Thank you very much for the detailed reply! I'm happy with the 24/2.8. It's actually very sharp even wide open, but I agree about colors and bokeh, and certainly wouldn't mind a 24mm with colors and clarity similar to the 35L (which is my favorite lens at this time). I'll assume then that the 24L mkI that I tested was a bad copy and try another one later, or save up for the mkII.
Even if I do get the 24L I'll keep the 24/2.8, because it's small and light and great to have sometimes.
Chez Wimpy wrote:
This is a Canon wide angle lens (warning lights should be going off). If it were a big white lens at f8, I would agree something is odd, but there is precedent here. The Digital Picture uses live-view to focus, so unless Canon is shipping duds of their new optic already (and in which case, I certainly won't be understanding), there is very little wiggle room here.
With this new information I am all but sold on the Mark I given its price point... just wish I could see some real world side-by-side with crops.
EDIT: In fact, looking at the MTFs posted at the beginning of this thread, the results make more sense. At medium distances from the center the mark 2 looks sharper (comparing the two at f1.4). The center is where it loses (inexplicably), and the edges are more of a tossup. Not being a landscape photographer (prefer the f1.4 for indoor use), and considering how both the 24L and 35L are $500 cheaper than in Japan (yen power these days), before Canon resets the price with "mark 2s" of all of their L primes, I think this is the opening I have been waiting for. ...Show more →
That MTF chart shows F1.4 only. Look here, and you will see that the MTF for the mkII is actually a hair better at F8, center, than the mkI:
You can compare the Digital Picture center crops at F8 for all the Canon 24 mm options, including all the zooms. It just makes no sense that the 24mm1.4 mkII is beaten that seriously by everything except the 24-85mm.
For center sharpness at F1.4, and if that is what you need, of course the mkI is a good choice.
Not to me it doesn't. Look at the CA. Personally, a difference in sharpness this minute has no real world impact whereas that much difference in CA is huge. The Mark II lenses from Canon are quite worth it in my experience. And I personally have experience with a rental 24L mark I, and I wasn't overly impressed with its performance wide open.
Hi all,
I know this is the 24LII thread...but while we're comparing various 24's (and others in the ball park), I thought I'd just throw this shot into the mix. I think it looks pretty good for ISO 6400.
Here's an totally UNprocessed file from Monday night's shoot - straight out of a 5D2 with the 14-24G. ISO 6400 : F2.8 approx : 24mm approx : 1/60 sec : hand held.
Cheers,
Scott
alundeb wrote:
That MTF chart shows F1.4 only. Look here, and you will see that the MTF for the mkII is actually a hair better at F8, center, than the mkI:
The MTF charts are about 1/2 down the first page in this thread (open and f8 listed)
alundeb wrote:
You can compare the Digital Picture center crops at F8 for all the Canon 24 mm options, including all the zooms. It just makes no sense that the 24mm1.4 mkII is beaten that seriously by everything except the 24-85mm.
Which is ultimately something Canon needs to address. Bad copies causing bad reviews costs them sales. I won't pay a premium if they still haven't solved QC. Shooting tests with liveview (and a competent site) eliminates any doubt I have about user error (hence, I just ordered the mark 1).
Ben Horne wrote:
I have one that I'm borrowing from our Canon rep for a few days. I have the 35L, which will be the main lens I will be comparing it to.
Excellent...hope you chime in with your comparison! Any initial impressions?
After a week of using it, I find the mk2 clearly more uniform on my two FF bodies. I didn't do a pixel peeping test yet, just looking at the overall image, and I can tell a clear difference to the original lens - and it was my favorite lens. This one has more of a 35L feel to it. I'm definitely very happy with the upgrade.
stanj wrote:
After a week of using it, I find the mk2 clearly more uniform on my two FF bodies. I didn't do a pixel peeping test yet, just looking at the overall image, and I can tell a clear difference to the original lens - and it was my favorite lens. This one has more of a 35L feel to it. I'm definitely very happy with the upgrade.
I know you had some trouble with AF while using your 24L on your 1Ds3... Can you say that the 24L II does better in this regard?
I'll assume then that the 24L mkI that I tested was a bad copy and try another one later, or save up for the mkII. 
