I currently own the 35L but am getting a bit itchy for the 24L as 35 is often not wide enough.
I am afraid that when I have the 24, my 35 will stay home all the time. I don't really want to let go the 35 as it's an excellent prime, it's so sharp wide open...
Anybody own both the 24 and 35 here? what are your experiences? Do you find both to be useful?
It will solve my problem if Canon makes a 20 1.4, but let's keep dreaming :P
They are fairly interchangeable and sometimes the longer length of the 35L is better. In any case, they are noticeably different in length so they each have their uses. But often times I do favor the wider 24L.
I've owned both lenses. Both are excellent lenses and there is a big enough difference between 24mm and 35mm that you can justify owning both. I decided to keep the 35L when I got the 5D as 24mm was a bit too wide for my style to be used as frequently as I use the 35L.
I own the 35L and I'd like to get the 24L too. I do have a suggestion for you though and it may give you a little more flexibility for a wider prime and that's the 24 TSE f/3.5L.
True, it's slower, but it does provide the width and have some special features that will make landscape shooting easier. I own all 3 of the TSEs and they're great lenses....
I have both lenses, I also have the Sigma 20/1.8 (some say that I have a problem...) The 24 and 35 are very different lenses to me, 24mm is quite a bit wider than 35. They are both fantastic lenses, the 35L seems to get a better buzz, in my mind this leaves the 24L a little underrated, but a real joy to use. Two unique things about about the 24L is that you can really get that "medium format" effect with wide angle and nice background blur, the other nice thing is casual astrophotography. I'm certainly no astrophotographer, but on I've used this lens a number of times on trips or vacations to do a wide-open sky exposure with great results.
I have a 16-35Mk I and a 35L (no 24L) and base my comments on different articles I've read by other reviewers. I posted a link to Michael's article (of Luminous Landscape fame) for comparative comments.
------------------------------
Where's the BeeMan?
Last I saw, he was climbing into his Class 1A rated flame resistant, flame suit. Why?
I had the 24mm L and 35mm L. I sold them when I got my 17-40 L. Why? Well I never shoot the lenses wide open, if you need the fast speed for low light your stuck with the L primes. I usually stop down for depth of field landscape or architecture shots. When pixel peeping 100% my 17-40 L compared to the 24 and 35 at the same focal length I could not tell the difference. Might be hard to believe but I did the tests first hand for myself on a tripod.
One of the primes 35 or 24 was terrible with purple fringing in high contrast situations as well. Unless you need the fast glass and shoot below f4 the primes could go as far as I'm concerned.
I have both and use them regularly sometime even together on seperate bodies. I don't really prefer one over the other. I also have the 16-35L ll, but it doesn't get used in applications that I need the 1.4 of the 24L or 35L, like low ambient light shots. In other words having both is great!
Get the 24L too, you won't be disappointed.
I own both, I use both. On full frame (5D) and crop (30D).
Fabulous lenses. I am lucky (?) enough to have a 24L as sharp as the 35L at the center.
Personlly I have never found I needed a fast lens wider than 35mm on a full frame body. The 35L has served me well, but I don't have any real desire to invest in the 24L. The 17-40 and the 24-105 both cover 24mm well enough for my purposes.
