The 24L II has an optical formula that is greatly different from the 1st version. These extra UD and aspherical elements should improve the IQ a lot since the 1st version has strong visible CA wide open, and the corner is not that good either. Nikon's 14-24/2.8 is a sold proof of modern optical technology, I hope Canon would bring up something that can compete with it.
I am with Stan on the 24L mkI. Easily one of my favorite lenses, but again I don't really use it for landscapes. I am usually using it at f/2 and below, so the edge to edge sharpness thing doesn't come into play with those types of shots. Right now, it is a lens that you can grab for well under 1K, and is well worth it.
And you should, as they are both very different. A lot of us here are wondering which one to get (as we can barely afford to buy one) but if we can afford both of them, then we don't have to agonize over our decision to pick one!
trumpet_guy wrote:
I'm tempted by them both, but the 21/2.8 is for landscapes and the 24/1.4 is for
low light people shots.
Don't hold your breath though! Nikon has always better than Canon when it comes to wide angle lenses .... and they have raised the bar real high with the 14-24.
phuang3 wrote:
The 24L II has an optical formula that is greatly different from the 1st version. These extra UD and aspherical elements should improve the IQ a lot since the 1st version has strong visible CA wide open, and the corner is not that good either. Nikon's 14-24/2.8 is a sold proof of modern optical technology, I hope Canon would bring up something that can compete with it.
I am just speculating but I think the 24L II will shine on a high density sensor like the 50D. Sure you will not get the wideness of FF but it'll take some time for us to see a 40-50MP FF.
That little inspiration is in reference to dpreview's take on the 50D and what has been said about the Nikkor 14-24
