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.
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...
thanks for reading
Don't quite understand which part is BS. How is the camera supposed to know about unnanounced products? It tells you what it knows. With the existing metadata, you can narrow it down quite well, and you'll have conflicts only with the 24L and 24L-TSE (in the Canon lineup). I am not aware of any other 24mm primes. I have been doing this for all my other cameras (such as 1Ds or 1Ds2, before fancy reporting came out), and I never considered it too much of a challenge.
Arun Gupta wrote:
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.
Apples and oranges. Most of these large-aperture primes are designed for optimal sharpness wide open, often with little regard for how the lens performs stopped down. People buy these f1.4 and f1.2 lenses so they can shoot them wide open, not stopped down.
The 50L, for example, isn't quite as sharp as the 50 f1.4 when stopped down. The 35L doesn't boast super sharp borders either.
Everybody's worried about the corner sharpness on this lens. Personally, I'm going to buy this lens for it's lowlight, wide open capabilities. If I'm going to do landscape, then it's ABSOLUTELY going to be the Distagon 21mm. I see the 24L like the little brother of the 35L. They are excellent low-light, compact primes. Sure, you can stop down the 24L II and probably get excellent landscape results, certainly better than any Canon zoom I should think, but the Distagon will give you phenominal results, especially in the corners. I will certainly get the 24L II, but not primarily for landscape, but for the same low-light, wide open reasons I have the 35L. For some though, the two may be too close to consider owning both.
neoro wrote:
Can anyone confirm if the Manual Focusing of this lens as the same at that of the 35L or its using the "focus by wire" system like the 85mm F1.2
Rubber Soul wrote:
Apples and oranges. Most of these large-aperture primes are designed for optimal sharpness wide open, often with little regard for how the lens performs stopped down. People buy these f1.4 and f1.2 lenses so they can shoot them wide open, not stopped down.
The 50L, for example, isn't quite as sharp as the 50 f1.4 when stopped down. The 35L doesn't boast super sharp borders either.
which is where canon stinks
they need to also focus on making some solid, slow wide primes too!
Maggot wrote:
I see the 24L like the little brother of the 35L.
That's funny: I see the 35L as a little brother of the 24L II. For one, 24L is 77mm filter, 35L is 72mm filter. Also, the wider lens is about 10 % heavier. Lastly, I've always felt the 24L MkI is a better lens than the 35L which is a bit unremarkable, at least my copy is. Granted, I have no faith that the 24L MkII will be optically a better lens than the Mk I. I sense we might have another 85L MkI/II scenario here.....some mechanical/functional improvements, but optically six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Rubber Soul wrote: Full review of the EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II at slrgear.
hmm that looks kind of disappointing from someone who would want to do lots of landscapes with it (not that i'd mind the speed, but taht would be a secondary bonus and nothing more) and the price man $1700 is just nuts! kind of tough to afford.
so far the best wide results I see are actually from teh tamron 28-75 at 28mm at landscape settings!
and the 24-70L seems to do pretty much as good as this new 24mm prime for 24mm landscape according to those tests.... and since that could also be used for so much more such as indoor sports. cnon really needs a smashing new IS versionof this though.
hmm this new 24mm prime may be of questionable use and value to someone whose first goal is landscapes out of it.
maybe the distagon 21mm ZE needs a close looking at and it sounds like it will be $300-450 less, no small amount, didn't they say expect something like $1250ish? I wish it had AF but oh well
stanj wrote:
How is the camera supposed to know about unnanounced products? It tells you what it knows. With the existing metadata, you can narrow it down quite well, and you'll have conflicts only with the 24L and 24L-TSE (in the Canon lineup).
Sure it can't. But i think it wouldn't be soo hard for canon to write down that some information are always at the same position in the dialog the body has with the attached lens when a picture is actually taken :
- 256 bytes for the name of the lens should be enough for everyone (...)
- 2 bytes for the focal of the photo (might be fixed to 24 here)
- aperture
- ...
exif are a great help sometimes and i don't understand how in 2009 a 5d needs a new firmware to write correctly in the exif that a shot is taken with a 16-35II
i agree with you completely about the "you can narrow it down quite well", my post is more from the techie side
kheops wrote:
exif are a great help sometimes and i don't understand how in 2009 a 5d needs a new firmware to write correctly in the exif that a shot is taken with a 16-35II
Info about the 16-35L was provided in the firmware update in 2007, after the lens came out.
Yes it would be nice if the lenses themselves were reporting to the camera what they are (in full words), but they just report an integer which the camera maps to a table of known lenses, and if it can't find it then it just reports the focal range and the focal length at which the picture was taken. From a software perspective, it's much easier to change the reporting on camera bodies than on lenses (much much bigger legacy).
What did we do before the 30D / 5D / 1D(s)3, when this feature was introduced to begin with?
you are right about the 16-35II (not native tongue here my words don't always say what i have in mind)
it's still valid that if tomorrow a 700@f4 comes out, we still need, in 2009, a firmware update to our bodies
i wasn't aware of this integer table, you have more knowledge than i have about the reporting i was talking about
is this table available somewhere, for the geek reading ?
Impressive indeed. Definitely on my list to get once it actually becomes somewhat readily available. I can't imagine this is a high demand lens, anyone have an idea why retailers aren't getting much stock?
For one, 24L is 77mm filter, 35L is 72mm filter. Also, the wider lens is about 10 % heavier. Lastly, I've always felt the 24L MkI is a better lens than the 35L which is a bit unremarkable, at least my copy is. Granted, I have no faith that the 24L MkII will be optically a better lens than the Mk I. I sense we might have another 85L MkI/II scenario here.....some mechanical/functional improvements, but optically six of one, half a dozen of the other.