photos inside places of worship. I once thought the 24/1.4 would be great for handheld interior architecture where tripods weren't allowed until I realized that the required depth of field called for f5.6 to f16 anyway!</p>

<p>So it would indeed help to know how you would use your new fast prime, and also on what camera body.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>The 35L is my favorite lens. Once I got it I basically stopped using my 50mm. I use the 24L inside quite a bit, but it obviously isn't as versatile as the 35L.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Well, if you plan to carry both at the same time - I suggest they are too big. I have the 35L and it's one of Canon's best, but I have no intention of lugging a similarly sized 24mm with me at the same time. I also suggest that you don't need all three lenses to be L fast. You will not thank yourself for weighing down your shoulder. I'd get the faster lens in the focal length you are likely to use the most at full aperture. I like the 24/2.8 myself and you could also save yourself a few pennies if you consider the new 28 or 24mm IS primes - they will give the equivalent light gathering power without being so large. A 28mm works very well with a 50mm for example and in fact may make getting both a 35 and 24mm unnecessary. If it is the f1.4 you feel you must have, then the 35mm obviously will give you thinner depth of focus and it has the much nicer bokeh than the 24mm L too.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>As a ‘Prime Pair’ with a 50mm I find the 24L more versatile than the 35L but on a 5D I do use the 35L more than the 24L but I have both those lenses and I bought the 24L first.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[Bill Blackwell Images]

<blockquote>

<p>... I'd recommend the 24mm. ... you already have the 16-35 to cover you if you need to shoot at 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Last time I checked, the 24mm FL was in there too.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Yes, but - the words omitted and replaced by the ellipsis actually HAD meaning, in my opinion.<br>

Viz., the full quote is:<br>

"<strong>If you </strong><em><strong>need</strong></em><strong> one of them</strong>, I'd recommend the 24mm. <strong>I have always found 35mm to be too close to 50mm, and</strong> you already have the 16-35 to cover you if you need to shoot at 35mm.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[ed_avis2]

<p>If you use the 16-35 mainly at 16mm then why not get something even wider like Sigma's 12-24 zoom or even Canon's lovely but expensive 14mm L lens?</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>I do not know what you should purchase but I …<br>

1. would choose the 24mm f/1.4 over the 35mm f/1.4 to use with the 50mm.<br>

2. rarely use my 35mm f/1.4 with my 50mm f/1.4.<br>

3. prefer the 28mm with the 50mm.<br>

4. prefer the 24mm with the 35mm.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Why not take the 16-35 and check whether 24mm or 35mm suits you better?<br>

We all have different styles, and need to choose lenses accordingly. The preferences of others here do not mean it'll work for you too. For me, for example, a 35 isn't close to a 50, and a 24 is yet a whole other thing again; I usually carry all three of them. YMMV.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I have a 24/1.4, 35/1.4, and 50/1.4, and use the latter two far more than the 24. This could be because I mainly shoot informal portraiture. But I do find that there's quite a difference in field of view between 35mm and 50mm.</p>

<p>Of course, which lens would be better for you depends on your subject matter and shooting style, but if I were you, I'd opt for the 35/1.4.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> 24 or 35 with a 50?<P>

 

What subject matter do you like to shoot? Without knowing that, it's <b>not possible</b> to make a good

recommendation.

[sarah_fox]

<p>I agree with Brad. How would WE know what lens you need?</p>

<p>Wouter's suggestion is a good one. Open up your 16-35 photos in DPP, and tabulate how many photos you have in each focal length category. Then ask yourself whether a 24 or 35 would satisfy more of your photographic needs. Also tabulate your aperture choices to see whether you really need apertures wider than f/2.8. (Most photographers do not.) Then look at all your output to see how largely you print and how much resolution you really need out of your lens. (Most people don't require much resolution.) Finally, ask yourself what it is that the prime lens would do for you that your zoom will not. If none of that matters, then just flip a coin, buy either prime, and be happy.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If you think you need a big L wide prime, you are in the best position of anyone to determine whether the 35mm or the 24mm lens would be your best choice. Since your excellent zoom already covers this range (and gets within two stops of the primes' maximum apertures), you might begin by looking at the work you have done with the zoom to determine:</p>

<ul>

<li>whether you tend to favor 24mm or 35mm.</li>

<li>how often you have come up against an unshootable subject because you were limited to f/2.8</li>

</ul>

<p>There is no right answer to the question you asked. For every person who thinks that 35mm is too close to 50mm, there will be another who would rather have the wider lens. Both are fine lenses, so trying to pick one that is intrinsically better than the other won't help you a bit.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I prefer to shoot at 50mm so I paired it up with a 24 because I felt 35 was a bit to close but I do find the 24 to be a great lens on my 60D which is basically making it a 35ish lens while still giving me the option as a wide angle on my 5d2.<br>

No real right answer here, all are great lenses but I tried both and felt the 24 + 50 made for a great lightweight kit (relatively speaking) that I can use in many situations without flash. For me I debated between the 24 and the 16-35 so considering you have the zoom do you really need a prime in the same range?</p>