I need a wideangle for full frame, for landscapes as well as for wedding photography. The 24 F2.8 seems to be a insane deal considering it's about 300 CDN and optically just as good as the 24L I/II. The Nikon 14-24 with Mark's adaptor is a good choice, but I prefer AF and the ability to take filters on and off easily. The ZE 21mm distagon is also another possibility, but at ~2100 CDN (delayed til summer 2009 as well), with manual focus and mustache disortion, I just believe the 14-24 w/ adaptor is a better deal. The claims stating that the new ZE is better optically than the old distagon remains to be proven as well, but we will have to wait until the summer to see.
It seems that from TDP's crops, the 24/2.8 has less contrast and more vignetting than the 24L I at 2.8. But the 24 is also a bit sharper and has less CA. At 5.6 the two lenses perform pretty much the same, with the 24/2.8 having a tad bit less CA. All these differences are very minor and can be offset by lens tolerances and QA issues anyway.
Can anyone with the lens tell me how well it performs? I know the 24/2.8 is not USM, but autofocus/focusing speed at wideangle is not really much of a factor to me. But at ~300$, I'd rather buy this and a 35L than a 24L II, ZE 21mm, or 14-24 w/ adaptor. Yes, I know the Nikon 14-24 can shoot 14mm better than the Canon 24s or the ZE 21, but 14 is too wide for my style and thus I prefer 20-24mm.
Yes it is a very capable lens. Owned one for a while and it was sharp even wide open. I shoot crop and it was an odd FL for me so I traded it for a 35 f2 but I was quite pleased with the performance.
The 24/2.8 is a nice little lens, and very inexpensive, but I wouldn't exactly call it a gem, and it really is no match for the 24L .... under f5.6 anyway - and any prime lens is good when stopped down to f5.6. It is a little sharper than my 24-70L wide open. Here are some pictures I took with this lens on a 5D Mk II:
And Bobby, incredible images you have there. The lens is definitely no 1.4 or has the L colour, contrast, or bokeh at 2.8-5.6. But do you think it's a good idea to use the 35L instead for that reason? I'm thinking of heavily investing into wedding photography and I would think that the 24/2.8 + 35L would be a much better combo than let's say, 24L or 24L II. 35L when the lighting situations are poor, and 24/2.8 (at 5.6-8) for the outdoor wideangle shots when 35 isn't wide enough.
Most if not all primes are sharp at 5.6 but I believe the 24 is pretty scaringly sharp at 2.8 compared to the rest of the other primes.
Thanks! If you are planning to shoot weddings, I would not hesitate with the 35L .... and the 85L for that matter, as they are both in a league of their own!
ILOVECANONL wrote:
Thanks Seth Tower.
And Bobby, incredible images you have there. The lens is definitely no 1.4 or has the L colour, contrast, or bokeh at 2.8-5.6. But do you think it's a good idea to use the 35L instead for that reason? I'm thinking of heavily investing into wedding photography and I would think that the 24/2.8 + 35L would be a much better combo than let's say, 24L or 24L II. 35L when the lighting situations are poor, and 24/2.8 (at 5.6-8) for the outdoor wideangle shots when 35 isn't wide enough.
Most if not all primes are sharp at 5.6 but I believe the 24 is pretty scaringly sharp at 2.8 compared to the rest of the other primes....Show more →
I have a similar (?) FD 24/2.8 and think it is very nice... but whenever I consider getting the EF version... I get hung up on thinking the 17-40 would make a lot more sense for me... not that much more really... and the cost of a stop only for 17mm to 40mm.
For weddings *I* would rather have the 24-70L and a 50 and/or 85/100 for the same cost.
I love my 24 and enjoying it more since i got a 5D.A bonus to this lens is it has a very short MFD and can be used as a wide angle macro.Below are a few shots with 20D and 5D
None of these show it to be really sharp. I still remain skeptical about this lens. Boobytan's shots above are examples of good composition and I think would look good with any lens, especially at web sized shots - no 100% crops. Again, with Jim's shots no 100% crops so these really don't show anything. Also I wouldn't use a 10D to judge sharpness. Not trying to cause an argument, its just that in all the years that I have been shooting and reading this forum I have never heard this lens called a hidden gem, whereas this has been true for lenses such as the "nifty fifty".
I use the 24 f2.8 on a 5D. It is a great little lens, and I think performs better than most, if not all 24mm settings on L zooms. The low light performance of the 24 f1.4L is really geared to settings around f4 and below. Do the same test on Digital Picture with the 24L set on f16, even f11 and you will see that the 24 f2.8 blows it away in sharpness. As for the 24 f2.8 references to having a yellow cast, I can't say that I have experienced that. It might be an imbalance of the Kelvin temp too. I usually shoot RAW so bumping up any contrast shortcomings is super easy to correct in post. Check this out:
I love mine for landscapes. My only beef with it is that it is ungodly slow. But without USM what could really be expected. The main thing I love: CHEAP filters!
Impressed with bobytan's crop, but not so much with Jim's crop. It makes me wonder about sample to sample variation. Some reviews look good - like bobby's crop - and some not so good like Jim's crop.
Jim Schemel wrote: I'm pretty sure i have a good copy.Landscape compared to a sign with text might not be the best comparison not to mention he is using a 21 mega pixel sensor, here is another shot with 100% crop.
-Jim
Probably as good as they get, Jim.
However, wide open sharpness would be more telling.
You do have a good copy, Jim. And yes, you are right .... you cannot compare crops between a 12mp and 21mp body. Besides, there are other factors like shutter speed and subject or camera movement, f-stop, etc. Your crop here looks good.
Jim Schemel wrote:
I'm pretty sure i have a good copy.Landscape compared to a sign with text might not be the best comparison not to mention he is using a 21 mega pixel sensor, here is another shot with 100% crop.
