ILOVECANONL Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #1 · EF 24/2.8... Hidden Gem? | |
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.
Regarding the 24/2.8 being just as good as the 24L I/II at F2.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=246&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=247&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
And at F5.6:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=246&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=247&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
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.
Thanks. =)
|