First prime lens -- 24mm or 35mm?

hello - i recently added the zeiss 35mm f2 to my collection and was able to use it fairly extensively in the city of brugge in belgium. although it is manual focus i'm old enough to have cut my teeth on mf lenses and i found it not to be a problem. i also found the focal length to be ideal in an urban setting. the lens is built like a tank and the output is excellent. i don't own the canon alternative so can't make a comparison but i'm very pleased with the zeiss.
all the best
jim partlo
http://www.pbase.com/partlo

hi, I used it once on a 5d body, the corners are terrible if shooting landscape, on a crop body not a problem but lens distortion is quite noticeable. I had this lens since the film days using on my EOS-1.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=21&sort=7&cat=2&page=1

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

both great lenses... I have the OLD 24L mkI...tried the mkII but it was not enough change to justify the upgrade for me...
and the old one vignettes less....than the mkII

I believe if you want to capture / stop action indoors

...objects and people...in low light ...like a couple people at a dinner table....

and maybe blur the background a bit, the 24L is a good choice
(used 24LmkI is about $900)....
you can capture a room and its activity better with the wider 24L

however

if you want to be in a bit larger area.. outside in low light the 35L MIGHT be a better choice....
also
face and upper body shots will be less distorted as you get closer....

I find the 35L a little sharper wide open ...just a little...
and a little more consistent focus..
although BOTH of my copies are very accurate

a side note....
on the original (old) 24L mkI ...I share the 24-105 hood onto the 24L..
so the 24L comes along in a small kit more often sometimes...

for a fast prime in case I need 3 stops increase in a pinch...
saves hood space...

the 35L is closer to normal...if that is useful
and is in the middle range of both of your shorter zooms

I believe the 24L (mkI or mkII) will be more useful..

because you can also get architectual nite shots and reach more with that width...
i.e. lighted fountain plaza at night

if it matters that you have the most up-to-date gear...

the 24LmkII is modern/already updated...whereas the 35L is ?due to be updated...maybe

hope that helps.....
Tom

I really like 35-40mm perspective on FF. I had the 35L when I just had a 40D to shoot it on and not a 5D, yet. It was just a little too long for me indoors. This is completely personal and will be different from person to person. The images were certainly stunning, either way. Had the 24L II been available then, I would have gotten that instead. Right at about 38mm equiv field of view on a 50D, you'd have a really great general use lens that's not going to be updated any time soon.

I'm sure someone else has said this, but try taping your 17-55 IS to both the 24mm and 35mm focal lengths and spending a few hours with each setting.

Both the 24LII and 35L can stand up to the 50D for cropping, so you can always start with the 24LII and crop a little, too.

--
http://andymcelroy.smugmug.com

ajmeeker said:

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

Click to expand...

You're right i didn't know that one is EF-S. Still would like Canon to do one, and wider like 35mm eq, up to actual wide-angles that aren't slow underperforming zooms for once. Right now anything wider than 45 eq for crops is just dead quiet, that's a whole segment that's missing, but there is definitely a marked to replace the tank size zooms for a premium prime. So where are they.

ajmeeker said:

The Nikon 35mm f/1.8 is a DX lens = EF-S

Click to expand...

Yes Nikon does have a DX '50'. Won't fit my EF mount tho. Plus i'm really after 35 and wider.

ajmeeker said:

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.

Click to expand...

People say that, and it definitely seems it should be true, but in practical use it just isn't so.

andrewbdub said:

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.

Click to expand...

Then you must mean, may not be wide enough !

I would choose the 24L II for it's 38mm FOV and because it is second generation.
I use the 35L on FF.
--

As always, your style affects the choice of focal length. My experience is that I bought the 35L, tried it on a trip, and found it too narrow on a crop camera for my style of travel photograph. On return from the trip, I immediately bought the 24L and it has worked well for travel with a crop camera. The 35L languished until I bought a used 5D.

From the description on your travel photography, I second the recommendation for the 24mmm focal length. On a crop camera you should be happy with either 24L mk1 or mk2.