Printable View
Guys, I have almost decided to get the 35mm, however after reading the review on 24mm on this site, I am not able to decide.
As of now I have a crop and planning to upgrade to FF and I am looking for a lens for weddings and birthday parties.
Also the review on 24 says that it got weather sealing and some other things that 35mm does not have.
Can some one please throw some light and show me the path
Gandhi
I own both. I can tell you the differences I see, but what it comes down to is which length do you need? 35mm or 24mm? That question you will need to sort out.
The 24mm was the first o have the SWC (Sub Wavelength Structure Coating). It is supposed to help with ghosting, flare and reflection. Whether because of this new technology, or something else, I can tell you there is a little bit of difference between the 35mm and the 24mm's image quality. The 24mm seems to handle the color and richness of pictures slightly better. In the overall scheme of things it does this only very (VERY) slightly. The normal person will most likely never see a difference between two equally framed pictures with both lenses.
The other differences important to me in the two lenses are really length related. The 24mm of course gives you wider view, a deeper depth of field. If you are going to do birthday parties with a crop camera I think it would be a very useful lens. For me it borders on being to wide with a full frame for taking pictures like this.
On a FF:
I would prefer the 35mm inside work.
I prefer the 35mm as a general walk around outside lens because of the focal length.
I would prefer the 24mm for outside landscape and building type pictures.
Buy either one, they are both superb lenses.
Rick
Rick
Thank you very much for the insight.
24mm to 35mm is just 11mm difference,do you think it will make much difference?
Yes it does make a difference. The 24mm will give you a field of view about 40% wider. On a FF in some cases you might feel the 35mm is to narrow for landscapes but not always. The same is true you will feel the 24mm is to wide for what you are trying to capture inside.
I think on a crop camera the 35mm would be getting to narrow for landsape work outside for what I like to shoot. The 24mm would be much more usable inside with the crop. So on a crop camera I think the two lenses become more similar to each other in their uses.
Lets say, for a typical wedding or birthday party, which one is better and which one would have more bokeh?
For framing purposes, if your subject is four feet in front of you, you will crop off about one and a half feet by switching to the longer lens. Those are rough numbers, but it gives you an idea.
Since I never have shot a weeding, I can't say on a typical wedding. But as for birthday parties, having five kids and eight grand kids I get this opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by gandhi
Bokeh would be a rare thing indoors with these lens (at least by the standards of what I consider bokeh to be which would be an area completely blurred). It is much more about out of focus areas.
The wider the lens the deeper the depth of field at equal appertures. The 24mm on a full frame camera would give you far less out of focus area as the 35mm.
One thing the 35mm is good at, you can shoot a subject at a wider aperture and really put the surrounding back ground out of focus to draw attention to your subject.This type of picture gives you a sense of where you are at, and still isolates the subject. Done properly the 35mm can do it better than any other lens I have owned. Because of the larger depth of field of the 24mm, it is harder to do this than it is with the 35mm. (these are observations using a FF camera, with the Crop Sensor and its wider DOF I think the performance would be different)
Thank you very much , its an education for me.
My dilemma is 35mm is such an old lens and there must be some kind of update to it in the near future , at the same time bh photo video is giving really good discount on it, so I am not able to make up my mind whether to take it or wait.
I do photography only as a hobby/passion but I dont live on it,so discount is something I look for, I bought 100mm and 135mm in the last two weeks. Looking for the third one...
Perfect timing, there's a new post on CR that a 35/1.4 II will be announced early January, just before CES. But still might not make it onto the shelves much before March if you're lucky. How badly would you want it now?
(I still vote Samyang 35, but that's me. If a Korean company with not much experience can make a lens as great as that, surely canon with their 60+ years can figure out how to beat it.
Yeah, even I saw that on CR, but is that a rumor or for sure? , if thats for real I can definitely wait,
I have seen some comments made by experts that 24mm is too wide where as 35mm can be used as a walk around lens, is that true? Also does it apply even for crop?
Another Canon Rumor :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
I read it today, and hope it is true. Although I do hope the 24-70mm L II will have IS. I just sold my 24-70mm, that would be good timing on my part. The 24-70mm really needs an upgrade. I sold my backup 5D II also, right before the prices started dropping. (which speaking of Canon rumors...maybe the price breaks indicate a 5D III coming soon?)
I have been thinking of late about trying out the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 Distagon, and using to replace my 35mm L.
@ Gandhi... I wouldn't claim to be an expert. But I would guess that 24mm would be to wide on a FF frame body for most people to consider it a walk around lens. But in the end it depends on what the "expert" is an expert at shooting doesn't it? There may be some that like the wide view. So far I haven't read any thing in your posts that would indicate you would need to have that wide of a walk around lens.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/New...ns-to-the-testQuote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
"In this comparison on a Nikon D3x (Full frame), the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is better than the Carl Zeiss Distagon T 35mm f/1.4 ZF2 in almost all measures, for a price 4 times lower."
I like them words, especially the cheap one (but I did highlight the 'almost'). But still, it's not built like a zeiss tank.
As for lengths, 35mm on crop is a 'normal' lens, like 55mm on FF.
35mm on FF is a 'wide', like a 23mm on a crop.
24mm on a FF is just on the boundary of 'ultra-wide', like 15mm on a crop.
My 35 is perfect for a normal walkaround on my 7D, if/when I go FF it will be my 'wide-angle' walkaround.
24mm would make just as good a 'wide-angle' walkaround on a crop, but as far as mounting it on a FF for an 'ultrawide' walkaround, that's definitely going to depend on what you like shooting. You can get good perspectives and group shots, landscapes, even street-shooting. But personally I'd go the 35mm on either crop or FF first, it you'll get good use out of it on both bodies, whereas the 24mm on FF is a bit more of a 'specialty'.
You've got an APS-C camera. Do you have a general purpose zoom? Ideally, the 15-85mm, but even an 18-55mm kit lens.
Set it to 35mm for a while, then 24mm for a while, in settings where you'd be shooting with the prime. That will give you examples of how the 35L and 24L will frame on your current camera.
Then, set it to 22mm for a while - that's how the 35L on FF will frame. If you have the 15-85mm (or 10-22mm), 15mm will frame like the 24L on FF. If you just have the 17/18-55/85/135/200mm, set it to the widest, and if you still want wider, the 24L on FF will give you that.
When I was looking at the 24L II vs. 35L choice for indoor shooting and nighttime walkaround lens (already using FF), in addition to helpful feedback here from Rick (HDNitehawk) and others, I set my 24-105mm to 24mm for a while, then to 35mm for a while. 35mm was great, and in post processing I found myself cropping the 24mm shots often. So, I got the 35L.
As for OOF blur, the 35L delivers that nicely, at least on FF and with close subjects. Here's an example:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5310/5...176178ce_z.jpg
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
@ Dr Croubie ...When DxO does a review, I usually put a little less weight toward their review than I do other sources. When you got your Samyang initially, I know you thought you might get to do a comparison between Samyang and the Canon 35mm L. I always find it more informative to talk to people who experience both. Sometimes it seems there is a quality that a lens puts out that can't be measured in numbers.
I would have bought the 35L, with the Canon Rumour website claiming that second version of 35mm is coming soon, I dont want to waste my money on a old piece , also waiting desperately for 5D Mark III . I have a crop and I want to upgrade to FF, then I will be compelled to use the 24mm on crop.
Still in Dilemma..............
I would have prolly jumped on the Canon deal of a 5d2 for $1700, or get the 24-105 for just a little more. That's more than half of what a new version would cost whenever it comes out.
where do you see the 5d mark ii. for 1700 dollars?
Canon USA website, refurbished. Canon will include your local sales tax on the sale, unlike some other internet vendors who do not. I would keep this in mind since you can buy a new 5D II at Adorama for $2,099 right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by gandhi
http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...0051_-1_29252#
Last week I sold my 2 1/2 year old 5D II, it looks like good timing on my part.
Also: Canon Rumors, I wouldn't base my purchase decision based on what is posted there. Eventually some of the rumors come true, but it is more likely the rumors are false. We can hope that the two lenses will be released, hopefully the part about no IS on the 24-70 will be false. More than likely we won't see them, and if it is true you can expect to be waiting well over 3 months or more before you actually see the lens in stores.
So when do you think mark lll will come in market?
The falling price cuts do seem kind of fishy. It seems like they are clearing the supply chain.
I would think the marketing department wouldn't release it until after the 1D X is in shops.
Even if they announce a 5D III or any other new body today, you will not see it for five or six months.
A few months after they announce it. Since that hasn't happend yet, no one knows when...nor what features it will have.Quote:
Originally Posted by gandhi
Yeah, I definitely would have liked to do that too, Kind of annoyed my friend sold his 35L, moreso that he didn't offer it to me first. Maybe i'll find another place to do a comparison one day (I saw a wedding the other day in the botanic gardens I was walking through, I was very tempted to go ask if they had one I could borrow, but they didn't look like the kind of photogs that would have said yes).Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
But still, all the reviews I've read seem to basically agree though, there's really not much +/-3% difference from the samyand and zeiss either way, besides build quality and pricetag.
I'm really hoping for a much-improved 35L II, because 2 separate companies have proven you can have sharp corners (and the nikon beats the canon too), plus the advancements in the 13 years since the mk1 came out, the current 35L just looks a bit out of place for its pricetag, the only benefit it has over all the others is AF, for some people that justifies a pricetag, not for me.
If I were looking for one these days, I'd definitely be asking myself how much I needed anything before January, it's probably worth waiting another 4 weeks to announcement (then another 4-8 for the reviews and for it to appear on shelves) unless you really do need it before March, i'd suggest waiting. If there's no announcement before CES/PMA, then make the choice between the 35L mk1, samyang, zeiss, and nikon-with-converter (if you're into that sort of thing).