Thanks Jim. I do agree that the 2nd shot is a better comparison and as such it does look good. I have to say that long ago I pretty much wrote this lens off due to some of the reviews I saw online and that was the main basis for my skepticism. However, these crops that have been posted are very convincing and also demonstrates that one of the nice things about people on FM is that they generally put out the extra effort to actually show examples.
My main interest in this thread is that like the OP I am currently considering my options at the short end of the lens spectrum. This has been good information and has made me reconsider this lens. Thanks again.
bobbytan wrote:
You do have a good copy, Jim. And yes, you are right .... you cannot compare crops between a 12mp and 21mp body.
Typically, in a 100% crop sample, the sensor with the lower photosite count should look sharper. With the 21mp 100% sample you are looking "more closely" at a smaller portion of the image, and any "imperfections" in the image of a given absolute size will cover more photosites.
I own an 24 f:2.8. While I don't disagree with all that has been said so far, my experience with it is that, while in every way satisfactory, this lens doesn't display the "charm" or "magic" of my better Canon lenses (35L, 135L, 300L), or my new Zeiss lenses. I can't put my finger on anything specifically wrong, like CA, or vignetting, or lack of sharpness, it is more like a lack of sparkle, a slight sense of ennui. My guess is that this cheap lens does not have the coatings that L lenses get, and that this is what I pick up. Which is why I am earmarking some of my hard-earned for the CZ Distagon 21mm as and when Mssrs Zeiss are good enough to release it, and if it lives up to what its brethren deliver.
I have both the 24/2.8 and the 24/1.4L. At f/4 and above they are indistinguishable in sharpness. The L seems to have slightly more contrast, but the difference is quite subjective. The 24/2.8 truly is a great little lens, and one of Canon's best lens values.
I shoot with this lens on a 5D II the sharpness is already very good and wide open and at f8 its mindblowing. Contrast ist excellent too which contributes to the subjective impression of sharpness. Go grab one, you won't regret it.
Whilst I would agree with you on the L primes, I think the 24/2.8 is at least as good as the L zooms. If you compare the shot I took against my 24-70L on the previous page, you will see that they are about the same and, in fact, the 24/2.8 shows a little more contrast and sharpness.
philber wrote:
I own an 24 f:2.8. While I don't disagree with all that has been said so far, my experience with it is that, while in every way satisfactory, this lens doesn't display the "charm" or "magic" of my better Canon lenses (35L, 135L, 300L), or my new Zeiss lenses. I can't put my finger on anything specifically wrong, like CA, or vignetting, or lack of sharpness, it is more like a lack of sparkle, a slight sense of ennui. My guess is that this cheap lens does not have the coatings that L lenses get, and that this is what I pick up. Which is why I am earmarking some of my hard-earned for the CZ Distagon 21mm as and when Mssrs Zeiss are good enough to release it, and if it lives up to what its brethren deliver....Show more →
blech, even my wide zooms trounced it to pieces
i quickly sold it off after getting tamron 28-75 and tamron 17-50 aso blows it out of the water, even the 17-40L is better
for very close subjects it is not so bad but forget it for landscape stuff, it stinks
skibum5 wrote:
not even close....
to my tamron zooms or even the 17-40L nevermind (admittedly much different beasts) like the 135L, 70-200 f/4 IS, 300 IS, etc.
philber wrote:
it is more like a lack of sparkle, a slight sense of ennui...
Ennui? :-)
From what I can tell the 24mm f/2.8, like all lesser lenses, lacks the effervescent sparkly bubbyness of the L lenses, and its photos are wholly devoid of the delicate resonance of yummy goodness that gently suffuses all images created with the ineffable L. Subtle charm gently wafts from their every stop, filling the viewer with utter bliss. To use anything else would be an utter shame.
From what I can tell the 24mm f/2.8, like all lesser lenses, lacks the effervescent sparkly bubbyness of the L lenses,
No day passes for me without learning something new and important about gear(s) on this board.
From what I can tell the 24mm f/2.8, like all lesser lenses, lacks the effervescent sparkly bubbyness of the L lenses, and its photos are wholly devoid of the delicate resonance of yummy goodness that gently suffuses all images created with the ineffable L. Subtle charm gently wafts from their every stop, filling the viewer with utter bliss. To use anything else would be an utter shame.
From what I can tell the 24mm f/2.8, like all lesser lenses, lacks the effervescent sparkly bubbyness of the L lenses, and its photos are wholly devoid of the delicate resonance of yummy goodness that gently suffuses all images created with the ineffable L. Subtle charm gently wafts from their every stop, filling the viewer with utter bliss. To use anything else would be an utter shame.
Ennui...
Right. ;-)
you're one silly guy, poetic description, it made me tingle inside.
When I got my 24/2.8 I didn't use it for a few months (since I have a 35L that I love), but lately I have given it a chance and it really surprised me to see how good it is. Very crisp even wide open. OK corner sharpness on 5D at f/4 already.
I had planned to get the 24L, but have now decided not to. The only drawback with the 24/2.8 is that it has some light fall-off in the corners wide open on 5D, but it doesn't bother me much and is gone at f/4. The noisy AF isn't anything to worry about (most of the time you won't even notice it) and it focuses reasonably fast and very accurately.
From what I can tell the 24mm f/2.8, like all lesser lenses, lacks the effervescent sparkly bubbyness of the L lenses, and its photos are wholly devoid of the delicate resonance of yummy goodness that gently suffuses all images created with the ineffable L. Subtle charm gently wafts from their every stop, filling the viewer with utter bliss. To use anything else would be an utter shame.
Ennui...
Right. ;-)
Priceless, superb, splendid, Dan! Evidently, you are a Master at dispelling any sense, however slight, of post-celebratory... ennui (what else)
Thank you for sharing the samples and crops. It looks like an incredible lens at that value. And skibum, I'm guessing you had a bad copy of the 24/2.8. I've tried many tamron lenses and most if not are all soft in the corners wide open and stopped down. The only exception I've ever seen is the 17-50/2.8, which can be only used on crops so...
ILOVECANONL wrote:
Thank you for sharing the samples and crops. It looks like an incredible lens at that value. And skibum, I'm guessing you had a bad copy of the 24/2.8. I've tried many tamron lenses and most if not are all soft in the corners wide open and stopped down. The only exception I've ever seen is the 17-50/2.8, which can be only used on crops so...
perhaps but it didn't really kill at slrgear or photozone tests either
and i've seen many claim that the top wider zooms are better than it
but give it shot if you want, maybe you'll be lucky
