First prime lens -- 24mm or 35mm?

Almost all my photography is done when I'm traveling and almost all of it is street photography, capturing the local way of living, emotions, etc. I have a 50D and have 17-55 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4 L, 70-200 f/4 L, and for the first time, I'm considering getting a prime lens. On my last trip to the Middle East (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria), I primarily used the 17-55 f/2.8 and in fact, never used the 70-200 f/4. I want a fast lens to be able to shoot in low light as well as to create the depth of field I often want. I'm looking at either the 24 f/1.4 L or the 35 f/1.4 L. I think the 50 F/1.2 is not going to be wide enough for my crop. For those with experience with either then 24 or the 35, any advice, comments, suggestions?

Happy Thanksgiving!

Both are fine lenses so it comes down to which is most useful for your shooting style. Since you own the 17-55 which covers both focal lengths, I would use it at 24mm and then 35mm and see which perspective you like the best.
Best regards.

You already have two excellent lenses with both 24mm and 35mm settings on them.

Perchance some thinking is in order.

Which of the two focal length settings is most unsatisfactory to you, to an extent where gaining a stop or two, and losing image stabilization, would be worth more than a thousand dollars?

Simple enough.

BAK

I hate that there aren't any fast EF-S primes for us to choose. Those L lenses are way bigger and more expensive than they would need to be for a crop sensor. Come on Canon, make us a EF-S 22mm F/1.4 USM and a EF-S 32mm F/1.4 USM so we have our high-end 35 and 50 for crop ! Just as compact, sharp, clear, and vivid as the EF-S 60mm F/2.8 Macro USM masterpiece.

you can get the sigma 30mm f/1.4, it's somewhere in the middle, small, sharp, and it's an EF-S lens.

Or you can get a Nikon D3100 + 35mm f/1.8. again small, very sharp, and it would be a heck of alot cheaper than either the 35L or 24L.

First, I prefer primes when shooting street photography as there are already many things going on in my head when shooting 'out and about." I'm usually bouncing ISO all over the place as lighting changes, which can happen quickly and dramatically when you aren't in a static environment. Also in lower light I'm usually messing around very frequently with my Av setting, which of course affects my shutter speed.

When I use a prime versus a zoom, I'm not also zooming in and out while working "mentally" on the shot. If you use a prime, you quickly develop a feel for its focal lenght, field of view, and what you can and can not do; it isn't rocket science.

I just recently purchased the Canon 35mm f2.0 to supplement my Sigma 50mm f1.4, I also do a lot of winery photography which entails wide open vistas. The lens is quite sharp, the only negative is the motor can make a tiny "zip" sound while autofocusing, which is relatively quiet. This lens is like the Canon 50mm f1.8, a hidden gem that most don't consider, or heck, even take seriously.

The lens most used way back when in street photography was the "standard" lens, usually around 50mm. The 35mm lens is the new 50, in a crop sensor camera.

--
An excellent lens lasts a lifetime, an excellent DSLR, not so long.

Images for the Canon 35mm f2.0:

http://www.flickriver.com/search/Canon+35mm+f2.0/interesting/

--
An excellent lens lasts a lifetime, an excellent DSLR, not so long.

Get the 24mm f/1.4 if you can afford it.

You can pair it with the inexpensive 50mm and have a great combo, equivalent to the very potent combo 35+85 on FF
--
Click Click ....

As much as I LOVE my 35 1.4 it may be too wide for you on a 50D. My 35 1.4 gets a lot of use on my 5D, but not so much on my 40D.
--
andrew
http://www.pbase.com/abott

I've been to each of those countries you mention and a 1.4 prime will be very useful in mosques, dark souqs, old buildings, on the street at night, etc, etc.
--
andrew
http://www.pbase.com/abott

I've the 35L and use it on my 5DMKII, on my crop canon (60D) it's not that wide, I've not tried the 24L but I do have a Sigma 30mm f1.4 which is superb and sharp right from f1.4

applefan said:

Almost all my photography is done when I'm traveling and almost all of it is street photography, capturing the local way of living, emotions, etc. I have a 50D and have 17-55 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4 L, 70-200 f/4 L, and for the first time, I'm considering getting a prime lens. On my last trip to the Middle East (Lebanon, Jordan, Syria), I primarily used the 17-55 f/2.8 and in fact, never used the 70-200 f/4. I want a fast lens to be able to shoot in low light as well as to create the depth of field I often want. I'm looking at either the 24 f/1.4 L or the 35 f/1.4 L. I think the 50 F/1.2 is not going to be wide enough for my crop. For those with experience with either then 24 or the 35, any advice, comments, suggestions?

Happy Thanksgiving!

Click to expand...

--
http://racketshots.co.uk/racket/

http://bbphotochallenge.com

24mm for me.

For street photography on FF, I don't like 24mm focal length at all, I always use 35 and/or 50. I only use mainly 24 for landscape.

At F1.4 it was not usable, unlike my 85 f1.2.

The auto focus was very hit and miss, both copies i bought.

I returned it and bought another 5d2.

--

lenses make the image, the camera only records it. my zoom is my feet, not my fingers, don't be lazy, buy primes

Not familiar with pixel-peeper ?

http://pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=38

ajmeeker said:

you can get the sigma 30mm f/1.4, it's somewhere in the middle, small, sharp, and it's an EF-S lens.

Or you can get a Nikon D3100 + 35mm f/1.8. again small, very sharp, and it would be a heck of alot cheaper than either the 35L or 24L.

Click to expand...

My point with EF-S is that they're made specifically for crop. Read: Optimized glass for a smaller image-circle. It allows the lens to either be smaller with the same max aperture, or to be faster at the same size. Not to mention the increase in quality. Shooting a full-frame lens with a crop body is like using a 50mm with a extender to shoot macro, the quality simply degrades. Like burning ants with a magnifying glass; if the focus point is too big you know it won't work, it'll lose strength. The same goes for a lens's projection.

I have the 24mm 2.8, the 28mm 1.8 and the 35mm F2.

Least like is the 24mm, tough choice between the 28mm 1.8 and the 35mmf2, I say go for the 35mm f2, who cares about the dated AF, it's fine with the 50D, I also have 50d, it's the end result that matters. But I love the 28mm built, it just feels tight solid and precise but I notice more distortion nothing that photoshop can't fix,I'd say about +1.25

I like your style

dwill23 said:

At F1.4 it was not usable, unlike my 85 f1.2.

The auto focus was very hit and miss, both copies i bought.

I returned it and bought another 5d2.

--

lenses make the image, the camera only records it. my zoom is my feet, not my fingers, don't be lazy, buy primes

Click to expand...

what don't you like about the 24mm f2.8 ?

abi170845 said:

I have the 24mm 2.8, the 28mm 1.8 and the 35mm F2.

Least like is the 24mm, tough choice between the 28mm 1.8 and the 35mmf2, I say go for the 35mm f2, who cares about the dated AF, it's fine with the 50D, I also have 50d, it's the end result that matters. But I love the 28mm built, it just feels tight solid and precise but I notice more distortion nothing that photoshop can't fix,I'd say about +1.25

Click to expand...

M Jesper said:

ajmeeker said:

you can get the sigma 30mm f/1.4, it's somewhere in the middle, small, sharp, and it's an EF-S lens.

Or you can get a Nikon D3100 + 35mm f/1.8. again small, very sharp, and it would be a heck of alot cheaper than either the 35L or 24L.

Click to expand...

My point with EF-S is that they're made specifically for crop. Read: Optimized glass for a smaller image-circle. It allows the lens to either be smaller with the same max aperture, or to be faster at the same size. Not to mention the increase in quality. Shooting a full-frame lens with a crop body is like using a 50mm with a extender to shoot macro, the quality simply degrades. Like burning ants with a magnifying glass; if the focus point is too big you know it won't work, it'll lose strength. The same goes for a lens's projection.

Click to expand...

ok, what are you getting to?

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a DG lens = EF-S
The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is a DX lens = EF-S

And i would argue against the idea of using a FF lens on an APS-C or 4/3rds degrades quality. If anything, the FF lenses would optically be the better lenses because the smaller sensor is only using the center-most portion of the image circle, where any lens performs its best.