segal3 wrote:
Does anyone know if the 24 II requires a front filter to complete the weather-sealing (a la the 16-35, 70-200, etc) ?
Probably not. BTW, the front element on all of the 70-200 zooms is sealed and it doesn't move.
So the ones that Canon recommends the sealing filter for are: 17-40, 16-35, 50 f/1.2. Obviously, the 10-22 would benefit from it as well.
It is surprisingly quiet about this lens on the net. Only a very limited number of people have managed to get a copy. I wonder how long we will have to wait. I have ordered mine locally in Denmark on November 13th because I wanted local warranty and VAT exemption. But it might drag on to 2009 with deliveries :-(
In Japan, it seem that it will go on sale on the 19th.
Mine made it over to Sweden today (via personal courier - it was purchased in the US), along with a 5DII. I will probably wander around Copenhagen with it this weekend. I have only had time to snap a few boring test shots. I will try to post some samples as soon as I have something worth evaluating. So far I have not found anything to dislike about it.
fourfa wrote:
hm, the Mark I looks a hair sharper at all settings according to those crops. what the heck
I will have to agree with you on the MkI's apparent sharpness, but it is also has far more CA than the MkII. Depending on your priority (CA over Sharpness), it's kind of a coin flip at this point. I'm not entirely convinced one is better than the other. Of course, based on the lower price, I would have to consider the MkI over the MkII. For now, I'm willing to wait till further testing comes out to make a more informed decision.
I wish that I had the 24LII last night.
I shot an employee Xmas party in an nice, old, dimly-lit mansion using my new 5D2...an 85L, and the Nikkor 14-24G. The 85L rocked as usual for individuals and couples when I had the room, but the 14-24G was on the 5D2 90% of the time (iso 6400), in an attempt to capture small and large groups of people and the beautiful interior details.
After shooting that setup all night, and after reviewing the images today...my conclusion is that the 14-24G (adapted to a Canon body) is best for situations like landscapes and architecture where one can methodically and carefully adjust everything on a tripod.
For conditions like last night - it was too slow, and the aperture/focal length settings are too easy to move inadvertently when the action gets fast and furious.
Not to mention that manually focusing everything was tedious for me and my victims :-) (Again - This on a CANON body).
Obviously, I should have had a 24L or 35L. I have owned them both in the past and liked them. With the 5D2, I am waiting for reports and reviews of how the 24LII (and hopefully soon a 35LII) function, especially on a 5D2, as there were reports that some 1DsIII owners were having issues with the 35L on those bodies, which could also be the case with the 5D2 bodies.
So in conclusion, (and I realize that I am stating the obvious) at the 24mm focal length, the Nikkor 14-24G is one of the highest resolving and sharpest superwide lenses across the frame available to Canon shooters, and it's ability to shoot sharply at other focal lengths make it extremely versatile....but it does have it's limitations on a Canon body like: needing an adapter, manual focus, no aperture adjustment in camera, little EXIF information in post, and filters require a bulky adapter.
For low-light, quick moving, hand-held situations like last night...the 24LII is looking like a top contender for me. I'm also curious about any new Zeiss offerings and maybe Canon will introduce a 35LII soon...
Cheers,
Scott
fourfa wrote:
hm, the Mark I looks a hair sharper at all settings according to those crops. what the heck
Sounds very unlikely, doesn't it? Tthis is the softest ISO crop I have seen from any L prime at F8, or any canon prime at all at that aperture. I don't trust this test.
That's a real hoot.....the MkI looks sharper/more contrasty even at peripheral ISO sample #3, both wide open and at f/8.
As I kept saying, it's hard to improve on perfection
Thanks for the link. This is the first hard data I've seen about the new 24L. Being relatively new to the Canon system its the first time I've had a lens superseded by a Mk2 version and I've been really interested to see the difference.
From the Digital Picture comparison tool the new 24L doesn't appear to be a dramatically better lens than the old. There appears to be a CA/sharpness trade off but at first sight this isn't going to get me to trade in my old 24L for the new one.
Extreme corner resolution wide open (hopefully), more contrast, less ghosting, rain/dust resistance, better bokeh. With the 1.4 samples posted on the-digital-picture, contrast/ghosting seem better on the mark II compared to the mark I. Remember the samples do no show the extreme corners.
Besides, the sharpness/resolution might be better at normal shooting distances. Only macro lenses are optimal at shorter focus distances. The test charts on the-digital-picture has to have been shot at a close distance. Maybe the mark I was better close up than the mark II. I would personally be willing to sacrifice that for better general performance.
OK, maybe I am reaching here, but we should not be discouraged by those charts so early on. Anything can happen with time. Personally, I prefer the blur tests at slrgear.com, but this lens has not been tested there yet.
Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems! This does also apply for the new EOS tests based on the EOS 50D because of differences in the sensor system (e.g. AA-filter) as well as different RAW-converters.
...
Besides, the Canon would be better than the Nikon at f/1.4 and probably also focus faster on a Canon camera.
bobbytan wrote:
Perfection? If the 24L Mk I is perfection, how would you describe the Nikon 14-24 lens? Here's a comparison of the resolution figures at 14mm from PhotoZone. See the difference .... especially at the corners?
Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different systems! This does also apply for the new EOS tests based on the EOS 50D because of differences in the sensor system (e.g. AA-filter) as well as different RAW-converters.
Sure .... if you need something faster than f2.8 then the 24L is King!
I am glad I cancelled my pre-order for the 24L II. Just waiting the ZE 21 Distagon which, by all accounts, promises to blow the Nikon out of the water.
From the digital picture, it seems like the 24 L II has a tad bit less CA than the 24 L I wide open, but the 24 L I has more resolution at all apertures in the center and extreme corners than the "improved" II version. Maybe Canon's QA is to blame here. However, 700$ more for less CA and softer pics... Kind of sad..
I'm going for the 21mm distagon and using a 35L or 85L for low light situations.
bobbytan wrote:
Perfection? If the 24L Mk I is perfection, how would you describe the Nikon 14-24 lens? Here's a comparison of the resolution figures at 14mm from PhotoZone. See the difference .... especially at the corners?
Bobby, I simply don't know about Nikon nor do I have a real practical interest in their lenses because I do Canon only. No desire to go back to manual lenses either. So I am really talking within an EF/AF frame of reference.
Lastly, my primary interest in the 24L is due to its nominal aperture. The f/2.8 lenses are just not in the same design and application brackets.
PetKal wrote:
Bobby, I simply don't know about Nikon nor do I have a real practical interest in their lenses because I do Canon only. No desire to go back to manual lenses either. So I am really talking within an EF/AF frame of reference.
Lastly, my primary interest in the 24L is due to its nominal aperture. The f/2.8 lenses are just not in the same design and application brackets.
It depends what you're shooting. For me, sharpness, contrast and minimal CA is crucial. If I use a 24mm F1.4L, I'm going to stop down anyway for more depth of field and edge sharpness. F2.8-8 is the perfect aperture range for me, and if a 21 distagon at 2.8 can beat the 24mm F1.4L at 5.6 and 8, I'll go for the distagon in a heartbeat. Even if it's MF. If you need to use the 1.4 often, then go for the 24L. If I ever needed 1.4 I'd grab a 35L and pass on the 24L.
Point taken. I am not into Nikon lenses either. It was a toss-up for me between the 24L II and the ZE 21, but seeing how I love to shoot landscapes, the ZE 21 is now (for me) a mile ahead of the 24 II. The ZE promises to be even better than the old Contax-mount 21 Distagon.
PetKal wrote:
Bobby, I simply don't know about Nikon nor do I have a real practical interest in their lenses because I do Canon only. No desire to go back to manual lenses either. So I am really talking within an EF/AF frame of reference.
Lastly, my primary interest in the 24L is due to its nominal aperture. The f/2.8 lenses are just not in the same design and application brackets.
I have only had time to snap a few boring test shots. I will try to post some samples as soon as I have something worth evaluating. So far I have not found anything to dislike about it.
