Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       5       end
  

Archive 2013 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?
  
 
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


24mm sucks as a general walk-around lens IMO and not even f/1.0 would save it and for 35mm, f/1.2 would be better. Just too much DoF on a 24mm even wide open unless you are close to mfd and just way to much FoV. Great for landscape, but you don't need f/1.4 for that.


Oct 06, 2013 at 10:35 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Pixel Perfect wrote:
24mm sucks as a general walk-around lens IMO and not even f/1.0 would save it and for 35mm, f/1.2 would be better. Just too much DoF on a 24mm even wide open unless you are close to mfd and just way to much FoV. Great for landscape, but you don't need f/1.4 for that.


It's also great for tight street scenes or environmental photos. What you should say is that is sucks for YOU as a general walk around lens. I think it is great for tight market shots if you want to get a very close perspective of the people along with their environment.



Oct 06, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Pixel Perfect wrote:
24mm sucks as a general walk-around lens IMO and not even f/1.0 would save it and for 35mm, f/1.2 would be better. Just too much DoF on a 24mm even wide open unless you are close to mfd and just way to much FoV. Great for landscape, but you don't need f/1.4 for that.


24mm is nice as a walk around lens if you use a crop camera



Oct 06, 2013 at 11:03 AM
justruss
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


chez wrote:
It's also great for tight street scenes or environmental photos. What you should say is that is sucks for YOU as a general walk around lens. I think it is great for tight market shots if you want to get a very close perspective of the people along with their environment.


+1


Anyone shooting a 24mm f/1.4 wide-open MAINLY to accomplish shallow DOF-- perhaps would be wise to reevaluate his shooting goals, focal lengths, and lenses.

I'm willing to bet that most people shooting a 24mm@ f/1.4 instead of ar f/2.0, f/2.8, or f/4.0 are doing so for light gathering purposes at a wide pov. In these cases, more often than not, MORE DOF is desired, but impossible since you're at the limits of ISO, light, SS.

And I think it might be time to demolish the landscape = WA trope. Most of the best landscape images I've seen are in the normal to mid-tele range. And most of the best city-scape, people-in-context (AKA, for me, walk-around/street) are in the 28-35mm range, sometimes veering wider (sometimes much wider).

^^ Oh, and let me say it loudly for clarity: All of the above 'for me.' Subjective.




Oct 06, 2013 at 11:04 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I sold my 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L about a year after getting a 1DX. Turns out, I only used the widest apertures to get higher shutter speeds in low light. I didn't need that anymore with the excellent high ISO performance offered to me by the 1DX (and now 6D, too). I use the 24-70/2.8L II and Fujifilm X100 for most occasions that I would have used the fast 24L and 35L lenses.

Of course, I still use my 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L II, and 200/1.8L for their shallow DOF/nice bokeh capabilities, as well as some chouce Alts, like the SMC Pentax 28/2 and Rokkor-X 58/1.2.



Oct 06, 2013 at 11:19 AM
mitesh
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


IS isn't necessarily always going to be able to replace a larger aperture. Sometimes you need the faster shutter to freeze subject motion. An example might be low light concert photography. IS can't help your lens collect twice as much light (1.4 vs. 2.0) and get that faster shutter speed.

Whether the extra stop is worth paying for just depends on what you're shooting. I'm sure you knew that, though



Oct 06, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Beni
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


There is a noticeable difference in background separation between the 16-35L I have and the 24LII I wish I had. That 1.4 does make a significant difference IMO. No it's not a 50L 1.2 but hey, a 50L shot wide open has the same DOF give or take as my dirt cheap 85mm 1.8 so it can't be worth it! Point is getting as much as you can for a given focal length if subject separation is your goal.


Oct 06, 2013 at 11:54 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Beni wrote:
There is a noticeable difference in background separation between the 16-35L I have and the 24LII I wish I had. That 1.4 does make a significant difference IMO.


I agree. It's just that I never needed that separation in wide angle photos for over a year, so why keep them?



Oct 06, 2013 at 12:40 PM
Psychic1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Q - "Psychic, why are your pictures always so sharp?"

A - "Because I shoot my group shots at f4 or f5.6 with my trusty 35L."

I will be shooting a club next weekend with the 35L, 1DsIII and ST-E2 at F2, but if necessary I know I can achieve excellent results at f1.4.

It's only a waste if you leave it in the bag.



Oct 06, 2013 at 01:31 PM
Beni
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


jcolwell wrote:
I agree. It's just that I never needed that separation in wide angle photos for over a year, so why keep them?


Fair enough, I was a wedding shooter hence the value of it.



Oct 06, 2013 at 02:57 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Access
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I have seen canon's 24 f/1.4 used by other photographers who were working by my side. Not to say it was their main lens, or that I heavily use lenses like that, but some photographers do get some use out of the wide apertures on these lenses.

Personally, if I need 24mm I use the f/2.8 zoom, and my use of wide angle is generally limited to 'trick' shots that utilize the distortion or unique properties of wide angle to make a photo 'work', or the usual fare.

As for those who used it, it can work if you have the vision for it, or if you have the time and ability to set up the scene as desired. But in general, they are specialist / special purpose lenses, most people out there would get much more use out of a wide-aperture 85mm.



Oct 06, 2013 at 03:07 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


popinvasion wrote:
We all want a nice sharp lens. I think the 24 and 35 primes are great lenses to have, but the added stop or so of light seems to be the main benefit. The bokeh is generally average at best on wider lenses, and most wider lens need stopped down for sharpness, so.. What's the point? I think the Sigma 35 1.4 had great potential but I recently got a super sharp copy and it often would hunt for focus=missed shots. I wish it also had weather sealing but that's just nit pickin. Anyway the 35/2 IS looks on paper
...Show more

You are asking the important questions that more people should ask when considering lens purchases - namely, how do the features of this lens actually affect my photography?

By their nature, wide lenses are not going to give you the same out of focus blur (i.e. - "bokeh") effect that you get from normal or long focal length lenses. A better lens may still give you a better quality of such OOF elements, but the overall effect of this will diminish given the greater natural DOF effect of short lenses.

I agree that the primary benefit of the wider L primes is probably the additional light gathering potential.

I also agree that in some cases the L makes sense and in some the non-L alternative can work quite well and even have some advantages. I won't go into all the details of my thinking, but this is why I ended up with the 24mm f/2.4II... and the old 35mm f/2 in my kit.

Dan



Oct 06, 2013 at 03:47 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Look into the definition of transmission stop of lenses. Then you will see the difference.


Oct 06, 2013 at 04:00 PM
KFG1
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Not a waste, I know I might be in the minority here but I'll take 1.4 over IS every time, it simply fits my shooting style better.


Oct 06, 2013 at 04:03 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


KFG1 wrote:
Not a waste, I know I might be in the minority here but I'll take 1.4 over IS every time, it simply fits my shooting style better.


I'm doing a lot of low light handheld shooting right now while working on a project photographing musicians. I use both types of lenses depending upon that particular shot - sometimes using a slightly smaller aperture plus IS turns out to work better for the shot and sometimes shooting the non-IS large aperture lens at the largest aperture works better.

I agree that this can be a matter of style, though in the more general sense both can be quite useful. The following photos include one of each - in one case I needed the IS so that I could shoot handheld with a longer focal length, while in the other I needed the larger aperture.

Dan

http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/7711-4/CelliDoubleBassesRehearsal20130927.jpg

http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/7727-2/TromboneDetail20130109.jpg



Oct 06, 2013 at 04:34 PM
garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


There is a common belief that 'L' lenses are always superior optically to non-'L' lenses. However, I don't think this was ever really the intent of the 'L' lens program at Canon.

Back in the FD era, the 'L' lens designation was simply given to any Canon lenses that incorporated certain exotic optical characteristics, such as the fluorite or (ground) aspheric lens elements. Exotic optical formulations were not needed for "normal" lenses, only for high speed lenses within their respective focal lengths.

All FD lenses of the time were built to the same high quality standards of construction--there was nothing mechanical that separated an 'L' lens from any other lens in the FD program. Likewise, it was expected that a "normal" speed non-'L' prime would deliver the highest quality optical results given its focal length and maximum aperture.

With the EF lens program, things changed, but mostly on the mechanical front. "Normal" lenses were built using plastic construction and intended for amateur use. The 'L' designation was still reserved to lenses with exotic optical designs (i.e., 'fast' lenses), but these lenses were assumed to be favored by professionals, and thus built to higher mechanical standards. Optically however, Canon's EF prime lenses (at least) were still designed to deliver excellent results regardless of 'L' designation; they just didn't need exotic optics to do so. (It may be that the 'L' lens design has even less barrel distortion or vignetting, but that's because those lens characteristics are presumed more important to professional users.)

All this is a prelude to say that, outside of consumer zoom lenses which are obviously designed to a price point, I don't believe ultimate lens sharpness is ever NOT a goal for Canon's designers, 'L' series prime or not. That modern 'L' primes might be slightly sharper than older non-'L' primes has more to do with the ages of their design than the red ring around the lens barrel.

If I am right, then I think there is no reason that a modern non-'L' prime such as the EF 35mm f/2 IS should not deliver results as good as any 'L' lens when stopped down to some common middle aperture. Color, contrast and sharpness should all be of the highest quality Canon can achieve.



Oct 06, 2013 at 05:56 PM
jasonpatrick
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I'm loving the Sigma 35 1.4. Here's my two sons. Taken today.

http://jasonpatrick.smugmug.com/photos/i-LpR3Tdr/0/XL/i-LpR3Tdr-XL.jpg
http://jasonpatrick.smugmug.com/photos/i-TQcKPvj/0/XL/i-TQcKPvj-XL.jpg



Oct 06, 2013 at 09:49 PM
Sneakyracer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Erik_J wrote:
Roger Cicala compares the Sigma 35/1,4, Canon 35/1,4, Canon 35/2 & Canon 35/2 IS here.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/12/another-35mm-lens-for-canon


Thx for the link. I really like Roger's tests.



Oct 06, 2013 at 09:53 PM
Langran
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


I shoot my 24L at f1.4 to 1.8 all the time. I shoot both video and photos in clubs/venues where flash flash isn't really desirable. When you're at the highest ISO you can be (except maybe H1 or H2) and the slowest shutter speed that is realistic then you need a faster lens.

It's not about sharpness or even bokeh in these situations. It's about actually being able to see your subject



Oct 07, 2013 at 03:20 PM
boingyman
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · 1.2 and 1.4 wasted on 35mm and 24mm?


Not a waste, although benefits will vary depending on the shooter. Situations where I would prefer a 24L/35L over a 24 2.8 IS/35 2 IS are weddings, portraits, astrophotography, low light, basically almost everything except for maybe street photography and a few other situations. Weigh the pros and cons that applies to you (don't overthink it though as you can always find a scenario where a certain feature can be beneficial) then ask yourself if its worth the cost or not.


Oct 07, 2013 at 04:30 PM
1      
2
       3       4       5       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password