The 24 1.4 is probably THE lens that can produce FF images wide open that cannot be replicated by reduced format cameras. It is one of the reason for me to use FF. It produces that one or two incredible shots. It is not as versatile as a 35, 50 or 85, but you just need a few great shots from this lens to separate u from the rest. As you will not use it as much as a 50, you still need to get your standard lenses first.
Which L prime(s) brought you great joy?
- Thread starter An drew
- Start date
The 24 1.4 is probably THE lens that can produce FF images wide open that cannot be replicated by reduced format cameras. It is one of the reason for me to use FF. It produces that one or two incredible shots. It is not as versatile as a 35, 50 or 85, but you just need a few great shots from this lens to separate u from the rest. As you will not use it as much as a 50, you still need to get your standard lenses first.
I'm currently now having the following lens the Canon 16-35 f2.8 L II , Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art, Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG HSM (newer version) and my 6D. Thinking of trading in my 24-70 for 50mm f1.2L and the 24mm f1.4L II. Is it a wise choice ? I find those zoom even the 24-70 f2.8L II also can't beat primes and there's a wedding photography company i admire a lot have stunning images, i gave it a guess after chasing their photos like a fan for so long and indeed i'm guessed correctly that they are using primes to shoot weddings. I'm truly inspired by the beauty created by primes, that's why i feel like trading in my 24-70 for the 2.
I think a zoom lens is more important for wedding photography. It is only during controlled situations when you can go on a prime otherwise you must be prepared to lose some shots. I think a 24-70 would be bread and butter lens. While a 24L can get that incredible shot, it will not be used that frequently, unlike a 24-70. I think you primes can only supplement your zooms, not replace them. Also, an 85L may be more useful to you than a 24L.
The 35 would be more useful than a 24 unless you really want to specialize in shooting with a 24.
This is a good suggestion, relatively cheap. Actually second hand Mark II are also not that expensive at around $1600. I think I lose about 1k here already.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1309233&highlight=24mm
Yeap... Will more or less get the 50 f1.2 ... 24 will be pending... If only get the 50 will be lighter on my pockets haha... 24 i don't really know what to use it for... for wide angle i have my 16-35 but for wider prime i have the 35 to do the job for now till i have an particular area to kick in the 24mm
renaissance_myth
Senior Member
you using full frame bro?
Yes bro . . using the 6D . . . =)
renaissance_myth
Senior Member
Not too far. 135 is a bit far. But individual preference so try first
Cheaper is of course better. They may be good enough and you can try them first. The Sigma has good reviews but I don't have personal experience so can't advise.
ricleo
Senior Member
I will say stick to 50L first. In fact I like the 50L more than my sigma 35 1.4 now.
Haha!! Thanks! You have the sig's 35mm art too? Im loving it lol but hope i did make the correct choice...
renaissance_myth
Senior Member
apart from shooting zoo or birds or sports, the 50L is permanently glued to my camera. the 24L is gathering dust in the dry cabinet. there is something about the dreamy look of the pictures of the 50L that i am addicted to. hehe!
Last edited:
Guess I didn't make the wrong choice haha getting it soon in oct/nov... lighter on my pockets too... =)
Similar threads
