Difference between the Canon 24 f/1.4L and 28 f/1.8?

[JClishe]

So here's the deal: I was on vacation about a month ago and every night before we left the hotel room to go to dinner and whatever else we had planned for after dinner, I put the 16-35 on my 50D and carried it with me all night (no bag). I was mostly just in "tourist" mode, wanting to get photos of the family and the places we visited. Knowing that I would be shooting inside at night, I figured the 16-35 was a good choice. Anyway, turns out I had a ton of fun. I don't normally carry my camera around with me at home as much as I did on vacation, mostly out of fear of being stared at and looking like a tourist. But on vacation I *was* a tourist, so I figured WTF and took pictures everywhere. And with the 16-35 I was able to get some really nice, low light, no flash, photos. Especially at places like Hard Rock Cafe that have really nice ambient lighting.

But, even though the 16-35 is pretty fast, I still had to push the ISO on the 50D up outside its comfort zone.

Returning from vacation I realized 2 things: 1) I really enjoy that style of shooting (I guess I'd call it "low light indoor candids with vibrant ambient lighting" since I don't know how else to describe it ), and 2) If I'm going to do more of that, I need something faster than the 16-35 f/2.8L.

The 2 obvious lenses are the 24mm f/1.4L and 28mm f/1.8. Obviously, the 24 is both faster and wider. And since I'm shooting with an APS-C 50D, those extra 4mm's are pretty attractive. But, the 24 is also roughly 2.5x the price of the 28. I'm interested to hear from anyone that's shot both, what their feelings of each are, especially regarding IQ. Keep in mind the answer I'm looking for is "the 28 is great and you'd never notice the difference between it and the 24 ".

Jason

 

[usayit]

24L was one of my favs.

 

[analog.universe]

I've never shot the 24, but I have the 28 and it doesn't impress me. I feel it "gets the job done" at that focal length, and it's decently fast, but there's nothing to really sing about. When I bought it, I didn't want to spend the extra money on any of it's competitors, and it was from the same series as the 85 1.8 which I think is a fantastic lens. For the money, the 28 doesn't deliver as much as the 85 though. The images from the 28 don't really pop to me. The subjective perception of 3d from an image is hard to quantify, but in certain lenses, the in-focus to out-of-focus transition happens in such a way that the depth of the scene carries to the final image. Shots that I've seen from the 24L impress me a lot more in this respect than the 28 1.8. I'm expecting that I'll soon sell mine and go to a Zeiss 35 1.4 actually. I'm not saying you need the 24L, but I think the 28 1.8 isn't really worth the money, there are a number of other wide angle lenses from a number of manufacturers worth checking out.