24mm 1.4 or 35mm 1.4?

I am trying to decide between the 24 1.4 or the 35 1.4 as a low light compliment to my 50 1.4 on my D60, mostly for indoor natural light pictures. I like the fastness and sharpness of the 50 and would like something similar but wider. The 24 seems like the rigth length but I wonder if it is lower in optical quality than the 35. Photodo only rates the 2.8 version of the 24 and I've heard some talk that the 1.4 is soft. I still can't understand the MTF charts on the Canon site. (yes I've read the primer on the photodo site but i just don't get it) Does anyone have experience with both of these lenses or an understanding of MTF charts?

Thanks,

Mario

Mario:

I have the 35/1.4 but have not had it for long enough to be dogmatic in praising or damning it. I plan on getting the 24/1.4 as well but do not have it yet.

As far as Canon's theoretical MTFs are concerned, there seems very little to distinguish between the two in performance even wide open. The 24 falls off more rapidly at the edges, as one would expect. That the curves are so similar seems surprising in that the 24 is considerably wider. I understand Canon's MTFs are design goals, not actual measurements of production lenses. This always begs the question as to how closely any given sample actually approaches the published MTF. In any event, I am no expert in assessing MTF graphs.

However, I just got my D60 and, with the 1.6 crop factor, noticed immediately that the 35mm was not wide enough for interiors.

Not sure the 24 will be either but that 14mm is mighty expensive!

If you already have the 50 then get the 24. You're not going to see a major difference (field-of-view) between a 35 and a 50.

Michael Long said:

If you already have the 50 then get the 24. You're not going to see
a major difference (field-of-view) between a 35 and a 50.

Click to expand...

I have the 50mm and an 28mm 1.8 sigma, but it isn't wide
enough so i'm changing it to at least a 20mm, but what I really
want is a 14mm.. Maybe a 15-30 zoom....

---
ivo

I was unhappy with the canon 14mm lense relative to the 16-35. mmark

vlaag said:

Michael Long said:

If you already have the 50 then get the 24. You're not going to see
a major difference (field-of-view) between a 35 and a 50.

Click to expand...

I have the 50mm and an 28mm 1.8 sigma, but it isn't wide
enough so i'm changing it to at least a 20mm, but what I really
want is a 14mm.. Maybe a 15-30 zoom....

---
ivo

Click to expand...

I have the 24mm 1.4L and I use it as my main lens on my D30 for about 6 months. I also had the 35mm f2 and the 50mm f1.4 but the field of view was not wide enough and that focal length was covered by my 28-70 2.8L. This lens is definitely not soft, on the contrary at f8 it must be one of Canon's sharpest lens, this is based on my experience and it shows also on Canon's MTF curves. (At f8 Canon's MTF curves show the lens is sharper than most of Canon's other lenses.) It is not as good at f1.4. I don't consider it too heavy at all. On the con side, it is terribly expensive and you should know it will flare in direct sunlight more than some others but I try not to shoot at the flare angle and even so I use the hood that comes with the lens. My experience has been that this is a remarkably sharp lens at f2 or higher. If you do a search on this site for 24mm f1.4 you will find comments by other satisfied users of this lens testifying to its sharpness.
Al

Mario Acerra said:

I am trying to decide between the 24 1.4 or the 35 1.4 as a low
light compliment to my 50 1.4 on my D60, mostly for indoor natural
light pictures. I like the fastness and sharpness of the 50 and
would like something similar but wider. The 24 seems like the rigth
length but I wonder if it is lower in optical quality than the 35.
Photodo only rates the 2.8 version of the 24 and I've heard some
talk that the 1.4 is soft. I still can't understand the MTF charts
on the Canon site. (yes I've read the primer on the photodo site
but i just don't get it) Does anyone have experience with both of
these lenses or an understanding of MTF charts?

Thanks,

Mario

Click to expand...

I have the 50/1.4 and the 35/1.4 and I love the compactness of the 50 while I appreciate the sharpness and contrasty of the 35. In my eyes, the 35/1.4 has more color saturation and optical sharpness than the 50.

I'd recommend the 24/1.4 if you already own a 50mm to use with your D60. However, I personally made the choice to get the 35/1.4 because I also use it with my film gear.

Louis

Mario Acerra said:

I am trying to decide between the 24 1.4 or the 35 1.4 as a low
light compliment to my 50 1.4 on my D60, mostly for indoor natural
light pictures. I like the fastness and sharpness of the 50 and
would like something similar but wider. The 24 seems like the rigth
length but I wonder if it is lower in optical quality than the 35.
Photodo only rates the 2.8 version of the 24 and I've heard some
talk that the 1.4 is soft. I still can't understand the MTF charts
on the Canon site. (yes I've read the primer on the photodo site
but i just don't get it) Does anyone have experience with both of
these lenses or an understanding of MTF charts?

Thanks,

Mario

Click to expand...

I like my Sigma 15-30, but haven't taken tons of shots with it yet. I realized very quickly that I will need to get a 420EX for this lens when using it indoors. The 15mm is great (translates to 24mm). It matches what I had with my 24-85mm, and I do feel a 24mm is a good wide angle for inside shots. Every once in awhile I want something wider though.

I'm happy with my 28mm f/1.8 as my wider prime for inside work. I too have the 50 f/1.4. I can tell the difference between these two lenses, but am willing to live with the slower 28mm as I don't expect to use it as much as the 50mm.

vlaag said:

Michael Long said:

If you already have the 50 then get the 24. You're not going to see
a major difference (field-of-view) between a 35 and a 50.

Click to expand...

I have the 50mm and an 28mm 1.8 sigma, but it isn't wide
enough so i'm changing it to at least a 20mm, but what I really
want is a 14mm.. Maybe a 15-30 zoom....

---
ivo

Click to expand...

--
Regards,

Bill

Canon A2e, D60
Canon 24-85mm, 28mm f/1.8, 50 f/1.4
Sigma 15-30mm, Sigma 50-500mm
Nikon Coolpix 995

http://public.fotki.com/o2bnme
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=20514

I had this same debate and went with the 24 1.4. I felt the 24 would cover alot more with the 1.6 crop of the D30. Here are a couple pics with my D30 and the 24 1.4
http://www.pbase.com/image/3008616
http://www.pbase.com/image/3008614

Louis Choi said:

I'd recommend the 24/1.4 if you already own a 50mm to use with your
D60. However, I personally made the choice to get the 35/1.4
because I also use it with my film gear.

Louis

Mario Acerra said:

I am trying to decide between the 24 1.4 or the 35 1.4 as a low
light compliment to my 50 1.4 on my D60, mostly for indoor natural
light pictures. I like the fastness and sharpness of the 50 and
would like something similar but wider. The 24 seems like the rigth
length but I wonder if it is lower in optical quality than the 35.
Photodo only rates the 2.8 version of the 24 and I've heard some
talk that the 1.4 is soft. I still can't understand the MTF charts
on the Canon site. (yes I've read the primer on the photodo site
but i just don't get it) Does anyone have experience with both of
these lenses or an understanding of MTF charts?

Thanks,

Mario

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Tory
D30
24 1.4L
20-35 2.8L
28-70 2.8L
100-400L
http://www.pbase.com/tgyberg

As some have said 24mm might not be wide enough. How about a second hand 24 f2.8 to try out. If it's wide enough you know you want the 24 1.4. If it's not you still have a cheap lens you can trade in for what you do need and you won't have lost much money. I love 24mm on film but for pure optical quality I think the 35 wins. David

Mario Acerra said:

I am trying to decide between the 24 1.4 or the 35 1.4 as a low
light compliment to my 50 1.4 on my D60, mostly for indoor natural
light pictures. I like the fastness and sharpness of the 50 and
would like something similar but wider. The 24 seems like the rigth
length but I wonder if it is lower in optical quality than the 35.
Photodo only rates the 2.8 version of the 24 and I've heard some
talk that the 1.4 is soft. I still can't understand the MTF charts
on the Canon site. (yes I've read the primer on the photodo site
but i just don't get it) Does anyone have experience with both of
these lenses or an understanding of MTF charts?

Thanks,

Mario

Click to expand...

Hi Mark, what did you not like about the 14mm vs. the 16-35? Contrast, colour, corner sharpness?

Thanks, WH

mark kay said:

vlaag said:

Michael Long said:

If you already have the 50 then get the 24. You're not going to see
a major difference (field-of-view) between a 35 and a 50.

Click to expand...

I have the 50mm and an 28mm 1.8 sigma, but it isn't wide
enough so i'm changing it to at least a 20mm, but what I really
want is a 14mm.. Maybe a 15-30 zoom....

---
ivo

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I picked up a 24mm 1.4L as it is right in the middle of a 16-35 2.8L and complements it as it will provide an extra stop of light for you. That's the route I'd take.....

Mario Acerra said:

I am trying to decide between the 24 1.4 or the 35 1.4 as a low
light compliment to my 50 1.4 on my D60, mostly for indoor natural
light pictures. I like the fastness and sharpness of the 50 and
would like something similar but wider. The 24 seems like the rigth
length but I wonder if it is lower in optical quality than the 35.
Photodo only rates the 2.8 version of the 24 and I've heard some
talk that the 1.4 is soft. I still can't understand the MTF charts
on the Canon site. (yes I've read the primer on the photodo site
but i just don't get it) Does anyone have experience with both of
these lenses or an understanding of MTF charts?

Thanks,

Mario

Click to expand...

danks said:

Mario:

I have the 35/1.4 but have not had it for long enough to be
dogmatic in praising or damning it. I plan on getting the 24/1.4 as
well but do not have it yet.

As far as Canon's theoretical MTFs are concerned, there seems very
little to distinguish between the two in performance even wide
open. The 24 falls off more rapidly at the edges, as one would
expect. That the curves are so similar seems surprising in that the
24 is considerably wider. I understand Canon's MTFs are design
goals, not actual measurements of production lenses. This always
begs the question as to how closely any given sample actually
approaches the published MTF. In any event, I am no expert in
assessing MTF graphs.

However, I just got my D60 and, with the 1.6 crop factor, noticed
immediately that the 35mm was not wide enough for interiors.

Not sure the 24 will be either but that 14mm is mighty expensive!

Click to expand...

To go off on a somewhat related tangent, how long are we going to have the situation where it is necessary to use wide-angle 35mm lenses to get something approaching normal on a DSLR? If we are always going to have some factor other than 1.0x then the current lenses are overengineered to be backwardly compatible and end up costing and weighing more than they should. When will manufacturers come out with a camera and interchangeable lenses engineered specifically for a sensor smaller than 35mm, or all they working toward the 1.0x sensor?