Canon EF 35mm f/2 vs Canon EF 24mm f/2.8

[Roger]

I am looking at getting a WA lens for my camera.

Either the Canon EF 35mm f/2 or Canon EF 24mm f/2.8

I want something to do a lot of my day to day shooting in a prime.

I hear a lot of good about the 35mm but the 24mm is a lot wider.

If you were going to compare them in quality which wins?

[Rudi]

35mm f/2! But it's not going to be a wide lens on your Rebel... more like a normal (50mm) lens on a full frame camera. Also, image quality is not everything! If a 24mm lens is what you need than even a crappy 24mm lens is better than a 35mm lens! :)

On your Rebel 35mm f/2 will resemble a 56mm f/2 lens on a film camera
and a 24mm f/2.8 will resemble a 38mm f/2.8 lens on film (still not too wide, but close to a 35mm prime on film).

[Paul S]

Why so set on a prime? Modern zooms can really be quite good--don't judge zooms by the quality of any "kit" lens! The 17-40L is a pretty darn nice lens. (I've heard reports of barrel distortion, but I've never noticed it in mine--maybe I just haven't taken the kind of shots where it's obvious. And besides, that's correctable in PS.)

-Paul

[Roger]

Why so set on a prime? Modern zooms can really be quite good--don't judge zooms by the quality of any "kit" lens! The 17-40L is a pretty darn nice lens. (I've heard reports of barrel distortion, but I've never noticed it in mine--maybe I just haven't taken the kind of shots where it's obvious. And besides, that's correctable in PS.)

-Paul

Action, takes large breath.

Their are a couple of reasons why I have decide to go prime over zoom. Non with are perfect reasons but rather reasons I have felt are compelling in such a way for me to base my decision to go prime.

First, I am very green when it comes to shooting with a DSLR, I didn't have a SLR first, in fact, I have only owned three camera's in my life. I was always awwd by the ability of the picture to freeze life in it's most beautiful moments.

Basicly it boils down to what I want to get out of photogpray, since I am so green to shooting anything but a simple point in click camera I want to learn.

To do that I feel I would and will learn more using a prime lens because I have to think about placment issiues, when it comes to both my self and who or whatever I am shooting. Also since it is a hobbie, I find that most time I can aforrd a prime over a zoom.

In addition, The more I read reviews, the more it looks like in the long run primes own zooms in Quality.

[Rudi]

All good thinking, Roger. I believe that the 35mm f/2 would be a good prime for you, then, since it is a "normal" lens on your Rebel. Also, by limiting yourself to one focal length, you will learn to "see" the world around you as if looking through the viewfinder of a camera with that lens attached. This is a good thing! Learn that lens until it becomes second nature, then bring on another, then another, etc...

Lastly, a fast prime (such as the 35mm f/2) will enable you to shoot with much lower light levels, freeing you up to shoot with available light, without the need for flash photography. I find this to be a good thing, too (I dislike flash even though I need to use it a lot of the time. Flash has its place, such as fill-flash, but I prefer available light shooting, if at all available). And of course, with a wide aperture, playing with, and using shallow DOF to your advantage is another reason to own a fast prime.

Get the 35mm f/2, unless you *know* you would prefer an even wider lens to start off with. Good luck! :)

[Roger]

All good thinking, Roger. I believe that the 35mm f/2 would be a good prime for you, then, since it is a "normal" lens on your Rebel. Also, by limiting yourself to one focal length, you will learn to "see" the world around you as if looking through the viewfinder of a camera with that lens attached. This is a good thing! Learn that lens until it becomes second nature, then bring on another, then another, etc...

Lastly, a fast prime (such as the 35mm f/2) will enable you to shoot with much lower light levels, freeing you up to shoot with available light, without the need for flash photography. I find this to be a good thing, too (I dislike flash even though I need to use it a lot of the time. Flash has its place, such as fill-flash, but I prefer available light shooting, if at all available). And of course, with a wide aperture, playing with, and using shallow DOF to your advantage is another reason to own a fast prime.

Get the 35mm f/2, unless you *know* you would prefer an even wider lens to start off with. Good luck! :)

You really think that F 2 works well in doors?

I have used my 50 1.8 inside and most of the time movement blurs, now given I use P and not M * still new on metering and all of that* but I would think that you'd want to go for the expensive 1.4 lens if your shooting low light.

[Paul S]

Okay, I can see that--you will learn a lot from moving around to get the shot you want rather than just zooming. It's a good habit to get into! For this purpose, I'd recommend a "normal" lens. For full frame, that's 50mm. For your Rebel, though, that's about 31mm. So the 35mm is closest to that. But really, why not just get the 50/1.8? It's faster than either of the two you list, plus it's the cheapest lens Canon makes, and one of the sharpest as well. (And you can put the savings in the bank to start saving for a 17-40! ;) )

I also just checked the price of those two lenses--you're not going to get a decent zoom in that price range! But don't let the reviews spoil your opinion of zooms--some of those people are living in the past. Good quality modern zooms are very good. I know some excellent photographers (who are also technophiles who scrutinize things like MTF curves), who use only zooms at the wide end. But only L-class zooms.

Rudi makes a good point, but it really depends on your style of photography. I do mainly nature photography, and the vast, vast majority of my shots are on a tripod. So a fast lens is pretty much irrelevant to me for landscapes, since those will normally be at f/11-f/22, not f/2. But that's me, not necessarily you. (But I still recommend the use of a tripod whenever possible--having the camera rigidly supported means that you can take the time to scrutinize your composition much more carefully before shooting.)

BTW, it's just a hobby for me too! It took a couple of decades for me to build up to some decent gear (a 17-40L, 300/2.8, and a Sigma 50-500) from a couple of cheap zooms and a 50. It took me a while to recognize just how good that 50 was relative to the cheap zooms, but I'm glad I did! One of these days I'll pick up a 50/1.8, but my current zooms are good enough that the only reason I want one is for the speed and compactness. It's telling that these are virtually non-existent on the used market (in the EF mount, that is).

-Paul

[Paul S]

Okay, now I see that you already have a 50/1.8. Then go for the 24. The 35 is too close to the 50.

-Paul

[Paul S]

Also, you mention seeing blurring in the 50/1.8 when used indoors. I presume that you know the old rule of thumb that says that your minimum shutter speed when shooting handheld is the reciprocal of the lens length--so a 50mm lens should be shot at 1/50s or faster. This assumes you have reasonably steady hands. But it also assumes you use a full frame camera. Your camera is not. The "effective" focal length of that 50mm is 80mm. That means you should be shooting at 1/80s or faster. But P mode tries to maintain a speed of 1/60s, going faster only in bright light. That's not fast enough unless you have VERY steady hands. Try using Tv in that situation, with a speed of 1/90s or faster.

-Paul

[Rudi]

A fast lens will not prevent motion blur - whether caused by the photographer, or the subject! :)

[Roger]

Also, you mention seeing blurring in the 50/1.8 when used indoors. I presume that you know the old rule of thumb that says that your minimum shutter speed when shooting handheld is the reciprocal of the lens length--so a 50mm lens should be shot at 1/50s or faster. This assumes you have reasonably steady hands. But it also assumes you use a full frame camera. Your camera is not. The "effective" focal length of that 50mm is 80mm. That means you should be shooting at 1/80s or faster. But P mode tries to maintain a speed of 1/60s, going faster only in bright light. That's not fast enough unless you have VERY steady hands. Try using Tv in that situation, with a speed of 1/90s or faster.

-Paul

Oh ok, I will try to remember the 1.6 crop factor when choosing shutter speed.

[Roger]

Back to the zoom vs prime.

Don't get me wrong, it is very possible for me to end up buying a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM.

Only because there is nothing that wide in a prime.


And for the most part the 10mm isn't going to save you from moving to get a different viewpoint.


The only thing that keeps me away from it is the cost. dunno;

[Osprey Whisperer]

Tokina makes a decent 17mm prme (also a 12-24mm zoom)...in their AT-X line. I think it might be discontinued...but see it often used on KEH, Ebay and other places. Under $350 and built like a tank. It's received decent reviews...espeially for the money. It's a bit slow for low light/indooor shooting...but for outdoor wide angle it's a good value. I've also heard from friends that own/use the 12-24mm zoom..this rivals the quality of the Canons. MIght be a lens I pick up soon as well.

Just a thought. Have heard mixed reviews about Sigmas 14/15 mm f/2.8/3.5 wide angle prime ...???

Too bad Canon doesn't make a decent fast prime ultra wide lens. Not much of a zoom fan myself.

[Roger]

Tokina makes a decent 17mm prme (also a 12-24mm zoom)...in their AT-X line. I think it might be discontinued...but see it often used on KEH, Ebay and other places. Under $350 and built like a tank. It's received decent reviews...espeially for the money. It's a bit slow for low light/indooor shooting...but for outdoor wide angle it's a good value. I've also heard from friends that own/use the 12-24mm zoom..this rivals the quality of the Canons. MIght be a lens I pick up soon as well.

Just a thought. Have heard mixed reviews about Sigmas 14/15 mm f/2.8/3.5 wide angle prime ...???

Too bad Canon doesn't make a decent fast prime ultra wide lens. Not much of a zoom fan myself.

I am just not sure if I want to mix in non - canon brand lens into my bag.