It seems like Canon had paid close attention to the optical design of recently introduced lenses and most importantly, Canon seems to have increased the QC in the manufacturing/assembly process. I am sure they heard foot steps approaching... . These factors have resulted in really top-notch performers. It doesn't come cheap though as Canon, Nikon and other camera/optical manufacturing companies have increased their prices . But at least you know what you are getting if you shell out big bucks for some glasses.
I heard high praises from users of the recently introduced lenses, such as the 17mm TS-E, 24mm TS-E Mark II, 100mm Macro L with hybrid IS, etc. The case in point is the new 24mm f/1.4L Mark II. I had the original version before, which wasn't bad but the Mark II version is definitely more impressive. Two days ago, I took this lens for a spin at the State Capitol Building in Austin. I like the results . Here a few shots from there.
This was taken at f/2.8 to get some depth-of- field:
How about a full open shot? Well, this is one during a camera demonstration event at Precision Camera in downtown Austin using just available light. The colors are just fine. The usual suspects were there: Canon and Nikon, of course, and also Sony, Leica (I tried out the 36K Leica S2 ), Tamron and Hoodman.
Probably my favourite lens. Since getting it, this lens has found a permanent home on one of my bodies, no matter what I'm shooting!
The bokeh is stunning (shooting 1DIIs), the colours and contrast fantastic. Worth every penny - my 24-70 and 17-40 have been mostly neglected of late...
The images above, especially the 3rd, have a lot of artifacts from sharpening/compression, and don't really do the lens justice (makes the bokeh look harsh too).
I had a chance to use the 24L I for a couple hours and it was sweet. I currently have a lovely 24-70L, and I've really wondered if I should sell for the 24L for that extra 2 stops. I wish I could justify both lenses right now.
The MkII would be ideal, but at nearly 2x the price of a used MkI, I wonder if it's worth it.
pixelpix wrote:
"Now you never heard this from me..... but if you place the bullet right here, your husband will never know what hit him."
LMAO
Anyway, the pics look good.
I don't want to hyjack you thread, but Im sitting on the fence here right now, trying to decide if I will buy the 24L II or a 16-35L II. I have been sitting here for weeks, which was not a problem because I had to sell some other lenses first to get the budget I need. But now I have the budget and it's time to make a decision....
Now, if I would buy the 24L, 24mm would be my widest I have on my 5D. And even though I already figured out that since the last two years I only took a handful of pics wider then 24mm, I still can't seem to get of this damned fence So anyone, please help me convince me I am better off with the 24L II so I can get on with my life... (btw, I love small DOF and a nice bokeh)
I don't want to hyjack you thread, but Im sitting on the fence here right now, trying to decide if I will buy the 24L II or a 16-35L II. I have been sitting here for weeks, which was not a problem because I had to sell some other lenses first to get the budget I need. But now I have the budget and it's time to make a decision....
Now, if I would buy the 24L, 24mm would be my widest I have on my 5D. And even though I already figured out that since the last two years I only took a handful of pics wider then 24mm, I still can't seem to get of this damned fence So anyone, please help me convince me I am better off with the 24L II so I can get on with my life... (btw, I love small DOF and a nice bokeh)
I'm in the same boat as you.
Ideally I would love to have both but my style of shooting is not enough to justify buying both.
One factor I am also taking into consideration is the use for video in the future.
I'm not sure which would be better for that as well.
Not the same lens, but I have a 17-40 that rarely sees action since I got the 24/1.4. I find that the shallow dof is much more useful than the extra mm on the wide end, so I use the 24/1.4 a lot more.
I just finished a 4 day conference. One body always had the 24/1.4 on it, the second varied between the 50/1.4, 85/1.2, 70-200/2.8 and 17-40/4. But not once did I not have the 24/1.4 on.
If you use 24mm often, buy it. It is an awesome, awesome, awesome lens. I love it more every time I use it.
Member Snowboarder bought the 24L II at the same time as a Zeiss ZE 21mm, expecting to keep both, but for different purposes. Ask him which one he kept, which one he sent back, and why...
OceanView wrote:
I'm in the same boat as you.
Ideally I would love to have both but my style of shooting is not enough to justify buying both.
One factor I am also taking into consideration is the use for video in the future.
I'm not sure which would be better for that as well.
Consider finding a good used copy of the 16-35 mk1 and the 24L mk1.
together this will cost you no more than the 24L mk2 and will still give good
performance.
i don't really have too many fall/sunset pics processed yet and just about none of it is uploaded to the web yet so the cool stuff isn't ready for display
. These factors have resulted in really top-notch performers. It doesn't come cheap though as Canon, Nikon and other camera/optical manufacturing companies have increased their prices 
. But at least you know what you are getting if you shell out big bucks for some glasses.
