 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 2
I am still trying to decide which to pickup. I have a 50 1.2L and the 85L + 135L + 300L will definitely join the prime kit next year. But as for now i'm trying to decide between the 24 1.2L and the 35 1.2L.
Which would you choose and why? Consider the ability to use on both a FF and a 1.6 crop.
Thanks!
Last edited by KeeFy; 23-09-2011 at 12:47pm.
speaking from my experience i would go for the 24mm mkII with your line up (it's pretty close to mine).Though it would be nice if there was a 24mm f/1.2
the 24, 50 and 135 make a lovely 3 lens combo. or the 24 and the 85 a great 2some. can't go wrong.
also the 24mm is a newer lens than the 35 and probably has slightly better optics.
you could always wait for the 35mm MKII to come out....
I'm sure i'll pick one up when it does.
Canon 5D MKII, 17-40mm f/4L, 24-105mm f/4L, 17mm TS-E f/4L, 24mm f/1.4L II, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L
135mm f/2L.
Alien bee lights, Gitzo tripods, Adobe CS5
I find the single most valuable tool on my computer is my recycle bin.
I own the 35L and prefer that focal length for wedding photography for candids and small group shots, and the close focusing ability of the lens is invaluable for certain creative shots too, never liked the 50L really
the 24L is a bit too wide for weddings for what I do half the time, but thats where the Sigma 12-24 comes into its own - talking about on full frame sensors though
it really depends on your own style of shooting
but the 3 most lauded primes have always been the 35, 85 and 135 for fashion and weddings, the 50 gives a 'boring' and normal perspective.
buy both and be done with it!
The focal lengths of 50 and 35 are pretty similar, this had stopped me jumping on the 50L for a while, but for me 85L might be too long. It depends, 35L is nice on 1.6x crop but thats similar to your 50L on FF. But if you get the 24L you get a 24mm on FF and approx similar focal lengthto 35L on 1.6x crop. (38mm). So you would essentially get 24mm, 38mm and 50mm. Wherease if u went for the 35L you get 35mm, and 50mm and 50mm.Dof differs but if you can only have one lens, focal length wise on 2 bodies the 24L makes more sense.
1DIII, 5DII, 15mm fish, 24mm ts-e, 35L,135L,200L,400L,mpe-65mm
Film: eos 300, pentax 6x7
I have reently picked up the 24mm f1.4 as i have the 50 f1.2, like you I was having a hard time deciding, finally my decision came down to the conclusion the 35mm was too close to the 50mm on FF so opted for the 24mm, spent a week away at Byron Bay area giving the lens a full work out and I have to say it never let me down, great lens, I'll post some images when i get through PP.
Hope this helps.
Cameras: Canon 5D MkIII, Canon 7D gripped.
Lenses: 24mmmm f1.4 L, 24-105mm f4 L, 50mm f1.2 L, 85mm f1.2 II L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS II
Flash: Canon 600 EX RT.
Tripod: Manfrotto 190CX Pro3, Manfrotto Automatic Monopod, Manfrotto 498RC2 Ball Head.
Bank Manager: Unhappy.
I have the 50, 85, 135 and also pondered long and hard whether I wanted the 35 or 24. I eventually settled on the 24L Mark I, as I just felt the 35 was a little too close in focal length to the 50. I have the 35 FL covered with the 16-35 but I dont use it that much for the style of photography I do. I find if I want wide angle then the 24 gives me the perspective and DOF I need. I have had opportunity to buy the 35L but as I said I just never felt I would gain much. Once again this all personal choice and will depend on what you want to photograph.
www.kjbphotography.com.au
1DxII, EOS R, 200-400 f4L Ext, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II, 70-200 F4IS, 24-70 F2.8 II, 16-35 F4IS
Threadstarter
Thank you for your opinions! Greatly appreciated.
I read a lot about the 35L being too similar with the 50L but thing is i notice it's still not that similar. 24L is a little wide for my liking but it is an awesome walkabout lens on a FF. I would love both and i reckon eventually i'll have both one day or another but it's prioritising which one i really want. I'm more inclined with the 35L as the images i've seen for event and wedding photography are awesome. Gives a little bit more background but keeps focus on the subject. The 50 1.2 on the other hand have a narrower FOV but subject isolation is awesome on a FF bar 85L and 135L which both can get a little too long for indoor stuff.
24L in my opinion has too wide of a FOV and is really only good for group shots, which i will have the 24-70 or 12-24 for. I'm selecting my kit based on wedding/even photography as a few of my close friends are getting married and i've been requested to cover their wedding as the main photog. The soonest will be in Bangkok in November and i'm still wondering if i should rent a 5d ,which is going to be expensive as prior to BKK i'll be overseas for a month in Europe. It seems BKK does not have a camera rental business :/ I'll be very happy with a 5D mk1 if i can rent one for cheap or am considering buying one 2nd hand for and selling when i return. Ahhh ........ choices choices.
EF24F/1.4L MkII would be the much more sensible choice for a Wedding & Events Kit, based upon the cameras being a Dual Format.Originally Posted by KeeFy
The 24 on APS-C provides an effective 38mm FoV at F/1.4 and on the 135Format provides the native 24/1.4.
For light a light weight, two camera dual format, three lens kit (for example travelling OS) the three lenses would be 24, 50 and 135 providing excessively fast effective: 24, 38, 50, 80, 135, and 216 FoV
If the camera format is limited to 135 ("Full Frame"), then for a W&E kit the better choice is still the 24/1.4MkII as one can shoot wider and crop effectively to make the equivalent 35 FoV, though with a slight loss of DoF leverage and a slight change of perspective.
WW
Last edited by William W; 24-09-2011 at 8:42am.
you tend to forget one little thing which a lot of photojournalists, wedding photographers and travelers use the 35L for William.......it can provide more noticeable subject separation from foreground to background even without being close and better bokeh. The 24L being a lot wider, lacks this ability.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree about the 24mm 1.4 not having that ability.
here's some proof.
I'm sorry but I have to disagree about the 24mm 1.4 not having that ability.
here's some proof.
Sorry but I'd disagree with your examples, not really good enough for my standards in terms of DECENT bokeh and subject separation. Im talking about maintaining a decent distance between subject and camera and achieving good bokeh, not right up their nose.
No 1. is almost a joke if its about a good blur of separation. No 3. is real up close and not what Im talking about, likewise for No 4.
Like I said earlier, 35L still provides better separation and no need to get THAT close up.
Last edited by JM Tran; 24-09-2011 at 5:40pm.
Thank you for your comments on my response to the OP’s question.
Your critique is factually incorrect.
I DID note that the 24 was different to the 35 in respect of background separation.
It is noted in my comment here:
“If the camera format is limited to 135 ("Full Frame"), then for a W&E kit the better choice is still the 24/1.4MkII as one
can shoot wider and crop effectively to make the equivalent 35 FoV, though with a slight loss of DoF leverage and a slight change of perspective.”
Apropos your comment that the 24 “lacks” the ability of separation: I disagree.
As well as citing the samples provided above, here are some more:
And using the perspective of a close 24 combined with a lower camera angle whilst still using a small aperture to provide a large DoF:
And on an APS-C:
The OP asked which lens, with respect to BOTH camera formats and also noted later that both lenses would eventually be purchased.
I stand by my comments that the 24 is the better first purchase and the for the reasons outlined and certainly I was not overlooking the nuances of background separation, you mentioned.
You mentioned that you own the 35L – I own and use both the 35L and the 24L in a dual format kit and I make comparisons of both lenses, used on both formats, during my normal work-day, often.
WW
Last edited by William W; 24-09-2011 at 6:05pm.
Hmm . . .
Separation is separation.
Bokeh, by definition is Subjective.
In answering the OP’s questions with opinion and perhaps example - I didn’t think that our photography would invite open ridicule: “almost a joke”.
Nor do I see on the rules, where anyone has to come up to anyone else’s “standards”
WW
Thank you for your comments on my response to the OP’s question.
Your critique is factually incorrect.
I DID note that the 24 was different to the 35 in respect of background separation.
It is noted in my comment here:
“If the camera format is limited to 135 ("Full Frame"), then for a W&E kit the better choice is still the 24/1.4MkII as one
can shoot wider and crop effectively to make the equivalent 35 FoV, though with a slight loss of DoF leverage and a slight change of perspective.”
Apropos your comment that the 24 “lacks” the ability of separation: I disagree.
As well as citing the samples provided above, here are some more:
And using the perspective of a close 24 combined with a lower camera angle whilst still using a small aperture to provide a large DoF:
And on an APS-C:
The OP asked which lens, with respect to BOTH camera formats and also noted later that both lenses would eventually be purchased.
I stand by my comments that the 24 is the better first purchase and the for the reasons outlined and certainly I was not overlooking the nuances of background separation, you mentioned.
You mentioned that you own the 35L – I own and use both the 35L and the 24L in a dual format kit and I make comparisons of both lenses, used on both formats, during my normal work-day, often.
WW
LOL! Once again, your examples arent really that great mate for your opinion honestly, is the first one meant to show a good subject separation? Or what is it?
I own the 35, having sold the 50 and the older 24 mark I. For full time work, and occasionally on both formats, wow! So whats your point?
Your last example of that photo is good subject separation, the kind of bokeh I am implying. HOWEVER - it is shot very close and if the shooter took a few steps back, voila - that nice OOF bokeh is gone. To be replaced by something like the first example you posted. My reasoning of why the 35L is so favoured among a lot of pros is that it still allows a degree of wideness but can separate the subject very well AT A DISTANCE, unlike the 24L which needs to get a lot closer. It is a good compromise between the 24 and 50.
Find me a wedding photographer that gets right up close to their subject with the 24L in order to achieve that? Good luck
I didnt know there are rules in photography? But there are differing standards, you have yours, I have mine. Theres no right or wrong about it, just a difference of opinions.Nor do I see on the rules, where anyone has to come up to anyone else’s “standards”
Last edited by JM Tran; 24-09-2011 at 6:20pm.
Your attitude is antagonistic and off topic, IMO.
Your critique of my written contribution is in error, factually.
Your "opinions" on the lens(es) the OP should buy are certainly warranted, but the slants your comments have taken , IMO, are not.
Restated :
Separation is Separation.
Bokeh, by definition is subjective.
WW
Sorry but separation and bokeh are linked together. Subjective or not, thats where opinions come in. I dont think I am being antagonistic but merely questioning your 'factual' stuff, Im not one to count numbers or pixel peep. Will be doing a label shoot on Monday, I'll make sure I'll use the 35L a lot and post up some photos of it later to show why it is a much lauded lens in the fashion, weddings and travel professionals. Just for you
Settle down guys! - treat this as a warning
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
Threadstarter
Woooaaahhhh. Hold your horses people, let's not get carried away.
Certain points i agree with.
On a FF:
The 24L is that you do need to get a bit too close for subject isolation and can get a little disruptive for a wedding. Also with a 24L you need further background distance for subject isolation. In a closed environment like a church or such, it'll be a little hard. 35L can get a little too similar to a 50L. Maybe i should have gone with a 35L and 85L instead? :/
On a crop:
24L = 38mm. Decent distance but a little too close to a 50L as i will be running 2 systems. 35L on FF and 50L (80mm) on crop may be a good idea
I agree Bokeh and Subject isolation is 2 different things. Bokeh IS subjective and can't really be measured.
What brought me to ask this question is because of the idea of 35 being too close to 50, 24 being too far from 50. I think i like the 35 on FF and 50 on crop idea.
JMT!! you're really on some kind of crusade to prove a point that I've repeatedly made over the past few years.. you have no idea on technical concepts and your opinions do not(that is I REPEAT DO NOT!!) make for technical dissertations!
separation and bokeh are not concepts that always go hand in hand. They are distinct properties.
apologies if this bruises your ego somewhat, but it needs to be reiterated again .. to the point where I could write an encyclopaedia on the misinformation you've tried to present as some kind of technical gibberish(again!)
Mate!! .... if you cant' see the separation of subject and background in the sample images posted, I really think you need some kind of formal training or photography course that will help you to understand some of the technical concepts is. Or maybe a properly calibrated monitor.
Whatever your issue(s) are, there is one painfully obvious trait in most of your replies of this nature .. you seem to have no grasp of what a technical concept is.
Try not to sully a topic that become immersed in a technical manner with your own opinions presented as some kind of new age technical data!
In the above quoted passage, I'd like to know how your 'standards'of decent bokeh and separation have become embroiled in a discussion based on facts and learning!
You need to stop using personal opinions in an abrasive manner when the discussion delves into logic and known concepts.
I think there are many here who really dot' care if the subject isolation in James' images are 'not up to your standards'
Fact is!! that they are good examples of subject isolation using a wide angle lens!
one thing you need to do(which you have clearly indicated in this thread) is that you need to do a bit more research on what the topic of discussion is about.
in your last reply to William you say ... "Your last example of that photo is good subject separation, the kind of bokeh I am implying" and it's here that you clearly show us a lack of understanding of what constitutes separation and what bokeh is. They are not the same thing!
I'm guessing (as with myself) that 99.9% of the AP population don't really care what you think something is(or isn't), but what it certainly is, is a strictly defined technical concept! This is not generally 'open to interpretation' .. and more so when the interpretation has been misunderstood!
So to set the record straight: Just because you don't believe that the results are not pleasing, doesn't mean that the concept needs to be disseminated and restructured.
Why has the topic of distance to subject entered into the equation as a point of contention suddenly?
This wasn't mentioned before, and it hasn't cropped up as a topic for discussion, let alone as a negative point! In fact it was YOU that introduced the concept of the ability to focus closer in one instance and that this is a positive aspect of he 35L! So on one hand the ability to get closer(with the 35L) is a good thing(as implied by you), yet on the other hand there is no one in their right mind that will use the 24 and get in close to the subject!! Well! which one is it? or is it both, but only because you mentioned it?
Your responses have most certainly been abrasive and argumentative, and not really helping further the topic in any way.
You have introduced inconsistent or opposing arguments into the subject(as per usual!) and adding to that, a level of gibberish and falsehoods in a technical sense(which only serves to confuse other readers that aren't well versed in technical explanations).. although I somehow feel as tho the OP may have some level of understanding of most of the discussion.
I have no personal opinion on either lenses, never having any experience with either of them.
I have no issue on debating the virtues of either lens, nor debating the virtues of our own opinions(as William may well know).
But when the discussion is diluted with misinformation and an attempt is made to manufacture technical concepts from personalised opinionated preferences, there is a line drawn.
And as for this type of insidious garbage!! ...
if this isn't antagonistic, then I'd love to know what is. I'm going to bring it up with the other mods and we'll work out if action needs to be taken....... Will be doing a label shoot on Monday, I'll make sure I'll use the 35L a lot and post up some photos of it later to show why it is a much lauded lens in the fashion, weddings and travel professionals. Just for you
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
Sorry Arthur, reading your post only serves to further fuel this debate further. Once again, I consider those photo examples poor examples of subject separation FROM THE 24L ALONE and arent really what was in my point of debate. Or have I or others lost the ability to give our own opinions?
I prefer not to be someone who gets too technical and counts numbers and debate technical stuff, rather be out there making photos and art you know, and print them too, you know. But I can say I know what I am talking about otherwise I wouldnt be where I am today, hmmm? You know what they say about those who focus too much on technical stuff.....
eh? my point with the 35L is its ability to not need to get closer to the subject and still maintain good separation whereas the 24 does? If a member like Keefy can understand my point, its not that hard is it?This wasn't mentioned before, and it hasn't cropped up as a topic for discussion, let alone as a negative point! In fact it was YOU that introduced the concept of the ability to focus closer in one instance and that this is a positive aspect of he 35L! So on one hand the ability to get closer(with the 35L) is a good thing(as implied by you), yet on the other hand there is no one in their right mind that will use the 24 and get in close to the subject!! Well! which one is it? or is it both, but only because you mentioned it?
hmmm resorting to calling my posts gibberish and falsehoods now? Other members seem to understand? Maybe I should report that to other mods as BAITING? I seem to be quite civilized here and have repeatedly pointed out that it is my OPINION and mine alone and do not represent facts at all, nor am I insulting any individual or their works?You have introduced inconsistent or opposing arguments into the subject(as per usual!) and adding to that, a level of gibberish and falsehoods in a technical sense(which only serves to confuse other readers that aren't well versed in technical explanations).. although I somehow feel as tho the OP may have some level of understanding of most of the discussion.
Sorry but I dont recall where I HAVE STATED that subject separation and bokeh are the same? Can you show me where? Because I mentioned it together in the same sentence and that they are intrinsically linked together? Did I say it is the same thing? Anything else you want to take out of context? I didnt know something relating to another means that it is THE SAME now?one thing you need to do(which you have clearly indicated in this thread) is that you need to do a bit more research on what the topic of discussion is about.
in your last reply to William you say ... "Your last example of that photo is good subject separation, the kind of bokeh I am implying" and it's here that you clearly show us a lack of understanding of what constitutes separation and what bokeh is. They are not the same thing!
So really, if you are trying to bait me further, all you will end up with is a smiley face and a
Last edited by JM Tran; 25-09-2011 at 2:00am.
Posting Permissions
Add To Bookmarks
