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?
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 RumorOriginally 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-test
"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'.
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
Gear Photos
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:
EOS 5D Mark II, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, 1/30 s, f/1.4, ISO 100
Last edited by neuroanatomist; 12-11-2011 at 02:08 AM.
@ 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.
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?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
