@Gareth - 14-24/2.8 is not the best option for landscape photography, as it's filter support is... well... very expensive

Go for the 35 1.4. Its technically a "wide" angle lens. not extreme but normal. both of these lenses are my next choice to join my 50 and 85 1.4's :)

I was contemplating the same thing last week. I have FX bodies. Your selection depends on what you intend to use it for. I had rented the 24 1.4 for a wedding to test it out. I found it great for indoor use but it was a little too wide. I ended up cropping the images quite a bit. Additionally I found a little to much distortion especially on my candid PJ shots. When the 35 1.4 was announced I immediately pre-ordered it because I knew it was going to suit indoor wedding PJ much better.

I would say go for the 35mm 1.4 - I had the chance to play with the 24 1.4 (hands-on coming soon) on full frame and sometimes it is just too wide, of course you can always crop. The 35mm 1.4 is also cheaper.

Get both if I could afford f1.4 FF lenses (and 50, 85 1.4 as well)
Personally, fast light(er) quality prime lenses are popular for snapshots.
35mm will surely cover a bit of portraits too
14-24 is the best price performance for serious landscape but too heavy for snapshots.

Indoor portraits, go 35mm on a D700. But for all other shots I go to 24mm on my D700.

I would suggest 35 for indoor portraits, 24 on fx is too wide...

i seriously suggest trying them both!

if i was shooting landscapes I would go for the 24 (though the 14-24 would be better for landscapes IMO).

as i shoot primarily people i found the 24 far too wide and distorted for people (i rented the 14-24 to see if i wanted 24mm). people might claim to be able to correct this, but i corrected in photoshop and it still doesn't look correct (I know what I am doing).

if you are planning to use it for people indoors (as the fact that you have the 85 would suggest) i would get the 35 no question.

i am waiting for it (just started a new 500 yen money box collection). i have the d700 and need something wider than the 50 1.4G.

i borrowed a friends ep-1 with the pancake, which is 35mm equivalent, and i was decided (after renting the 14-24).

i also spent 2 hours trying 5 copies of the 24 in nikon plaza and ohbayashi (great shop by the way). it wasn't for me. i want pixels on people.

for indoors I would go for 24/1.4 - gives You a little bit more space than 35mm - You always can move one step closer, but not always You can take one step back. however, if You can afford go for both of them.

Of course, the real answer is, "It depends . . ." But, that's a tough choice, since they're both great focal lengths on an FX body. The 24mm f/1.4 would tend to be more "fun." I would probably opt for the 24mm f/1.4 as my "hero" fast, wide-angle. But, I love the 35mm on a FX body also, so I would probably then also get a 35mm f/1.8 as well, which of course is much cheaper than the 35mm f/1.4. Then again, the 35mm is a great "journalism" lens, and a fast lens for journalism is always a good thing. When I win the lotto, I will buy both.

dav34 said:
It's merely depend on the camera you will use with, and the subject you want to catch.
On a DX format the 24 act like a 35 so if you have a DX you don't have choice... But such an expensive lens on a DX is hard to jutify.

I got d700~that's why I need to choose

It's merely depend on the camera you will use with, and the subject you want to catch.
On a DX format the 24 act like a 35 so if you have a DX you don't have choice... But such an expensive lens on a DX is hard to jutify.

I already got a 85 1.4. it's excellent for outdoor portraits,but the field of view is just too narrow when I shoot indoors~in spite of the difference of price, which one should I get??