As the 24/1.4L Mk II is advertised by http://www.warehouseexpress.com as costing 65% more than its predecessor, I wonder if this is anything like a true reflection of how much better it will be in terms of IQ?
gmojay wrote:
As the 24/1.4L Mk II is advertised by http://www.warehouseexpress.com as costing 65% more than its predecessor, I wonder if this is anything like a true reflection of how much better it will be in terms of IQ?
Gmojay, had you been around these fora a bit longer, you would have known a rather obvious anwer to your question: the 24L MkII will be 65% better.
I respect your views as I respect everyone else's .... and I don't expect us all to agree on everything as we all have different priorities and needs. I shoot mostly landscapes and travel stuff but have been doing a lot of portraits lately - and for that, nothing beats the 85L.
Coming back to w/a lenses, most landscape photographers will agree with me that a fast lens is not required as most of the time we (landscape photographers) shoot at f8 or f11 and sometimes even f16. What we want is quality, period. We want high-resolution lenses and high-megapixel cameras so we can get very sharp images with a lot of detail. In this regard, the Zeiss wins, hands down. Put the 21 Distagon on the 5D Mk II and no DSLR can possibly beat that combo for sharpness and resolution/detail.
Yakim Peled wrote:
1. I do not have the 24/1.4.
2. When debating which lens to purchase, I opted for the 35/1.4 instead. I like the FoV better.
3. I mostly use my 35/1.4 at close range and/or low light. I bought if for the f/1.4 and use that aperture a lot. I have no doubt in my mind that if I'd purchase the 24/1.4 I'd use it in the same manner: Ultra-thin DoF and very low light.
Emile Gregoire wrote:
Don't have one either but after shooting a wedding in a dark church last Friday (dark like in black velvet curtains everywhere with only a spotlight on the couple and a dim light on the altar) and the launch event of a new car the past two days, this time in a black tent and later in a dark nightclub, the 24L is definitely on my list. It's just that bit wider than the excellent 35L I own which would come in welcome to grab the entire scene. Afraid the Zeiss won't do that for me.
Depends on the body that you mount the lens on. If you have a 5D Mk II, you can easily crank up the ISO to get more speed. I believe ISO 3200 will be as good as ISO 800 on a 5D i.e. approx 2 stops better - the argument being the 1Ds Mk III is 1 stop better than the 5D and the 5D Mk II with the new sensor and Digic IV is 1 stop better than the 1Ds Mk III.
PetKal wrote:
Gmojay, had you been around these fora a bit longer, you would have known a rather obvious anwer to your question: the 24L MkII will be 65% better.
In that case I'll place my order (= $2600 Canadian) right away - as I guess that means it's roughly 35% better than the 21mm ZE will be.
Gosh! I suppose the 21mm Zeiss is better than a Ferrarri too (although not as fast-which is just about as much as it relates to the Canon: a full 2 stops faster, a different FL and design).
The Mk I Canon is extremely well reviewed even when compared to the Zeiss (yes not identical-each one has it's strengths) so the Mk II should be an improvement for hi REZ FF use. But it's an optical feat that we have a hi IQ lens that's also two stops faster (where's all the WA and UWA F1.4 Zeiss lenses??).
For those that complain about the Mk II realize there are plenty of minty Mk Is that will be "FS" at even less than before. Really a Canon "embarrassment of riches" when you consider Nikkon's *(and other's) modern WA inventory.
Look at price of the Leica 21/1.4 and the Zeiss 85/1.2 and you will get an idea of what the price will be if Zeiss makes a 21/1.4 lens. It's no secret that Zeiss makes quality lenses and Canon is not good with w/a lenses until (maybe/hopefully) now with the release of 24L Mk II with a nano-crystal-type material and technology. Yup, Canon can take a leaf from Nikon.
FWIW, Zeiss lenses are built like a Hummer.
SoundHound wrote:
The Mk I Canon is extremely well reviewed even when compared to the Zeiss (yes not identical-each one has it's strengths) so the Mk II should be an improvement for hi REZ FF use. But it's an optical feat that we have a hi IQ lens that's also two stops faster (where's all the WA and UWA F1.4 Zeiss lenses??).
I will be getting this Canon lens. I don't give a hoot about a manual focus 2.8 lens, good quality or not. That has such limiited usefullness to me without AF and being 2.8 that it would be a silly purchase at best. I think it is odd that the focus of this thread is comparing MF 2.8 to AF 1.4...two entirely different lenses. Compare MF lenses to other MF lenses, not AF lenses, IMO.
You are absolutely right. Anyone who want or need a fast f1.4 lens and/or cannot deal with a MF lens must be crazy to even think about comparing the 24L to the Zeiss - there is no comparison. They would be better off comparing 24L to the Leica 21/1.4 - at least they are of the same speed.
MSC wrote:
I will be getting this Canon lens. I don't give a hoot about a manual focus 2.8 lens, good quality or not. That has such limiited usefullness to me without AF and being 2.8 that it would be a silly purchase at best. I think it is odd that the focus of this thread is comparing MF 2.8 to AF 1.4...two entirely different lenses. Compare MF lenses to other MF lenses, not AF lenses, IMO.
Sep 18, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
MSC wrote:
I will be getting this Canon lens. I don't give a hoot about a manual focus 2.8 lens, good quality or not. That has such limiited usefullness to me without AF and being 2.8 that it would be a silly purchase at best. I think it is odd that the focus of this thread is comparing MF 2.8 to AF 1.4...two entirely different lenses. Compare MF lenses to other MF lenses, not AF lenses, IMO.
MSC wrote:
I will be getting this Canon lens. I don't give a hoot about a manual focus 2.8 lens, good quality or not. That has such limiited usefullness to me without AF and being 2.8 that it would be a silly purchase at best. I think it is odd that the focus of this thread is comparing MF 2.8 to AF 1.4...two entirely different lenses. Compare MF lenses to other MF lenses, not AF lenses, IMO.
Well put, Shane. It is by no accident the FM site also have an Alternative (that is, "Lens", not "Lifestyle" ) Board.
Furthermore, this continuous clamouring about inadequacy of Canon WA lenses is one of the least entertaining cliches of the Canon fora.
If we did not have the 24L MkI, 35L, 16-35 MkII, 15 FE, 14L MkII, 17-40L and 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I'd perhaps see merit in those complaints.
bobbytan wrote:
Depends on the body that you mount the lens on. If you have a 5D Mk II, you can easily crank up the ISO to get more speed. I believe ISO 3200 will be as good as ISO 800 on a 5D i.e. approx 2 stops better - the argument being the 1Ds Mk III is 1 stop better than the 5D and the 5D Mk II with the new sensor and Digic IV is 1 stop better than the 1Ds Mk III.
Last night f/1.4 and ISO 1600 wasn't enough to get 1/50 sec. so I think I'll settle for the Canon... I'm afraid I don't own a 5DII, you know
Emile Gregoire wrote:
Last night f/1.4 and ISO 1600 wasn't enough to get 1/50 sec. so I think I'll settle for the Canon... I'm afraid I don't own a 5DII, you know
Agreed. I shot at a wedding a few weeks back, 1Ds3, ISO 3200, f1.4, 1/40s. It was *dark*, and to make things worse, all the little bit of light that was there was red...
I think it is likely that the personality of this lens will be more important than the specs. Especially wide and ultra fast lenses tend to have optical characteristics (combiniatoin of lens design tradeoffs to minimize some distortions at the expense of other distortions) that impart a specific personality to the lens. We won't really know the personality of this new lens until we actually try it on a camera. I'll bet this one is a winner. The minimum focus distance will help make this lens easier to use at least than it's predicessor.
ulrikft wrote:
Concerts in bad light? Indoor/avilable light full-body portraits/group shots?
With a 24mm?
You must have a crop-sensor, so OK.
Do wedding guys actually shoot the ceremony with a 24mm on a FF sensor? I mean, well. maybe, but I'm very surprised if the answer is "yes." At the reception, there are these things called "lights."
With a FF, I just don't see it, (though admittedly I'm not a wedding pro) and the Zeiss 21mm will undoubtedly be a better landscape lens.
rceres wrote:
I think it is likely that the personality of this lens will be more important than the specs. Especially wide and ultra fast lenses tend to have optical characteristics (combiniatoin of lens design tradeoffs to minimize some distortions at the expense of other distortions) that impart a specific personality to the lens. We won't really know the personality of this new lens until we actually try it on a camera. I'll bet this one is a winner. The minimum focus distance will help make this lens easier to use at least than it's predicessor.
Indoor/avilable light full-body portraits/group shots? 