Help me decide!! Canon prime L lenses

AmberAtLoveAndInk · May 8, 2015

Hi everyone! It's been a long time since I've dropped in, I have been busting' my keester with work lately and have done quite a bit of change with my photography. As of late I have been diving into the food photography world while still offering weddings/portraits. I recently completely switched up my lenses & gone totally prime: sold my 24-105 4.0 L, for a 135mm L & upgraded my 50m 1.8 to the 50m 1.4.
Now I'm looking for a "shorter" prime, I'm stuck between the 35mm 1.4 L & the 24mm 1.4 L

HELP!!

My new 135mm has spoiled me with a sharpness & color contrast that rocks my friggin' world so I'm trying to find a prime under 35mm with an aperture between 1.2-2.0 that will deliver similar if not better results. I know I want to continue prime. I knew as soon as my 24-105 was getting out shot by my $100 nifty fifty that I loved prime so much more. Not even for the 70-200mm IS II will I go back to zooms. If you have experience with the above lenses please share your pros & cons and if you have a different prime to recommend please do!!

*put this thread in the correct location

Scatterbrained · May 8, 2015

As someone with a closet full of L lenses, I'd recommend you look at the new Sigma ART 24mm.
My current L lens line up is: Canon 15 2.8 FE, Canon 50L 1.2, Canon 24L TS-E II, Canon 85L 1.2 II, Canon 100L IS, Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS II, Canon 24-70L 2.8, Canon 300L 2.8, Canon 17-40L 4. As you can see, I have no issues spending the money to get the image quality I want. With that in mind I'll make two statements. One, the new zooms are a whole lot sharper than the 24-105 kit lens you sold. Do not look at the 24-105 as being representative of what you can expect from a newer L zoom. Two, as much as I love my L lenses, when they aren't the best lens for the job, I don't buy them. For example; when I wanted and UWA prime, I went with the Rokinon 14mm. It's distinctly sharper than the Canon 14mm, and there are custom lens profiles to alleviate the distortion, making it a damn sharp 14mm lens that just makes the Canon offering look soft by comparison. Meanwhile, when I decided to get a 35mm I went with the Sigma ART. That lens puts the Canon offering clearly in it's rearview mirror.

The Sigma ART lens optics are a clear step above what Canon is offering in those focal lengths. Even with their new 24ART; if you look at the MTF charts posted over at LensRentals, you'll see that the Canon lens is only as sharp as the Sigma at the far edge of the frame.
All that being said, I guess my point is, don't overlook the new Sigma ART line. They are sharper than the Canon L counterparts, yet they have shed the harsh bokeh characteristics that defined the older Sigma and cheaper Canon primes. As far as which focal length to go with. I find 35mm to be a very comfortable "do it all" walk around focal length, but if you're looking for something distinctly wider than 50 you'll want to go to 24. 35 feels a lot like 50mm, with a bit more environment thrown in. 24mm feels like a different category or lens altogether from the 50. For me the 35 is a fun lens to walk around with, but when I look at the shots I use and keep at events it tends to still be the 50mm. When I deviate it tends to be wider than the 35.

pixmedic · May 8, 2015

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
*put this thread in the correct location

thread moved to canon lenses.
i cant speak for canon since I shot nikon, but the new sigma ART lenses are just phenomenal. I would definitely recommend checking them out. Dont get so caught up on the red ring that you miss out on a better product.

AmberAtLoveAndInk · May 8, 2015

Scatterbrained, you scatter brained me! lol, it seems like you love both lengths, the 24mm & 35mm, it's so hard to decide!! And I know the newer zooms are pretty sharp but from my own experience with the zoom lenses in my bag and renting the 70-200mm IS II, it was just meh. I couldn't believe it, I actually was not that impressed with the 70-200! It made me feel like all hope was lost, like, did I rent a "bad" copy?? Sure, it was kicking most of the lenses in my bag's ass but I STILL shot with my nifty fifty 95% of the time during the wedding I rented it for, local length aside. Then I found the 135, totally changing my world right now. Wish I could find more like it!! And I'll definitely check out the ART's. I've been hearing great things, I'm just skeptical of putting anything other than Canon on my mark III.

Derrel · May 8, 2015

Get a good lens for that Mark III. Something new, like a Sigma ART series, not something designed before Canon even had a digital camera...

Scatterbrained · May 8, 2015

FYI, every Canon lens released since 2010 was developed with the high pixel density of the newest Canon sensors in mind. . . . . .

KenC · May 8, 2015

I would investigate the 35/2 IS, not an L lens, but very good IQ + IS, less money, and how often do you really need 1.4 anyway?

As for zooms, I generally agree with you, but I make an exception for telephoto zooms, and I have the 70-300 L. To do this with primes you would have to buy and carry something like an 85, 135, 200 and 300. The non-L zooms are noticeably not as good as these lenses, so it's a matter of compromise, but the newer L zooms are so good that all you give up is a fast aperture (1.8, 2, etc.). I never shoot at those apertures when I have them available, so I don't really care. YMMV.

AmberAtLoveAndInk · May 8, 2015

Thanks for all the feedback guys! I'm going to look into the 35/2 now as another option. Considering I would be using this with people most of the time, I guess the 24mm is just not the better option with it's distortion problems I just read. In my mind I wanted this lens to be able to take my large wedding group shots with when I'm in a tight space. Again, avoiding a zoom lens.

kathyt · May 9, 2015

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
Scatterbrained, you scatter brained me! lol, it seems like you love both lengths, the 24mm & 35mm, it's so hard to decide!! And I know the newer zooms are pretty sharp but from my own experience with the zoom lenses in my bag and renting the 70-200mm IS II, it was just meh. I couldn't believe it, I actually was not that impressed with the 70-200! It made me feel like all hope was lost, like, did I rent a "bad" copy?? Sure, it was kicking most of the lenses in my bag's ass but I STILL shot with my nifty fifty 95% of the time during the wedding I rented it for, local length aside. Then I found the 135, totally changing my world right now. Wish I could find more like it!! And I'll definitely check out the ART's. I've been hearing great things, I'm just skeptical of putting anything other than Canon on my mark III.

I too LOVE my 135mm. One of the best primes Canon has IMO. With the 24 and 35 you will have distortion. Sharp, but distorted. Yes, you can fix it but the less time you spend behind the computer the better. If you already have the 50 1.4, that's a really good lens. You probably won't appreciate the 50 1.2 that much. The 100L is amazing, but the 85mm 1.2 would be my go to after the 135 as far as primes. It is heavy, costly, and hard to nail focus wide open, but once you do.....it is worth every penny. The 85 non-L 1.8 is also a good lens and very inexpensive. Hope that helps.

TCampbell · May 9, 2015

When I do food photography, I am typically using my 100mm macro lens. From time to time, you may want to get detail shots at closer focusing distances than one of your other primes would allow.

As for the 24 vs 35mm choice... rent them and decide based on how you normally frame your subjects and the amount of distortion you find acceptable.