Sneakyracer wrote:
I have to agree with Dan. I own, have owned and or used most lenses in the Canon L lens line under 300mm if not all of them and a few others. If you need to ask about a lens like the 24mm 1.4 then you dont need it. Its best you rent the lens or borrow it and use it for few days.
There are 2 reasons to have a lens like the 24mm 1.4L II.
#1: You want/need the 24mm lens with the highest image quality that Canon makes (over a broad f stop range with AF)
#2: You want/need to shoot at f1.4-f2 constantly (at 24mm of course)
Honestly, I only use my best lenses when Im shooting for commercial purposes (advertising and as a unit stills photog. in films) or potential comercial purposes (personal projects that are going to be on sale as large prints or publication (book) ). Believe it or not in most of my travels I take a Nikon V1 and kit lens and/or my 5D3 with the 17-40L and 40mm pancake.
I have a need for the best image quality I can get out of my lenses, and aperture faster than 2.8 is beneficial in situations, along with the desire to blow cash that I have better things to spend on.
Really it fits a few needs both personal and professional. The work virtues of the lens are paramount and are obvious. Along with that, it's a higher quality, more suitable back up to a 24-70 than my 35 f/2 is. (admittedly the 35 f/2 is a fantastic little lens). That's great for weddings. Not only is it a back up, but it serves an extra function (f/1.4). I like my back-ups to serve multiple purposes. I don't like the idea of owning 2-24-70's. That's wasteful to me (right now in my market). But a 24-70 and a 24 1.4? Sounds good.
The personal one is simple. Who doesn't like to buy themselves a new toy once in awhile? It was either this, or an AR build rifle. I felt I would enjoy this more.
Yea, the 35mm f2 is too close in f stop to the 24-70 to be a real asset. For weddings the 35mm f1.4 is awesome plus it has stunning image quality at the mid apertures so its a great lens for f5.6-f11 work as well as low light wide open. The 24 is a little wide (Im talking about full frame) for people shots. Since its a focal length I mostly use for landscape and architecture I got the 24mm TS-E II and couldnt be happier.
Regarding backups, in over 25 years of using SLRs ive only had 2 lenses go bad (disregarding impact or water damage), one sigma and one nikon and in both cases it was the aperture mechanism (got stuck open, would not stop down when making the exposures). In both cases the lenses were well taken are of, never dropped or anything, I was just shooting normally and they just stopped working correctly. So back-ups are never a bad idea.
FYI- I know this probably doesn't matter for the OP, but I wanted to share my experience for others.
I tried 4 24Lv2 lenses (1 used, 3 new) and had huge focusing issues with all of them. Only one didn't front/backfocus out of the box, and all of them were amazingly inconsistent. Most of them would have a 'tendency' to front or back focus more, but even that was hard to pin down because the focus was wildly inconsistent.
The last 2 new copies I had were both taken to Canon multiple times and never corrected. The last time, I sat down with the lead engineer at the service center and reproduced the problem in front of him (as simple as focusing on some flat-high contrast object, taking 5 pictures and seeing 3 of them grossly out of focus, some front some backfocused). He acknowledged the issue and said that in his experience, out of ten 24v2's, only a couple wouldn't have the inconsistency issue.
I gave up and found a clean 24L v1, that I've been very happy since. It does not have the inconsistent focus issues, and isn't nearly the "ugly stepchild" that the internet makes it out to be. It definitely doesn't quite have the crispness, sharpness, and contrast of the v2 under f2.0, but it's closer than I would have believed before owning both. I would rate it as:
f1.4=definitely adequate and useful,
f1.6=good image quality,
f2.0+ excellent,
f11 sharp corner, great contrast, very decent landscape lens with just a touch easily fixed CA.
I will add that, I did test a demo 24Lv2 from Canon that had perfect AF. And I also talked with another member who had similar issues, and after a long battle, finally had his inconsistent 24Lv2 fixed. I really wish I could have had one without issues. But I am sincerely happy with my v1 and I'm not that tempted to try another v2.
RobertLynn wrote:
I'm thinking it will help me with my technique also making me more critical in my work, for instance my 135 is seldom used because I just suck with it. The is of my 70-200 is a life saver.
...Perhaps I'm just looking for some lens porn and a push over the edge l.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I think your second-to-last observation ("... lens porn....") is probably right. Rather than push you over that edge, I'm going to discourage you from buying such a lens for the reasons you mention.
I own the lens. It is a fine lens for certain purposes, though I get far more use out of a couple of L zooms at the 24mm focal length for the work I do.
Unless I missed something in your post, the only reason you really mention for getting this lens is that you are "thinking it will help me with my technique," "making me more critical in my work." You also mention that you imagine that it will open us some vague and undefined "new possibilities" in your shooting. I think you are looking for an excuse to buy this really cool looking lens, but I'm also pretty certain that it will have almost no value in that context. You already have this focal length range covered with a fine lens, overall it seems that you (reasonably) prefer shooting zooms.
We've all occasionally developed a fixation on some piece of gear for reasons that are, frankly, hard to explain. I'm not immune, though I've managed to finally adopt some ways of dealing with this that at least make me a lot more resistant. Often when we get fixated on some piece of gear we come up with a lot of reasons to explain and justify what is really mostly a sort of emotional focus on the acquisition of the lens. Some signs that Gear Acquisition Syndrome may be in play include vague notions about how the lens will make you better, a history of buying similar fancy gear that eventually ended up being boring, a history of getting the thing that seemed like what you needed only to then start to desire another different thing in the same way, and the unfortunate tendency to think a lot more about equipment than about photographs, often putting off the thinking about photographs with the vague, almost unarticulated thought that once you solve the "lens problem" that the photographs will take care of themselves.
There are a few things that may help you resist:
- Focus on photographs rather than gear. Perhaps share a photograph per week or day online as a sort of assignment to yourself. You will occasionally be blocked or frustrated, but keep going - the practice eventually begins to develop your eye and shift your passion away from gear and toward photographs.
- Try shooting some lens you already have at 24mm and no other focal length for a few days and see how much you really need to have a prime at this FL.
- As hard as it is, instead of imagining how you might need something, look at your photography and ask yourself in cold, analytical terms how many shots you were unable to get (actually unable to get, not imagine that you might not be able to get) because you did not have a 24mm f/1.4 prime.
- When you make a decision that you "need" something like this lens, sit on the decision for a month or two months before making your purchase. If at any time during that waiting period you start to feel the uncontrollable urge to buy now or, on the other hand, you start to second guess your "decision," reset the clock for another month or two before you purchase. Time often has a way of reducing the Gear Lust passions.
marcus riley wrote:
FYI- I know this probably doesn't matter for the OP, but I wanted to share my experience for others.
I tried 4 24Lv2 lenses (1 used, 3 new) and had huge focusing issues with all of them. Only one didn't front/backfocus out of the box, and all of them were amazingly inconsistent. Most of them would have a 'tendency' to front or back focus more, but even that was hard to pin down because the focus was wildly inconsistent.
The last 2 new copies I had were both taken to Canon multiple times and never corrected. The last time, I sat down with the lead engineer at the service center and reproduced the problem in front of him (as simple as focusing on some flat-high contrast object, taking 5 pictures and seeing 3 of them grossly out of focus, some front some backfocused). He acknowledged the issue and said that in his experience, out of ten 24v2's, only a couple wouldn't have the inconsistency issue.
I gave up and found a clean 24L v1, that I've been very happy since. It does not have the inconsistent focus issues, and isn't nearly the "ugly stepchild" that the internet makes it out to be. It definitely doesn't quite have the crispness, sharpness, and contrast of the v2 under f2.0, but it's closer than I would have believed before owning both. I would rate it as:
f1.4=definitely adequate and useful,
f1.6=good image quality,
f2.0+ excellent,
f11 sharp corner, great contrast, very decent landscape lens with just a touch easily fixed CA.
I will add that, I did test a demo 24Lv2 from Canon that had perfect AF. And I also talked with another member who had similar issues, and after a long battle, finally had his inconsistent 24Lv2 fixed. I really wish I could have had one without issues. But I am sincerely happy with my v1 and I'm not that tempted to try another v2....Show more →
Interesting! Wouldn't microfocus adjustment of the lens with your camera help? It improved all my fast lenses in their AF capabilities. It is not surprising that there is a huge variation in back/front focussing at f/1.4 depending on the camera body used (and every body of the same series is slightly different, too!).
I've read about AF complaints. It seems to be more common with the 7D perhaps (a few people have said it was ok on their 5D2 but bad on their 7D) although I've seen complaint about it's AF on all bodies.
That said the AF on mine doesn't seem bad for a fast wide lens which is the toughest sort of lens on Canon AF. On my 5D3 it seems pretty solid actually, although I have tried placing a single pupil at f/1.4 exactly on target time and again.
Maybe some copies are worse than others. I think mine is perfectly fine. The only copy I've ever tried of it.
I really really am enjoying mine. I liked the v1 very much, yet this is a terrific upgrade. Quite good wide open and excellent at 1.8 and above. I believe that you are a ff and a one three cropper. Love it on my ff and also excellent on my 1d3. Interested to hear your thought after you get that drywall done, and start shooting frames. Great at weddings and events; for me.
With single focus point, the 24L II's AF is a bit inconsistent. It is the only lens where I prefer to use multiple points or AF assist points for general use. I believe it is just a quirk of this design and not a matter of bad copies.
With multiple focus points, the lens is pretty much perfect in AF aquisition, and my favorite for street or social events shooting.
I'm using this lens on a daily basis last the few months for the architecture shots. I would love to have 24 TS-E, but I’m happy with the 24L f1.4.
I also used it on the 7D in a crowded reception room with decent results.
On wind angle there is no better (for IQ) EF lens in the Canon range. It might be not very versatile but in certain condition it is great choice. I had also some success in a landscape shots. This lens is rock solid and if I miss a shot it is not this lens fault
Just got mine a little over a week ago, I shoot a 1Dsmk2 and I was worried about all the chatter regarding focus issues..But, alas, mine is perfect with any focus point or all or some. It's as sharp as my sharpest L primes and contrasty and....well, I wish I'd have bought one years ago. It's superb.
I have the MK1 and while it's great...all the talk makes me want to upgrade to the MKII. It's a great lens and I just need to find ways to use it more often. It's fighting with the 35L for usage time.
RobertLynn wrote:
I used the lens in a few simple tests.
It misses focus tremendously, focusing in front of the target a good bit. +18/+20
I am going to exchange it for another one. A few clicks of ma no big deal, but damn near 20? No.
wow that sucks
yeah +18-20 is too dangerous, what if the next body you get is a couple clicks more to that direction or the tolerance changes a click or two over time, gotta go back if the MFA is that extreme
maybe i was really lucky with my copy, a within reason +6 and non of the random front back horrors that some talk about
yeah +18-20 is too dangerous, what if the next body you get is a couple clicks more to that direction or the tolerance changes a click or two over time, gotta go back if the MFA is that extreme
maybe i was really lucky with my copy, a within reason +6 and non of the random front back horrors that some talk about
Yeah man, +5/-5 is my cut off. I don't know what the arbitrary clicks mean, but that's my cut off.
I can say this though, it's consistent. it doesn't miss focus once it's dialed in.
Hopefully the store doesn't stick me with shipping back, waiting a few days for it to get there, then waiting a week for them to play with it, then a few days to get another one. If that's the case, then I think I'll send it to Canon and have it serviced.
It is a fine lens for some purposes - I own one - but your rationale for getting it isn't making a lot of sense to me.
Dan
RobertLynn wrote:
I have been thinking about this lens for awhile now. It is not because of a need for 24mm, I've got that covered with 24-70, and 24-105. I do have a fast 35 for when 2.8 won't do.
I've been considering another 16-35, but I hardly used it when I owned it, and though I'd sometimes like wider, I don't run into a need yet.
I'm thinking the 24 1.4 is going to open uP new possibilities in shooting, and at 1.4 it's much faster than my 35 f/2 and obviously more so than my zooms.
I'm thinking it will help me with my technique also making me more critical in my work, for instance my 135 is seldom used because I just suck with it. The is of my 70-200 is a life saver.
The reviews I have read suggest that there's some focus issues with the 24? I'm thinking this brouhaha is just the people who got a bad one complaining, but I just wanted to check out here.
I'd been waiting for a refurb to get in stock, but with the rebates I'm thinking I'm just going to say screw it and order it today.
I know some users here love it, and their word is more than good enough for me. Perhaps I'm just looking for some lens porn and a push over the edge l....Show more →
Faster=better for weddings.
Backup that serves more than 1 purpose (wide back up or fast lens instead of 2.8).
Low light capabilities.
Ultimate image quality amongst 24mm lenses.
Practice technique and improve on it. If I can reliably nail 1.4, then 2.8 images improve.
Prime lens, focus on compositional elements with my placement rather than just zoom.
I had disposable income and wanted a new "toy".
So far, best post of the year in this gear forum...