stanj wrote:
Glad to see that at least someone gets it
Those of us who are not taking pictures of eyelashes do get the message about fast -sharp-in-the-center- lenses. We just hope that the eyelash shooter will understand our plight. That sharp corners are absolutely essential and hard to get with any WA lens, even at f11 and even the L's.
We buy these lenses and never dream of using them below f4, and seldom under f8 because we want uniform sharpness corner to corner and from a few feet to infinity. We buy them because its the only game in town unless we move to MF systems.
The 24TSE is not known to be Canons sharpest lens. The zooms don't cut it at all. The 35L is pretty decent, the old 24L is also pretty fair. But we long for something like the Zeiss Distagon 21.
ben egbert wrote:
Those of us who are not taking pictures of eyelashes do get the message about fast -sharp-in-the-center- lenses. We just hope that the eyelash shooter will understand our plight.
Trust me, I am not an eyelash shooter. But when you have light good enough for a combination of 3200 / f1.4 / 1/40s, what do you do? Set up a tripod and close down to f11? I could have focused on her ear but I have a gut feeling the picture would have been less appealing. Belittling low light photography as some sort of special effects is not helping your case in any way.
stanj wrote:
Trust me, I am not an eyelash shooter. But when you have light good enough for a combination of 3200 / f1.4 / 1/40s, what do you do? Set up a tripod and close down to f11? I could have focused on her ear but I have a gut feeling the picture would have been less appealing. Belittling low light photography as some sort of special effects is not helping your case in any way.
Agreed, and belittling landscapers is not kind either. It seems like we are told all lenses are sharp when stopped down, and corners don't matter neither of which is true. Anyway thats what prompted this reply. Your image is great and I probably over reacted. But I felt like we landscapers were being treated the way you felt with my reply.
The bottom line is that I will buy this lens if it meets my needs and will probably use it manual focus at f8 to f16 only because Canon does not meet my needs with any other products in the focal length. It is not dumb to follow this path even if it is primarily a fast lens.
ben egbert wrote:
Agreed, and belittling landscapers is not kind either. It seems like we are told all lenses are sharp when stopped down, and corners don't matter neither of which is true. Anyway thats what prompted this reply. Your image is great and I probably over reacted. But I felt like we landscapers were being treated the way you felt with my reply.
The bottom line is that I will buy this lens if it meets my needs and will probably use it manual focus at f8 to f16 only because Canon does not meet my needs with any other products in the focal length. It is not dumb to follow this path even if it is primarily a fast lens....Show more →
agreed we just get told anything is great at f/8 move along
and canon and the lens makes put all the money into super-fast wide primes which basically, for us, would be a huge waste of weight and money for lesser f/8-f/11 quality than a much smaller, less expensive, landscape optimized lens.
not that i don't appreciate fast lenses and low DOF, I do have 300 2.8 IS and 135 f/2 and even 50 1.4, but that is a different matter
brainiac wrote:
...on a 10 megapixel 1.3x crop sensor with all that noise, moire, and built-in noise reduction? Seriously, even a 5D with a 24L mk 1 will whip them.
there's always film not going to get into a debate about the M8 or future M-mount cameras, I have no dog in that fight. But I still expect the lenses themselves will be quite good
stanj wrote:
Glad to see that at least someone gets it
Apologies for being so thick. I am usually pretty fast to understand things but only when someone explains them slowly…..
To the point. I understand but MMV. I had the 28/1.8 USM and one of the main reasons that caused me to sell it is corners which were not sharp enough wide open. It is important to me as I usually place the point of focus on the side of the picture and I usually shoot wide open.
At such a significantly higher price I expect a significantly higher IQ, and that includes (at least IMHO) a significantly higher corner sharpness.
Tom K. wrote:
Anyone have any nice shots taken with this lens on a 5D?
"nice" will be difficult to achieve, but i have this very combo and will try to give it a chance tomorrow if weather allows
nazdravanul wrote:
Isn't it the fastest 24 around ? Does anyone know of a faster photo lens in that FL area, produced by another manufacturer ?
Leica 1,4/24 Summilux. $6k
brainiac wrote:
...on a 10 megapixel 1.3x crop sensor with all that noise, moire, and built-in noise reduction? Seriously, even a 5D with a 24L mk 1 will whip them.
Which "10 megapixel 1.3x crop sensor with all that noise, moire, and built-in noise reduction?" camera are you talking about? The M8 has 10.3MP and is a 1.33x crop. It's hardly "noisy" at least compared to say, a Canon 1D Mark IIn or 1D Mark III up to 1,250 ISO. The moiré is relatively rare. And who uses built-in NR? Nevertheless, it's the Leica M8 that smokes the Canon files - not the other way around. Speaking of a 1D2N or 1D3, anyway.
i know that my question isn't 24II specific, ignore me if you feel this way
if have a 5D and lightroom 2.1 atm
shots taken with this new lens show up as "24.0 mm" in the metadata browser, not of great help...
afaik the 1.1.1 firmware for the 5d take care of some new lens (16-35II is one), the exif are complete, but what about the 24II ? how can i have something like "EF50mmm f/1.4 USM"
what if tomorrow a 700mm@f4 comes out, a new firmware will be needed ? bs...
Nikon's 14-24 gets a better slrgear blur index in full-frame corners wide open at f/2.8 than does Canon's 24II f/1.4 prime at f/2.8. I don't know how that translates into pictures, though.
