Hello all, I'm a prime shooter. The next lens I am looking into is the 24L. Obviously the Mk II was just released. I'm just curious if anyone has compared the two yet. The-digital-picture review as of yet is incomplete, however, it says the Mk II doesn't match the Mk I for IQ. As I said it is incomplete, so if anyone has any other experience with the new one I'm all ears. Thanks, dancam. Happy shooting
Wait until TDP's review of the 24mm F1.4L II is out. He said he would be getting another sample to try. I would also wait until other reviews (16-9, etc) are out before considering the 24L II. It definitely looks softer than the 24L I or 24mm F2.8 but has less CA. The vignetting from the 24L II is also pretty scary.
That said, if you cannot wait then go for the 24L I. It's a proven lens, there are some limitations to it but you can definitely work around them to utilize the lens to its full potential.
I would never spend 1700$ for a lens when it's older version for 1100$ can do better. If you don't need the 1.4 aperture I'd maybe think about the upcoming ZE distagon or nikon 14-24 w/ adaptor.
I don't believe that the Mk II's IQ could be worse than the Mk I. Either the test is flawed or the TDP sample is a bad copy .... which is a bad sign.
I am tossed between the EF 24/1.4 II and the ZE 21/2.8 Distagon. If the 24L II is only as good or only marginally better, it will make my decision very easy indeed.
dancam wrote:
The-digital-picture review as of yet is incomplete, however, it says the Mk II doesn't match the Mk I for IQ.
bobbytan wrote:
I don't believe that the Mk II's IQ could be worse than the Mk I. Either the test is flawed or the TDP's sample is a bad copy .... which is not a good sign.
I am tossed between the EF 24/1.4 II and the ZE 21/2.8 Distagon. If the 24L II is only as good or only marginally better, it will make my decision very easy indeed.
I would hope the test is flawed, but it's probably not. Compare the vignetting of the 24L II to the 24L I. I don't know why anybody would pay a 600$ premium for more vignetting and softer pictures. Wait until more reviews are out and when more people have this lens.
That said, don't be one of the first buyers if you don't want to take the risks. If the ZE 21mm distagon came out tomorrow I would wait before others have tried it and when the reviews have been published.
I don't believe that either, but I believe more in experimentation and sample testing.
Nikon has been pretty tough on Canon lately with brand new lenses such as the 14-24G, 24 PC-E, AF-S 50 which have all been reported to be insanely sharp wide open. It's making me want to shoot both systems really bad. I seriously don't know what the Canon R&D or marketing department is up to anymore. More megapixels? Please give us the lens so these megapixels actually mean something.
Yeah, the DP guy does not believe it either and getting a new one to test. I was Nikon shooter some years ago and switched because of ISO, and def not interested in jumping around, especially for the heaven-on-earth 14-24, such yearning is a waste of time. If someone wants to switch systems for one lens, then by all means, do so! Honestly, the Canon lens lineup is so much more than adequate for anyone's real-life shooting needs...and if not, then medium format may well be a better bet than another 35mm brand.
Oh no, one lens does not warrant a switch to another system. Both Canon and Nikon have their strong points in their lens selections. The ISO performance of both systems is pretty similar now and I believe that the the lens selection will affect IQ more than the marginal differences in high ISO.
Canon's strength is probably in the 35L, 85L, 135L, 70-200 zooms, 300s, 400s, etc.
However, lately Nikon has been non stop releasing lens that have potential. The 14-24, three PC-Es (that 24 PC-E looks so tempting), AF-S 50/1.4, 60 macro, etc.
I guess it's best to shoot with both systems and utilize the best of their combined lens selection. But money is the only downside to that. =)
ILOVECANONL wrote:
Oh no, one lens does not warrant a switch to another system. Both Canon and Nikon have their strong points in their lens selections. The ISO performance of both systems is pretty similar now and I believe that the the lens selection will affect IQ more than the marginal differences in high ISO.
Canon's strength is probably in the 35L, 85L, 135L, 70-200 zooms, 300s, 400s, etc.
However, lately Nikon has been non stop releasing lens that have potential. The 14-24, three PC-Es (that 24 PC-E looks so tempting), AF-S 50/1.4, 60 macro, etc.
I guess it's best to shoot with both systems and utilize the best of their combined lens selection. But money is the only downside to that. =)...Show more →
User stanj had the old and now has the new version and claims the new is an improvement,
and I trust his opinion on this. He has a lot of experience with the old version,
and his version 1 lens is a good copy, as evidenced by numerous good photos.
Is it worth the extra money? Much tougher question to answer.
I'm interested in any great deals that might surface on mk I versions now, though.
User stanj had the old and now has the new version and claims the new is an improvement,
and I trust his opinion on this. He has a lot of experience with the old version,
and his version 1 lens is a good copy, as evidenced by numerous good photos.
Well thank you
Is it worth the extra money? Much tougher question to answer.
I'm interested in any great deals that might surface on mk I versions now, though.
If you're on a cropper, I would say that you won't see a difference. If you are on FF, I think you will. At least that's the experience I've had so far, with my usage pattern - close to wide open, people and street photography in very low light.
I'm on full frame, but for my current level of usage of this focal length
I can't justify the $1600 price of the new lens. I could potentially
justify an $850 used mark 1 lens, though.
trumpet_guy wrote:
I'm on full frame, but for my current level of usage of this focal length
I can't justify the $1600 price of the new lens. I could potentially
justify an $850 used mark 1 lens, though.
Then go for it. I have been using the mk1 for 11 years, 9 of which on full frame, and I can't say that I have any regrets. The whole edge softness issue never bothered me - again, I don't use it for landscapes (use zooms or 24 TSE) or architecture. For the few garage doors that I have shot with it, I have found the mk1 pretty awesome at f8, but some people need more I guess.
It's been my favorite lens for the past 11 years despite the nay-sayers, and I think the mk2 will be even a tad better, but at double the price - it's up to you. To me, an upgrade for my favorite lens was worth it
BTW, this is my garage door with the mk1, at various apertures. Click the magnifying glass above each image for a fullsize view:
