It's a lens that I'm not too thrilled about. I know it has it's advocates and I've seen some fine work with the MK1 variant. It's just that for my needs, the 24-70 and 16-35II L do very well. A 24L isn't really a lens that I'd find a use for. It's actually too bright for my needs!
Page 2 of this thread has a photograph of the Mark II version of the lens, where you can read the filter size marking on the front of the lens. It is 77mm.
Sep 28, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Roland W wrote:
Page 2 of this thread has a photograph of the Mark II version of the lens, where you can read the filter size marking on the front of the lens. It is 77mm.
Yes everybody agree that the filter size is 77mm. But the link show that the minimum focus distance also is 77mm. That's what we belive is a typo
I wonder if the autofocus works on this high priced canon lens? I went through two new copies of thei 35l and 85L which both focus just fine at 10 ft or less and past that I ahve to adjust the focus via micro adjustment continuously higher the further away I get. In other words the auto focus on their $8000 camera plus top of the line glass does not work. I guess if you get lucky they will work.
xrayvision wrote:
I wonder if the autofocus works on this high priced canon lens? I went through two new copies of thei 35l and 85L which both focus just fine at 10 ft or less and past that I ahve to adjust the focus via micro adjustment continuously higher the further away I get. In other words the auto focus on their $8000 camera plus top of the line glass does not work. I guess if you get lucky they will work.
Did you consider that your lens just may be defective?
I've owned at one time another nearly 100 Canon pro lenses through the years and had only two lenses being out of alignment, the 24L and 35L.
Ironically three 24-70L's have all been perfect.
gazzajagman wrote:
It's a lens that I'm not too thrilled about. I know it has it's advocates and I've seen some fine work with the MK1 variant. It's just that for my needs, the 24-70 and 16-35II L do very well. A 24L isn't really a lens that I'd find a use for. It's actually too bright for my needs!
and expensive.
at 24mm i mostly do landscapes and I don't need to pay for f/1.4 (which comprosmises f/8 too boot).
myself, i'd rather see a redone 24mm f/2.8 (current one is outdone by zooms IMO, and easily so on an APS-C sensor), but anyway not the biggest deal in the world.
joeisayo wrote:
I've owned at one time another nearly 100 Canon pro lenses through the years and had only two lenses being out of alignment, the 24L and 35L. Ironically three 24-70L's have all been perfect.
Yeah, that's unusual.
BTW, Joe, the work shown in your photo gallery is quite remarkable. Inspiring, in fact.
Alot of hi end fashion photogs use at least f/8 on their fast primes (85L, 50L, 35L, 135L) in the studio. So why dont they just use zooms? Im pretty sure even primes are better than zooms, not just sharpness; but also color, contrast, distinct look, etc.
Edgar Maguyon wrote:
Alot of hi end fashion photogs use at least f/8 on their fast primes (85L, 50L, 35L, 135L) in the studio. So why dont they just use zooms? Im pretty sure even primes are better than zooms, not just sharpness; but also color, contrast, distinct look, etc.
