My 24mm II is dialled in at +20 on my 7D and hits focus every time. I have no problems at all, except when my wife used it recently on her 40D and every photo was off by +20 (consistent in its missing). After 9 months I have not had any movement from +20. I understand it is not 'acceptable' but it is meeting all my expectations at present. I was unfortunately unable to return it. I wanted to post this just to highlight my similar experience.
I used it recently at the Olympics and it performed superbly at the indoor venues & similiarly outdoors late evening; photos I would never have captured otherwise (tripods not allowed).
I actually just traded my 24L for a 24tse not sure but I found myself using this lens solely for landscape... 50mm for other walkaround. As for focus and sharpness mine was better than most if not all my other lenses just don't need 1.4 and AF at this focal length
RobertLynn wrote:
I have been thinking about this lens for awhile now. It is not because of a need for 24mm, I've got that covered with 24-70, and 24-105. I do have a fast 35 for when 2.8 won't do.
I've been considering another 16-35, but I hardly used it when I owned it, and though I'd sometimes like wider, I don't run into a need yet.
I'm thinking the 24 1.4 is going to open uP new possibilities in shooting, and at 1.4 it's much faster than my 35 f/2 and obviously more so than my zooms.
I'm thinking it will help me with my technique also making me more critical in my work, for instance my 135 is seldom used because I just suck with it. The is of my 70-200 is a life saver.
The reviews I have read suggest that there's some focus issues with the 24? I'm thinking this brouhaha is just the people who got a bad one complaining, but I just wanted to check out here.
I'd been waiting for a refurb to get in stock, but with the rebates I'm thinking I'm just going to say screw it and order it today.
I know some users here love it, and their word is more than good enough for me. Perhaps I'm just looking for some lens porn and a push over the edge l....Show more →
I've never used the 24tse and am curious how the IQ compares to the 24L Mk2 f1.4. I appreciate the tse is going to be better, but out of interest how much better please?
I've never used the 24tse and am curious how the IQ compares to the 24L Mk2 f1.4. I appreciate the tse is going to be better, but out of interest how much better please?
Personally... I'm becoming rather enthusiastic about the 1.4 for its night sky possibilities. Sure, the corners stink at 1.4... if you're doing static shooting, though, you can do a panorama and just lob off the edges when you stitch back together. Going down to < 2.0 will allow you to keep iso lower and have cleaner images.
TSE of course has the wonderful tilt shift abilities... but panos are easy to do and you can mimic TSE type DOF by focus stacking. The 1.4 may be the more versatile lens when all applications are considered. (I suppose I've just talked myself into getting one now, darn...)
Personally... I'm becoming rather enthusiastic about the 1.4 for its night sky possibilities. Sure, the corners stink at 1.4... if you're doing static shooting, though, you can do a panorama and just lob off the edges when you stitch back together. Going down to < 2.0 will allow you to keep iso lower and have cleaner images.
TSE of course has the wonderful tilt shift abilities... but panos are easy to do and you can mimic TSE type DOF by focus stacking. The 1.4 may be the more versatile lens when all applications are considered. (I suppose I've just talked myself into getting one now, darn...)...Show more →
Hi!
What Photozone doesnt mention is that lenses do not test the same at different focusing distances. Photozone tests at close distances since I do not think you can lab test a lens at infinity focus or at least I do not think they do. And in landscapes thats where one uses most lenses! That is why sometimes you get discrepancies in the numbers photozone publishes and real world results with certain lenses.
The 24 1.4 might match or beat the 24 TS-E at close distances but near or at infinity the 24 TS-E might beat it. Or the other way around. The only way to know is to compare both lenses with equal subject focus distance and light conditions.
What Photozone doesnt mention is that lenses do not test the same at different focusing distances. Photozone tests at close distances since I do not think you can lab test a lens at infinity focus or at least I do not think they do. And in landscapes thats where one uses most lenses! That is why sometimes you get discrepancies in the numbers photozone publishes and real world results with certain lenses.
The 24 1.4 might match or beat the 24 TS-E at close distances but near or at infinity the 24 TS-E might beat it. Or the other way around. The only way to know is to compare both lenses with equal subject focus distance and light conditions. ...Show more →
Interesting, hadn't considered that. Suppose we may see different performance at different focusing distances. That'd be something interesting to research.
About two years ago I bought 24 f/1.4 mk ii. I wanted to use it as my walk around lens cause it's relatively small and light (and it's a fast lens). I figured this lens could serve as my one-lens only on 7D for traveling and that I wouldn't have to carry other lenses for taking picture from early morning until late at night.
It served me quite well, but the AF is unreliable. It missed focus quite a lot at low light (from f1.4 to about f/4). So after trying to like it for six months, I sold it and replaced it with ZE 35 distagon. The 24 f/1.4 is the reason I bought ZE 35 f/2 and Katzeye split screen, because I coulndn't trust the AF.
Bob Sumitro wrote:
About two years ago I bought 24 f/1.4 mk ii. I wanted to use it as my walk around lens cause it's relatively small and light (and it's a fast lens). I figured this lens could serve as my one-lens only on 7D for traveling and that I wouldn't have to carry other lenses for taking picture from early morning until late at night.
It served me quite well, but the AF is unreliable. It missed focus quite a lot at low light (from f1.4 to about f/4). So after trying to like it for six months, I sold it and replaced it with ZE 35 distagon. The 24 f/1.4 is the reason I bought ZE 35 f/2 and Katzeye split screen, because I coulndn't trust the AF....Show more →
I noticed that my 6D2 and 5D3 had vastly better hit rates using center point f/1.4 in super, crazy dim lighting with that lens and both did better, especially the 5D3, in more normal indoor night time lighting.
Personally... I'm becoming rather enthusiastic about the 1.4 for its night sky possibilities. Sure, the corners stink at 1.4... if you're doing static shooting, though, you can do a panorama and just lob off the edges when you stitch back together. Going down to < 2.0 will allow you to keep iso lower and have cleaner images.
TSE of course has the wonderful tilt shift abilities... but panos are easy to do and you can mimic TSE type DOF by focus stacking. The 1.4 may be the more versatile lens when all applications are considered. (I suppose I've just talked myself into getting one now, darn...)...Show more →
one thing to note the 24 1.4 II does turn stars into seagulls anywhere near wide open anywhere at all near edges/corners, i don't recall how much you'd have to lop off, maybe it's ok for your needs, not sure
another to note is that it really is crazzy sharp stopped down, and not just at close distances, at landscape/nautral world distances, it was actually bad, too sharp, for 5D2 nature video since it sent everything so easily into moire/aliasing city
Yes, I've done alot of testing the 24L f1.4 Mk2 on stars for short exposures and full frame. Its a matter of judgement what is acceptable of course, but my own view is that corner stars are great out to the corners on large prints by f2.8
Of course ALL fast wide lenses have similar issues. Its the nature of the beast. I think people (not you but based on stuff I have read on other threads) are sometimes unfair about the 24L f1.4 Mk2s astro performance because they seem subconsciously to be comparing it near wide open to slower lenses well stopped down. Of course the 24L f1.4 Mk2 gives immaculate corners by f4 by anyone's standards. The real test however is whether anyone knows of any 24 or 28mm that gives wonderful star images in the corners at f1.4 or f2? Better than the 24L f1.4 Mk2?
They do not. And that's the crunch! Some are very complementary about a Zeiss 35mm f2, which is great, but 35mm is not 24mm.
I don't think such a wonder lens exists at 24/28mm focal lengths, and I reckon the 24L f1.4 Mk2 at f2.8 would beat/equal the vast majority of 24/28mm lenses out there at the same aperture. As I haven't tested them all that is only an intuition, but I feel that the 24L f1.4 Mk2 gets a raw deal from some commentators. Is the Nikon 24mm f1.4 equivalent so much better? Not as far as I have seen, and if Nikon and Canon are producing lenses with similar performance that must indicate the state of the art, unless Leica or someone bespoke is offering something better at 5x the price!
I've never used the 24tse and am curious how the IQ compares to the 24L Mk2 f1.4. I appreciate the tse is going to be better, but out of interest how much better please?
I dont think I would call the TS-E better, it has different qualities. Like really no CA, the 24L Mk2 f1.4 has the advantage of speed, boke and AF. It s also a little less sharp at the edges but then again it is as sharp in the corners.
RobertLynn wrote:
Focusing at 1.4 is going to be a new challenge or excitement too. There is always the argument that I could just do that with my 135 f/2, but as great as that lens is, I just don't use it. I really am thinking I should've bought an 85 1.2 instead.
This is an interesting thought about the 135L. IMO, it's a lens that could really benefit from IS. My experience with it is if I'm shooting anywhere near or a bit under 1/focal length equivalent shutter speeds, I will see a fair amount of camera shake induced blur in 135L images. But with the 85L I can fairly consistently go a stop or so below 1/focal length. I think part of the reason is because the 85 is a shorter, denser lens with the CG closer to the body. The 135L feels a lot lighter and doesn't seem to dampen hand holding induced vibration as much. Naturally its longer focal length will also magnify vibration more.
It seems you own one of the 70-200 2.8s. IMO, the newer versions of these zooms are very, very close to the 135L, which is 'only' one stop faster. The 85L offers 2.3 additional stops of light gathering for those times when you really need it. Partly for these reasons I've found myself using the 85L a lot more often than the 135L. Not because it's technically any better, but it fits into a niche that has more usefulness for me - and it sounds like maybe for you too.
Anyway, sorry to go so far OT. As I mentioned briefly in your MA thread, my limited experience with the 24L II was that the loaner copy I had was quite inconsistent with AF performance, frequently front focusing a lot. I basically didn't trust it and whenever possible set focus with live view. I don't recall if it was with the 1DIII or IV. But in terms of image quality, it was very impressive.
David Baldwin wrote:
Yes, I've done alot of testing the 24L f1.4 Mk2 on stars for short exposures and full frame. Its a matter of judgement what is acceptable of course, but my own view is that corner stars are great out to the corners on large prints by f2.8
Of course ALL fast wide lenses have similar issues. Its the nature of the beast. I think people (not you but based on stuff I have read on other threads) are sometimes unfair about the 24L f1.4 Mk2s astro performance because they seem subconsciously to be comparing it near wide open to slower lenses well stopped down. Of course the 24L f1.4 Mk2 gives immaculate corners by f4 by anyone's standards. The real test however is whether anyone knows of any 24 or 28mm that gives wonderful star images in the corners at f1.4 or f2? Better than the 24L f1.4 Mk2?
They do not. And that's the crunch! Some are very complementary about a Zeiss 35mm f2, which is great, but 35mm is not 24mm.
I don't think such a wonder lens exists at 24/28mm focal lengths, and I reckon the 24L f1.4 Mk2 at f2.8 would beat/equal the vast majority of 24/28mm lenses out there at the same aperture. As I haven't tested them all that is only an intuition, but I feel that the 24L f1.4 Mk2 gets a raw deal from some commentators. Is the Nikon 24mm f1.4 equivalent so much better? Not as far as I have seen, and if Nikon and Canon are producing lenses with similar performance that must indicate the state of the art, unless Leica or someone bespoke is offering something better at 5x the price!...Show more →
My research has shown that coma goes with the territory where these fast and wide lenses are concerned.
Supposedly the Samyang 24 1.4 does a bit better with coma. Of course it's not quite as strong resolution wise. If corners for stars were your primary concern... maybe it'd get a look. I think the Canon has better overall performance. (although I found one fellow who sent the canon back and kept the Samyang, though I didn't see any convincing work of his...)
And if we're shooting at 2.8 . . . even wider yet is the Samyang 14mm 2.8, which does better with coma as well. (again, that's comparing a 1.4 to 2.8) Same can be said for the Nikon 14-24. (perhaps the best astro lens if we're not to shoot bellow 2.8) I'm saying this from the thought that you may want to stop down to shoot the 24 II. If you wish to do this, and astro is your primary purpose for the lens... I may look at some other options. For me to be interested... I need to be able to take advantage of the extra light.
As I mentioned in my posting... I'm quite high on photo-stitching in post... and taking off the outer 6th or so at < f2.0 might be a reasonable solution for this lens. As it is... debatable as to weather the wonky coma necessarily ruins an image. I've seen some well loved shots with this, so who's to say.
David Baldwin wrote:
Yes, I've done alot of testing the 24L f1.4 Mk2 on stars for short exposures and full frame. Its a matter of judgement what is acceptable of course, but my own view is that corner stars are great out to the corners on large prints by f2.8
Of course ALL fast wide lenses have similar issues. Its the nature of the beast. I think people (not you but based on stuff I have read on other threads) are sometimes unfair about the 24L f1.4 Mk2s astro performance because they seem subconsciously to be comparing it near wide open to slower lenses well stopped down. Of course the 24L f1.4 Mk2 gives immaculate corners by f4 by anyone's standards. The real test however is whether anyone knows of any 24 or 28mm that gives wonderful star images in the corners at f1.4 or f2? Better than the 24L f1.4 Mk2?
They do not. And that's the crunch! Some are very complementary about a Zeiss 35mm f2, which is great, but 35mm is not 24mm.
I don't think such a wonder lens exists at 24/28mm focal lengths, and I reckon the 24L f1.4 Mk2 at f2.8 would beat/equal the vast majority of 24/28mm lenses out there at the same aperture. As I haven't tested them all that is only an intuition, but I feel that the 24L f1.4 Mk2 gets a raw deal from some commentators. Is the Nikon 24mm f1.4 equivalent so much better? Not as far as I have seen, and if Nikon and Canon are producing lenses with similar performance that must indicate the state of the art, unless Leica or someone bespoke is offering something better at 5x the price!...Show more →
My point wasn't that it was bad compared to others, just that they are all bad near f/1.4 for stars if you want to use the FF.
rscheffler wrote:
This is an interesting thought about the 135L. IMO, it's a lens that could really benefit from IS. My experience with it is if I'm shooting anywhere near or a bit under 1/focal length equivalent shutter speeds, I will see a fair amount of camera shake induced blur in 135L images. But with the 85L I can fairly consistently go a stop or so below 1/focal length. I think part of the reason is because the 85 is a shorter, denser lens with the CG closer to the body. The 135L feels a lot lighter and doesn't seem to dampen hand holding induced vibration as much. Naturally its longer focal length will also magnify vibration more.
It seems you own one of the 70-200 2.8s. IMO, the newer versions of these zooms are very, very close to the 135L, which is 'only' one stop faster. The 85L offers 2.3 additional stops of light gathering for those times when you really need it. Partly for these reasons I've found myself using the 85L a lot more often than the 135L. Not because it's technically any better, but it fits into a niche that has more usefulness for me - and it sounds like maybe for you too.
Anyway, sorry to go so far OT. As I mentioned briefly in your MA thread, my limited experience with the 24L II was that the loaner copy I had was quite inconsistent with AF performance, frequently front focusing a lot. I basically didn't trust it and whenever possible set focus with live view. I don't recall if it was with the 1DIII or IV. But in terms of image quality, it was very impressive....Show more →
it is funny that for some reason the 135 really is hard to hand hold at marginal shutter speeds. I always felt it did worst at 1/FL of all my lenses and it seems that many people say the same. It feels balanced to me, but I guess it is not.
It pisses me off because when it's sharp, holy crap. I love it.
I'm going to attempt to
Get it right, and honestly I'll send it to canon before I send it
Back for the second time. It'll cost me money but I'm
Not opening every single one in the store.
I own the 24L II. Of all the bodies I tried it on, the 1D IV gave me the most problems with it. It's a great lens that works very well on a 5D, 5D II, 5D III, 1DS III. On the 1D IV, I would say the 24L hit rate for critical focus is maybe 70-80%. It gets worse in low light too. It is a bit erratic and cannot be relied upon in a critical situation so I have to take many shots with it on a 1D IV just to be sure have at least 1 good image. YMMV.
Studdles wrote:
my wife used it recently on her 40D and every photo was off by +20 (consistent in its missing)
The lens focuses great on my 40D [90% hit rate]! But I have three other bodies I can't even use it on because literally 70% of the shots are consistently way out of focus on each of those three bodies with center-point focus and stationary targets. On a fifth body, the lens is average [70% to 80% hit rate] in focus acquisition. (None of my bodies has micro focus adjust.)
zzy sharp stopped down, and not just at close distances, at landscape/nautral world distances, it was actually bad, too sharp, for 5D2 nature video since it sent everything so easily into moire/aliasing city