I've been thinking about getting one myself. I currently have a 24-70L and often use the 24 end. But because for almost a year now I've been using a Leica M film (with my favorite lens being 28 mm elmarit) and seldom use my DSLR, I find that 24-70L has become too big and too heavy. That's why I'm thinking about getting a 24L or a zeiss ZE lens for a walk around lens.
Thanks,
Bob
Nice images. I have a 24 1.4L I and would like to upgrade. There is a "small" problem with my existing 24 1.4L (and I've heard that I am not alone in this): When I use the center point on 1d or 1ds mk III the lens focuses perfectly on the target (wide open). If I use the outer points, the focus has big errors (usually I get heavy front focusing). I get better results by focus/recompose than by using the outer points. This happens on all my three cameras, and the cameras are fine as they don't have this problem with my other lenses. I noticed the issue since I upgraded from the 5Ds to the 1 series and started to use the outer AF points (that now really work, unlike the 5d's).
Does anybody have the same issue with 24 1.4L I and can you tell me if this problem is still present on the 24 1.4L II ? (having this issue fixed would be a BIG step for making my decision to upgrade)
adimage wrote:
Nice images. I have a 24 1.4L I and would like to upgrade. There is a "small" problem with my existing 24 1.4L (and I've heard that I am not alone in this): When I use the center point on 1d or 1ds mk III the lens focuses perfectly on the target (wide open). If I use the outer points, the focus has big errors (usually I get heavy front focusing). I get better results by focus/recompose than by using the outer points. This happens on all my three cameras, and the cameras are fine as they don't have this problem with my other lenses. I noticed the issue since I upgraded from the 5Ds to the 1 series and started to use the outer AF points (that now really work, unlike the 5d's).
Does anybody have the same issue with 24 1.4L I and can you tell me if this problem is still present on the 24 1.4L II ? (having this issue fixed would be a BIG step for making my decision to upgrade) ...Show more →
You're probably seeing field curvature. It is common on wide lenses. There is nothing wrong with the camera. The focus plane from the lens just isn't flat. Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with the 24L II so I don't know what changes there are specifically.
adimage wrote:
Nice images. I have a 24 1.4L I and would like to upgrade. There is a "small" problem with my existing 24 1.4L (and I've heard that I am not alone in this): When I use the center point on 1d or 1ds mk III the lens focuses perfectly on the target (wide open). If I use the outer points, the focus has big errors (usually I get heavy front focusing). I get better results by focus/recompose than by using the outer points. This happens on all my three cameras, and the cameras are fine as they don't have this problem with my other lenses. I noticed the issue since I upgraded from the 5Ds to the 1 series and started to use the outer AF points (that now really work, unlike the 5d's).
Does anybody have the same issue with 24 1.4L I and can you tell me if this problem is still present on the 24 1.4L II ? (having this issue fixed would be a BIG step for making my decision to upgrade) ...Show more →
Ok I really hate to say this but this sounds consistent with what I've seen with my 1Ds3 until it was serviced early this year (for the 4th and final time) - when there was the recall dealing with center AF point being out of sync with the other ones. Since that service, I have not observed the problem; until then, consistently.
I don't want to open another 1D(s)3 AF discussion thread, but I have never had the same problems with my 1Ds, 1Ds2 and post-repair 1Ds3.
I know it's field curvature, but I guess it should not affect the AF performance. I use the lens a lot between 1.4 and 2.0 and I find it a bit annoying that I need to keep in mind that if I have the 24 I can only use the center point reliably. I hope that at least this problem is smaller with the new lens.
@Stanj, I was thinking that it may be the camera.
So I tested the lens on my all three mk III cameras (they were bought from different places, at different moments in time - so I doubt that they are from the same batch). The cameras are 2 x 1D III and 1 x 1ds III.
Also I tested this with 35 1.4L, 50 1.4, 85 1.2L II, 135 2.0L. All these other lenses work perfectly with all the AF points. Only the 24 is not ok. So I draw the conclusion that it must be the lens. I did search on the net and found out that it has field curvature and that's probably the cause for my problem.
Did you experience the same thing as me (meaning all other lenses work ok, except the 24, and after the servicing, also the 24 was ok) ?
Perfect for wide field astro photography. Sharp and useable f/1.4 for astro?! YES PLEASE!!
If you want pinpoint stars even in the corners, then you need to stop down to f2.2 (1.6x crop camera). However, if you don't print that big, f1.8 is already quite OK. Wide open is not impossible, but I would not use it unless for a very good reason.
Overall, definitely one of the fastest lenses in terms of acceptable stars in a wide aperture. However, don't ignore 35f2 (f2), 50f1.4 (f2.5) and 100f2 (f2) either.
"It's a completely different story with the lens mounted on the full-frame 5D. The lens produces extremely dark corners when used with large apertures; at ƒ/1.4, the corners of the image are almost two stops darker than the center!"
Why can't I see it in the posted wide open pictures?
astrolucida wrote:
If you want pinpoint stars even in the corners, then you need to stop down to f2.2 (1.6x crop camera). However, if you don't print that big, f1.8 is already quite OK. Wide open is not impossible, but I would not use it unless for a very good reason.
Overall, definitely one of the fastest lenses in terms of acceptable stars in a wide aperture. However, don't ignore 35f2 (f2), 50f1.4 (f2.5) and 100f2 (f2) either.
Do you say f/2.2 for crop cameras because of Yakim's post above? Does the lens suffer from bad light fall-off on full frame cameras?
I'm happy to stop down (f/2.2 is still a lot more light than I'm getting at f/4 currently) but I'd rather get the full 24mm.
Adam L wrote:
Do you say f/2.2 for crop cameras because of Yakim's post above? Does the lens suffer from bad light fall-off on full frame cameras?
I'm happy to stop down (f/2.2 is still a lot more light than I'm getting at f/4 currently) but I'd rather get the full 24mm.
No, it's because of image (star) quality. In astrophotography you can take flats to get rid of vignetting, so that's not a problem. Though, if vignetting is extreme, the noise (in the corners) may increase significantly in the process.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Sometimes I why I bother to learn and get updated. I just keep forgetting.
Don't know exactly how to read this, but lets assume there is no sarcasm involved.
Apart from PP correction many subjects and/or situations can actually benefit from some degree of vignetting, making for a "better" composition. Perhaps some of these samples do have vignetting, but you are simply drawn away from the "flaw" because of the "overal" picture and effect it creates.
I'm not a technical guy, I just like what I see this lens doing. The previous 24L although interesting, never caught my attention the way the new 24L2 does. I certainly wasn't planning for a new wide prime (well I have been playing with the idea of getting a Nikkor or Zuiko 28mm), but this one comes as a nice and inspiring surprise. Can't wait to get one, probably the latter part of january.
It's not sarcasm. I'm genuinely amazed at the simple things I keep forgetting. It's as if I have a finite capacity of memory. My only defense is that I do very little PP to my pictures.
Don't worry Yakim, I do very little to no PP either.
If I do nothing more fancy than DPP exposure correction, little sharpening, saturation and WB. I keep forgetting the "lens correction" options as well. And if I do remember, it reminds me that 9 times out of 10 I actually prefer to see some vignetting.
"stars look like sliver moons anywhere at all near the borders anywhere near wide open, sorry"
That's one thing holding me back from upgrading my 24L Mk1 to the new Mk2 for astronomy. The images I've seen using the new lens at f1.4 do have slightly sharper stars across the whole image but you are going to need a very, very large print indeed to see the difference, and as you say the corner coma effects are still pronounced, as is the vignetting which is apparently worse on the Mk2. I think I have a good copy of the Mk1 and I doubtful the Mk2 is going to be £1000 better than my older lens, which is the difference between the secondhand value of my Mk1 and the massive UK retail on the Mk2.
Still, I do read all the new Mk2 threads avidly, but suspect I am going to save my pennies for the 35L Mk2, as I don't already have a 35mm at present this should give me more bang for my buck.
astrolucida
Spookily enough I have also come to a figure of f2.2 for acceptable star sharpness and shape across the entire frame, but on a 5D2 and using the Mk1 lens! A compromise of course, but when the next generation of cameras with even better sensors comes out I will be able to stop down even more with sharper corners. Thats another reason I am hesitant to splash on the Mk2
I must confess that vignetting is something I never bother co correct not because I like it but because I have yet to notice it in any picture I took. Must be my aging eyes....
For whatever it is worth, I would like to add a few things here. The classic 24L was a lens that I couldn't warm up to. Yes, it had to do with its performance, which again was actually excellent but I preferred my 35mmL over its wider sibling. Yes, the don't have the same FL but somehow the 35L got used way more back then. Now, the role seems to get reversed; the more I use this lens. the more I started liking it more and more. Whether the 24L II is worth upgrading from the classic one will vary on an individual basis. Is the new lens worht $600-$800 more? Only you will know the asnwer. For me, it is a definite "yes".
I also heard about the AF inconsistencies of the classice 24L using the outer AF points. It was Daan B that brought it up to my attention here on FM about a year or two ago. I tested mine and didn't notice anything weird at that time. Like Stan mentioned though, I believe that the problem was rectified after Canon calibrated the outer AF points earlier this year.
As far as vignetting concerned - It is definitely there at wide open or even at f/2.0. Every single shot posted here shows that. It can easily be corrected with only minor, if any, visible ill-effect. The shot of the Open House at Precision Camera was corrected for vignetting to about 1.2-stop. BTW, an outside AF point was used on that woman's face/eye for that shot. One the other hand, the shot at f/2.0 of the omelet/pancake was not corrected.
I am not doing astro-photography and I refrain from rendering any opinion on this aspect.
trumpet_guy wrote:
Consider finding a good used copy of the 16-35 mk1 and the 24L mk1.
together this will cost you no more than the 24L mk2 and will still give good
performance.
I have considered this option more or less.... I found a dealer who sells brand new 24L (mk I) copy (s) for € 940,- while the 24L mk II costs € 1440,- (which is a good price too in the Netherlands) Now, a € 500,- difference is quite alot of money, I could actually buy a secondhand 17-40 with that, for those times I need a wider FOV. However... I'm not sure I would be happy with a 24L mk I, because if I buy a fast prime, I buy it because I want to able use it (close to) wide open. And after reading all the reviews on this lens, I'm not so sure it will be satisfying in terms of sharpness and bokeh... The good news is that this dealer has both the old and new 24L in stock so I think (read: hope) I will be able to test both copies to see if the the older, cheaper one will be good enough for me. I think I will leave work early tomorrow to visit that dealer... (unless my 38 week pregnant wife decides to give birth between now and tomorrow afternoon, that is )
Anyway, what do you people think about this price difference between the mk I and mk II? And what would you do in my situation, go for the 24L mk II or the 24L (assuming it's a decent copy) and buy a secondhand 17-40? (considering this will most probably be the last money I can spend on gear for the next year or so)
Mark_EL wrote:
I have considered this option more or less.... I found a dealer who sells brand new 24L (mk I) copy (s) for € 940,- while the 24L mk II costs € 1440,- (which is a good price too in the Netherlands) Now, a € 500,- difference is quite alot of money, I could actually buy a secondhand 17-40 with that, for those times I need a wider FOV. However... I'm not sure I would be happy with a 24L mk I, because if I buy a fast prime, I buy it because I want to able use it (close to) wide open. And after reading all the reviews on this lens, I'm not so sure it will be satisfying in terms of sharpness and bokeh... The good news is that this dealer has both the old and new 24L in stock so I think (read: hope) I will be able to test both copies to see if the the older, cheaper one will be good enough for me. I think I will leave work early tomorrow to visit that dealer... (unless my 38 week pregnant wife decides to give birth between now and tomorrow afternoon, that is )
Anyway, what do you people think about this price difference between the mk I and mk II? And what would you do in my situation, go for the 24L mk II or the 24L (assuming it's a decent copy) and buy a secondhand 17-40? (considering this will most probably be the last money I can spend on gear for the next year or so) ...Show more →
For FF: 24L Mk II, for APS-C only 24L Mk I will do nicely.
I had a good copy of the 24L, which I used extensively on the 40D when I still had it. It was one of my favourite lenses.
However, on FF the 24L II really comes into its own, because the corners are so incredibly good.
Generally it also autofocuses much better than the Mk I (essentially it is accurate, and strictly repeatable, where the Mk I would decide then here, then there, especially in low light, or rather, low contrast). I don't know if the outer AF points work any better; I rarely use those.
Bokeh is also a little better, as is flare resistance and CAs.
I was worried to let the old one go, but I am glad I did. The Mk II is all the Mk I was already, just a whole lot better, especially on FF.
Good job, Joshua. The lens looks as good as any of the two 24L MkIs I've had.
However, I'll stick to my old and faithful MkI. She is as good as home baked whole wheat bread and beef stew made from scratch. (Yup, we were busy in the kitchen today).
Shot as JPG with the 40D/24L MkI wide open. Grey card for WB and NR applied. No other pp.
)
(Yup, we were busy in the kitchen today).