bobbytan wrote:
This is not good news. How many copies do we have to buy before we get a good copy?
The good news though is that there seem to be some good copies available too. After all, copy variation is old news with Canon.
However, let us hope that the lens is not beset by a design flaw a la 50 f/1.2.
I got my hands on one and did a quick outdoor comparison today against the EF24mm f/2.8, the TS-E24mmf/3.5L and both versions of the 16-35mm zoom. The catch was it was done on a 1DIII, not a full frame camera, because I don't own any, so it probably won't appease the FF corner pixel peepers... My conclusion: The EF24mm f/1.4L II was the best of the bunch. By f/2.8 it was about as sharp as any of the other lenses at their best and hit it's peak between f/4-5.6. It exhibited very good flatness of field with better edge sharpness by f/2.8 than most of the other lenses by f/5.6. It also appeared to render distant backgrounds differently than the two 24mm primes. Both of those, even at wide open, rendered fairly sharp and distinct background details while the EF24mm f/1.4L II rendered much softer, blurred backgrounds, eventually reaching par at around f/8. This effect will probably depend on what is being photographed, but I found it to be an interesting observation. CA was well controlled and much better than the other two primes.
The test also confirmed that Canon really, really need to redesign the TS-E. It never reached the level of sharpness of the EF24mm f/1.4L II and exhibited way too much CA...
Stan already showed some excellent samples of the EF24mm f/1.4L II at f/1.4 in low light conditions. I'd like to echo his enthusiasm for the lens. Subject matter in the 2-5 foot range photographed at f/1.4 renders very nicely, with very good definition, sharpness and contrast. To my eyes, background blur is also quite nice. I haven't seen overt signs of fine detail ghosting typical from a lens like the 50mm f/1.4 wide open.
I'm impressed. This lens really does seem to do well in most situations I would face, from extreme low light candids to sunlit landscape/urban photography.
Me too! Having said that, I am going to wait and see how the ZE 21 compares to the original version. I have no doubts that the resolution numbers will trump the Canon 24L II. I would also consider the 14-24 if the ZE 21 numbers are only comparable to the zoom lens.
If people have the money to buy distagons and other exotic lenses...and then eventually they settle upon the Nikon zoom, why not just pick up a Nikon camera while you're at it? Why fool with an adapter when you don't have to? I'm just curious, I'm not trying to be controversial.
wilsonprince wrote:
If people have the money to buy distagons and other exotic lenses...and then eventually they settle upon the Nikon zoom, why not just pick up a Nikon camera while you're at it? Why fool with an adapter when you don't have to? I'm just curious, I'm not trying to be controversial.
Because Nikon doesn't make a 21mp camera that only costs $2700. If/when Nikon makes a D700x/D800, i.e. a smaller, cheaper body with D3x sensor then its going to make a lot of sense for a lot of people to pick up the Nikon body and a 14-24.
Sadly the Distagon isn't f/1.4. Even though they may share the same focal length the two lenses aren't exactly intended for the same purposes. If landscapes and other small aperture shooting is your thing the Distagon will be the obvious choice. If you need to shoot at f/1.4-f/2.5 however, the Distagon will never be able to touch the 24L II no matter how much sharper it is in the corners.
davidrwilliams wrote:
The-Digital-Picture's ISO 12233 charts for the 24/1.4L II have now been updated to provide test results from a second copy of the lens...
...looks significantly improved over his first copy and very much as described by StanJ as more even across the frame. Very impressive.
wow, that second copy looks good, looks great at f/8 for landscapes, blows away anything i've ever seen from tamron 28-75, 24-105, 24-70 in the corners....
OTOH, damn that is a huge variation in samples for a $1700!!! prime, pretty terrible QC.
For that money and that variation I feel like i'd need to order from 2-3 stores with good returns and keep the best or soemthing, what a mess. Not that I have $1700 now anyway not even. But perhaps by late next summer....
This new sample does seem like all one could want, nice to the corners for landscapes and yet f/1.4 for those few times when I do shoot that way with a wide prime and AF, so perhaps the distagon has some competition after all....
wilsonprince wrote:
If people have the money to buy distagons and other exotic lenses...and then eventually they settle upon the Nikon zoom, why not just pick up a Nikon camera while you're at it? Why fool with an adapter when you don't have to? I'm just curious, I'm not trying to be controversial.
what about 300 f/2.8 IS vs 300 2.8 VR price?
what about a 70-200 f/4 IS?
what if we have a lot invested
and the D800 is not out yet and the D3x is a brick and $8000 is a bit much, i can maybe buy it if I then use a 50mm 1.8 on it and nothing more for a year . Plus I hate giant brick cameras with integrated grip.
still I did get a few touches of thoughts of switching (D700).
skibum5 wrote:
..... Plus I hate giant brick cameras with integrated grip.
.....
+1! Simply not needed. Leftover from the old motor drive days. Unless you are shooting hundreds of pictures without stopping, why would you lug around all of that battery.
Good point. A lot of people are already doing this actually i.e. gone dual-platform - and mostly because of the 14-24 lens. For many of the others who are still drooling over the 14-24, the problem is the D700 and D3 are only 12MP .... and the D3X is way too expensive. And as an aside, Nikon bodies are so unlike Canon and not in a favorable way.
If the 14-24 can work as well as the ZE 21 i.e. with focus confirmation, etc, I really wouldn't mind using it on my 5D II. That way I will have the maximum benefit of a great lens on a great body.
wilsonprince wrote:
If people have the money to buy distagons and other exotic lenses...and then eventually they settle upon the Nikon zoom, why not just pick up a Nikon camera while you're at it? Why fool with an adapter when you don't have to? I'm just curious, I'm not trying to be controversial.
davidrwilliams wrote:
The-Digital-Picture's ISO 12233 charts for the 24/1.4L II have now been updated to provide test results from a second copy of the lens...
...looks significantly improved over his first copy and very much as described by StanJ as more even across the frame. Very impressive.
I don't get it. Vignetting tests show the Mk II is darker at f/1.4 but 12233 tests show the Mk I is darker at f/1.4. Can anyone help me understand this?
BTW, Stan, can you comment on the bokeh difference (if there is one)?
Yakim Peled wrote:
I don't get it. Vignetting tests show the Mk II is darker at f/1.4 but 12233 tests show the Mk I is darker at f/1.4. Can anyone help me understand this?
BTW, Stan, can you comment on the bokeh difference (if there is one)?
TIA.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Different exposures?
And the second copy looks amazing.. Why did I buy a 35L? =(
bobbytan wrote:
Good point. A lot of people are already doing this actually i.e. gone dual-platform - and mostly because of the 14-24 lens. For many of the others who are still drooling over the 14-24, the problem is the D700 and D3 are only 12MP .... and the D3X is way too expensive. And as an aside, Nikon bodies are so unlike Canon and not in a favorable way.
If the 14-24 can work as well as the ZE 21 i.e. with focus confirmation, etc, I really wouldn't mind using it on my 5D II. That way I will have the maximum benefit of a great lens on a great body.
Looks good at SLRgear. Just finished reading the report and checking the charts. Great from corner to corner from around f4 to f11, and pretty good out to f22. Also has great CA and low distortion. Only bad thing was a bit high on vignetting.
I compared it to my gold standard, a 35L. 1 blur unit (35) versus 1.5 blur unit at f8 for the 24. Not bad at all.
I have no interest in this below f5.6. and as far as I am concerned, none of the other Canon offerings are good at 24mm even stopped down. Well maybe the old 24.
rscheffler wrote:
I got my hands on one and did a quick outdoor comparison today against the EF24mm f/2.8, the TS-E24mmf/3.5L and both versions of the 16-35mm zoom. The catch was it was done on a 1DIII, not a full frame camera, because I don't own any, so it probably won't appease the FF corner pixel peepers... My conclusion: The EF24mm f/1.4L II was the best of the bunch. By f/2.8 it was about as sharp as any of the other lenses at their best and hit it's peak between f/4-5.6. It exhibited very good flatness of field with better edge sharpness by f/2.8 than most of the other lenses by f/5.6. It also appeared to render distant backgrounds differently than the two 24mm primes. Both of those, even at wide open, rendered fairly sharp and distinct background details while the EF24mm f/1.4L II rendered much softer, blurred backgrounds, eventually reaching par at around f/8. This effect will probably depend on what is being photographed, but I found it to be an interesting observation. CA was well controlled and much better than the other two primes.
The test also confirmed that Canon really, really need to redesign the TS-E. It never reached the level of sharpness of the EF24mm f/1.4L II and exhibited way too much CA...
Stan already showed some excellent samples of the EF24mm f/1.4L II at f/1.4 in low light conditions. I'd like to echo his enthusiasm for the lens. Subject matter in the 2-5 foot range photographed at f/1.4 renders very nicely, with very good definition, sharpness and contrast. To my eyes, background blur is also quite nice. I haven't seen overt signs of fine detail ghosting typical from a lens like the 50mm f/1.4 wide open.
I'm impressed. This lens really does seem to do well in most situations I would face, from extreme low light candids to sunlit landscape/urban photography.
Soft backgrounds. Is this poor resolution at infinity? All of my WA Canons have been that way, but after micro adjust, and all of them needed a lot of front focus correction this improved considerably.
wilsonprince wrote:
If people have the money to buy distagons and other exotic lenses...and then eventually they settle upon the Nikon zoom, why not just pick up a Nikon camera while you're at it? Why fool with an adapter when you don't have to? I'm just curious, I'm not trying to be controversial.
As a Canon shooter, I wish Canon made a equivelant to the Nikon 14-24 in terms of sharpness. That is a great lens.....no doubt, but from what I have seen, the old Distagon trumps the Nikon zoom easily. If the new ZE holds true to how we all expect it to perform, then the Distagon will easily be my choice for landscape. For me, 24mm let alone 21mm is wide enough on FF. I'll buy the 24L II for different reasons.
thedigitalbean wrote:
Because Nikon doesn't make a 21mp camera that only costs $2700. If/when Nikon makes a D700x/D800, i.e. a smaller, cheaper body with D3x sensor then its going to make a lot of sense for a lot of people to pick up the Nikon body and a 14-24.
Also, for me and others, having that bulbous front end makes filter attachment tough to impossible. Even just wanting to put a UV/Haze on for protection. I know there are arguments for and against front protection filters, let alone filters altogether in light of modern HDR techniques. Still, and call me old fashioned, I want a lens with a threaded filter option on a lens that's gonna be primarily used for landscape.
After all, copy variation is old news with Canon.