Best lens I have ever owned, period. Simply an amazing lens, and I have owned a lot of them over the years. The 135L matches it, but that is all I can think of, astonishing, and while merely "outstanding" on my 40D, this lens is simply "mind blowing" on the 5D.
A darn expensive lens, but worth it. Owned it 6 weeks and it still on my 5D, even thought I swore up an down that the 24-105L would almost never leave my 5D. Color, sharpness, AF speed, resistance to flare, all 10/10. A true home run
Peter,
How did you like the mix meat stew? That sounds close to the Peking Duck Pizza from CPK, huh ? BTW, where was the AF point on that shot? On the loaf or on the "C" of the "Crap-pelli", extra virgin olive oil ?
I can't quite say that it was the _best_ lens I've ever owned, but definitely the most loved one. I would go on a 4-day trip to NYC with just that one lens and have no regrets.
David Baldwin wrote:
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 probably have a lot tighter criteria for round stars: at 100% (40D) and even with drastic contrast stretching indistinguishable from a sphere and no visible CA (well, with bright stars actually no lens can achieve both in the corners).
Here you can see good stars with the 200f2.8L II at f3.2 (center+corner crops): http://www.pbase.com/lumodomo/image/69721993
(the elongation of all the stars is due to slight tracking issues, not lens aberrations).
Unfortunately I don't have the 24f1.4L II samples in the net, but this is the level of stars at f2.2. f1.8 is already very good, with little deformation of stars.
And I've seen astrophotography even with the 24f1.4L Mk I (wide open) published in a magazine as a whole page. I was able to notice the coma only because I knew to look for it.
I know, I am very strict for lens quality in astrophotography, but then again you can print much larger if the stars are round even at 100%.
Due to some personal circumstances I was not able to go the shop to test both the 24L mk I and mk II, so I decided it was time to make up my mind... I bit the bullet and ordered me the 24L mk II.
Congrats! Seriously, if it doesn't put any strain on the financial end, I would absolutely recommend to swallow for the difference in price, go for the Mark II. Be satisfied and not comprimising. But that's me and YMMW.
Yes, absolutely. For me the Mk2 is an itch I think I'm going to have to scratch next year! For me a fast 24/28mm is my most crucial lens, and in my heart of hearts I know I'll have to get the Mk 2 eventually because its the best! Just how much better than the old lens I won't know till I buy the damn thing.
In the meantime the Mk1 does provide images I couldn't really get from any other lens in my bag, and for now it will have to do:
