Speaking entirely personally I found the 24L Mk1's chromatic aberration really spoiled my enjoyment of the lens. I find the Mk2 a serious improvement in that respect.
I love to shoot landscapes and family shots. What's amazing to me is that I've used this lens far more for family shots than I have for landscape shots. I thought it was going to be the opposite.
Having said that I prefer not to post family pics, in respect to their potential desire for privacy.
RobertLynn wrote:
I've seriously considered an mk1, but I honestly think that I'm stupid, and fickle enough that it would bother me.
Hear hear! When I had the 17-35L, I kept obsessing about how 16-35L II is "better" and guess what... I sold my 17-35 eventually for a 16-35. So of course I've been considering the 24L non-II, the 28/1.8 and the Sigma 24/1.8... but I'm afraid I'd fall into this mindset again if I buy one of those. Even though I need this lens pretty much for my own fun, not for commercially viable work (which I'm now doing only rarely).
Of course if Sigma releases an update to their 24/1.8 with HSM as the rumors state... I might buy that one instead, since it'd likely cost $800 rather than $2000.
Snopchenko wrote:
Hear hear! When I had the 17-35L, I kept obsessing about how 16-35L II is "better" and guess what... I sold my 17-35 eventually for a 16-35. So of course I've been considering the 24L non-II, the 28/1.8 and the Sigma 24/1.8... but I'm afraid I'd fall into this mindset again if I buy one of those. Even though I need this lens pretty much for my own fun, not for commercially viable work (which I'm now doing only rarely).
Of course if Sigma releases an update to their 24/1.8 with HSM as the rumors state... I might buy that one instead, since it'd likely cost $800 rather than $2000....Show more →
Thank you. This is specifically what I meant. Glad to see it wasn't taken out of context by everyone.
window
Even though I need this lens pretty much for my own fun, not for commercially viable work (which I'm now doing only rarely).
