|
|
dorkus
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 17, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 146
|
|
Review Date: Oct 9, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $290.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
compact, light and inexpensive; great on FF, even to the corners; sharp and contrasty; surprisingly good wide-open; very pleasant bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
Lacks USM, not so great flare handling (get the hood), didn't perform as well on APS-C
|
|
This lens has turned out to be a big surprise for me.
I originally bought it to use with my 10D on honeymoon, as my usual go-to lens (35/1.4L) was too bulky and a bit too tight (56mm equivalent) on APS-C. The pictures came out ok - good sharpness and contrast - but lacked a certain something that I'm accustomed to from my 35/1.4 or 85/1.8 primes. When I returned from the trip, I re-boxed it and decided to put it up for sale.
About a year and a half later I hadn't gotten around to selling the lens yet, and I had just acquired a used 5D. My dream of full frame was realized and I felt my 35/1.4 was plenty wide enough, so I didn't even think to try the 24/2.8 - how could it even compare? I figured if it wasn't great on the 10D, it would be even worse on the 5D.
Boy was I wrong. A potential buyer asked me to test the lens, and my friend encouraged me to try it on the 5D, so I went out and snapped a couple test shots at lunch. They looked fantastic! I then took the lens home and tried it in low ambient light, and was shocked at how great the pictures looked. It was sharp and contrasty, with good uniformity all the way out to the corners. Stop it down one click to f/3.2 and it gets even sharper, and by f/4 quality is pretty much optimal. In this respect it behaves much more like an L than a cheap lens, many of which need to be stoped down to f/5.6 or so before they look really good.
I've used the majority of Canon primes between 20mm and 135mm, both L and non-L, and while the 24/2.8 doesn't have the trademark warmth and richness of the L's, it is very much in the same league as the better non-L's like the 85/1.8 and 100 macro. The bokeh in particular is a real surprise - not as creamy as the 24L or 35L, but very smooth and pleasant with nothing objectionable going on. But if I were to pick one aspect of the lens that excels, it would have to be the colors, which strike a near perfect balance of vibrance and naturalness. Blues in particular are wonderfully saturated, ideal for shooting landscapes and water - I bought a polarizer, but never really need it.
There are a few cons which are well-explored in the other reviews so I won't dwell on them too much. The lens feels cheap compared to the USM primes, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be durable. It vignettes a bit wide open, but then so does my 35L, and it doesn't bother me - in fact I rather like the effect. The biggest downside I find vs. an L prime, other than the slower aperture, is flare handling. With the 35L I can shoot into a setting sun to get a nice warm effect with well controlled halos, but the 24/2.8 will just wash out and not look particularly good, so shooting into the sun is pretty much out. I'm also not sure why it was so underwhelming on my 10D... it could be the newer sensors with their improved microlenses get more out of wideangles than my old 10D, but it just wasn't as contrasty and interesting as on the 5D. (It could also be that the 38mm-equivalent FOV bored me.)
Some people have complained of not so great sharpness, excessive CA, etc. - my best guess is they are using it on a body that it doesn't work so well (e.g. a crop with small pixel pitch), and/or they got a bad copy. I'm not sure if my copy is especially good but the performance is really outstanding.
In any case, I'm just glad I discovered this lens on my 5D before I sold it! If you don't need the extreme low-light capabilities of the 24/1.4L, definitely check this sleeper out.
|
|
 Oct 9, 2009
|
|
Fulcrum
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 23, 2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp to corners even on FF. Very nice bokeh. Lightweight. Colour rendition.
|
|
Cons:
|
Prone to flare. Noisy AF motor.
|
|
This is the best Canon non-L wideangle prime.
I have had the 20mm/2.8, 28mm/2.8 and 35mm/2.0 prime lenses.
The 35mm was not wide enough for me and produced an ugly bokeh.
The 28mm was not wide enough for me and produced soft corners.
The 20mm was simply crap (softish even at the center, bland colours)
Prior to this I had the pleasure of owning a few zooms as well.
I have had the Canon 17-40mm/4L (excellent colours, fast AF, sharp center BUT ugly corners on 5Dmk2),
Sigma 15-30mm (sharp BUT bland colours AND heavy distortion, AND ugly soft edges on 5dmk2), Sigma 12-24mm (unreliable, very ugly and soft edges on 5dmk2)
This little gem beats them all in corner sharpness, colour rendition and general image quality. A fantastic lens, this one.
This thing comes very close in image quality to the 24mm/1.4L first edition (except that one is even more flare prone and has a few stops, plus it costs too much for what it is).
I could not be happier with the optical qualities of the lens, considering that I bought it at half the current price, almost unused and as new. This one is a keeper.
The only thing that bugs me is the plastic construction. I prefer metal barrel on a lens. Although heavy, it gives a certain feeling about durability. But as far as it lasts I am going to enjoy it.
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2009
|
|
condyk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 14, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 300
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very small and light with excellent performance throughout. Very nice pocket sized walkaround with a 50mm on FF or on its own with a crop body. AF is good even though an older design.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit plastic but not so bad as the 50mm 1.8. Nothing else!
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2009
|
|
Barry Pehlman
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 905
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $279.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, sharp @ f2.8, good contrast, 58mm filter
|
|
Cons:
|
Lack of USM.
|
|
This lens delivers sharp, contrasty pics in a lightweight, compact body. The small, optional hood is takes up little room in a bag. Overall, it's built solid. The 24 f2.8 handles flare better than the L zooms, and it demonstrates extremely low distortion and little CA. It's fairly sharp @ f2.8, and is the charm by f4. I use the 24 f2.8 on a 5D mostly on RAW.
This conservatively priced EF lens should not be judged against L primes and zooms. In some cases this lens exceeds L lens quality, especially the zooms. Higher expectations, or comparisons shouldn't shave points off for what it is.... a solid performer that can stand on it's own.
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/057_Canon_24F2.8/_The_Canon_EF_24_F2.8.html
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2008
|
|
Fr3d
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 28, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, Lightweight, Sharpness, Speed, Contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
for the price none
|
|
I bought this lens used on eBay for my Canon 5D Mark II as an unobtrusive wide angle lens. The lens is made of high quality plastics and has a metal mount. It feels light but adequately well build. I was skeptikal about the performance wide open (I bought it for shooting stoped down) but was very pleased when I took at few shots with it. The lens is very sharp at f2.8 and super sharp at f4. Beyond f4 I cannot detect any improvement. Rememer I am talking about performance on the 5D Mark II. The color might not be L but it is good. Contrast again is very good. For the price paid its a bargain. I highly recommend this much overlooked lens.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2008
|
|
mazamabill
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 28, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Nov 18, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $329.95
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Small
|
|
Cons:
|
Optics not good as "L" zooms; focus is slow and noisy
|
|
I bought this lens from B&H because the reviews suggested that it was nearly the equivalent of the f1.4 version in terms of IQ. However, it wasn't even as good as my 24-105 and wasn't much better than the 24-85. I'm surprised, because the even cheaper 35mm f2 has MUCH better IQ and contrast.
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2008
|
|
YLTan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2002
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Oct 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, excellent sharpness from f/4 onwards, f2.8 still great in the center and acceptable in the corners on a crop camera
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow f/2.8 maximum aperture, no hood, plasticky
|
|
I don't agree it doesn't make sense in these days of pro zoom. It's small, easy to carry around, and give great performance on a crop camera. Your 17-55, etc is at least 4X the size. No doubt it's not a zoom, but it's faster than most consumer level zooms but about 1 stop. I wish it was a f/2.0 but that was not to be. The L version is large and heavy with a big price on it.
You can always bring a 50 f/1.8 for those situation that requires a longer lens. That makes it a very small ( and I dare say cheap ) kit when on the move.
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2008
|
|
skibum5
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3652
|
|
Review Date: Oct 13, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
pretty sharp in the center, very compact
|
|
Cons:
|
way too much CA, not the worlds sharpest corners, worse than the modern zooms that cover this range and no faster
|
|
maybe it was good once upon a time, but seriously, my tamron zooms simply blow it away (as i'm sure does the canon 17-55 IS or 24-105L). just doesn't make sense in this day and age IMO.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2008
|
|
dhphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 6516
|
|
Review Date: Aug 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light, versatile (24mm on full frame, 31mm on x1.3 crop, 38.4 on x1.6 crop equivalents), good contrast and colour
|
|
Cons:
|
Too expensive in the UK, much cheaper in the US, no full time focusing, bit plasticky. Once again no hood.
|
|
Very good lens, better in fact then my 35 f2 which surprised me.
No vignetting on full frame 5D and sharp at all apertures. A very good general purpose lens on a x1.6 crop camera becomes a good wideangle on full frame.
Not wonderfully well built and without full time focusing, but all in all a good, contrasty lens.
|
|
|
Aug 9, 2008
|
|
RobertLynn
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 4645
|
|
Review Date: Jun 20, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast Av, reasonably quick footage, semi-wide, affordable. SHARP even wide open.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus ring feels sloppy.
|
|
A cheap alternative to a fast wide angle lens. Sharp wide open, and even gets clearer as you increase.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2008
|
|
artguy55
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 160
|
|
Review Date: Jun 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $299.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great optics, small size, controlled CA and distortion.
|
|
Cons:
|
Sharp to the edges, but L lens has sharper center and of course is faster. Had to buy a $30 lens hood, come on Canon!
|
|
This little gem is a sleeper! Looking for a lightweight, ultra wide, I picked this lens up, hoping it would work for landscape and architectural work. It has passed all my tests so far, but keep in mind I shoot on tripod, and at f8-11 only, so no test for background blur and wide open, as I dont care about those f stops.
Do not pass up a chance to test this lens instead of buying 24L, as in some cases, it is sharper. And it fits in a pocket, and is a great companion lens to the 35mm 2.0. This is also much better in my opinion than the 17-40 zoom which I sold to buy this and the 35 2.0.
Stopped down, it shows excellent edge to edge sharpness, good CA and distortion control. I am very happy with it.
|
|
|
Jun 6, 2008
|
|
humaniverse
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 96
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, fast AF, sharp to corner, very low distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
Not USM AF but no complain at this price.
|
|
I have 24f1.4L but still got this little "ugly duckling". I need a compact 24mm prime on 5D. I compare it to 24L. The border and corner sharpness is better than 24L!. Center falls short to 24L which is expected. IMO, from f2.8 and above, 24L is about equal to 24f2.8. 24f2.8 also has very low distortion, seems better than 24L. However, 24L has better color, contrast and silky boken. I know it' not fair to compare it to 4 time priced lens. What I want to say is if you don't need f1.4~f2.8, 24f2.8 is obviously better buy.
This little guy makes me think whether I should keep 24L. It looks like 24L is only useful for extreme low light or better boken. No much strength in other situation.
|
|
|
May 29, 2008
|
|
|
