 |
|
|
skibum5
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17305
|
|
Review Date: Oct 13, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
pretty sharp in the center, very compact
|
|
Cons:
|
way too much CA, not the worlds sharpest corners, worse than the modern zooms that cover this range and no faster
|
|
|
maybe it was good once upon a time, but seriously, my tamron zooms simply blow it away (as i'm sure does the canon 17-55 IS or 24-105L). just doesn't make sense in this day and age IMO.
|
|
 Oct 13, 2008
|
|
dhphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 13811
|
|
Review Date: Aug 8, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light, versatile (24mm on full frame, 31mm on x1.3 crop, 38.4 on x1.6 crop equivalents), good contrast and colour
|
|
Cons:
|
Too expensive in the UK, much cheaper in the US, no full time focusing, bit plasticky. Once again no hood.
|
|
|
Very good lens, better in fact then my 35 f2 which surprised me.
No vignetting on full frame 5D and sharp at all apertures. A very good general purpose lens on a x1.6 crop camera becomes a good wideangle on full frame.
Not wonderfully well built and without full time focusing, but all in all a good, contrasty lens.
|
|
|
Aug 8, 2008
|
|
RobertLynn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 12551
|
|
Review Date: Jun 20, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast Av, reasonably quick footage, semi-wide, affordable. SHARP even wide open.
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus ring feels sloppy.
|
|
|
A cheap alternative to a fast wide angle lens. Sharp wide open, and even gets clearer as you increase.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2008
|
|
artguy55
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 329
|
|
Review Date: Jun 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $299.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great optics, small size, controlled CA and distortion.
|
|
Cons:
|
Sharp to the edges, but L lens has sharper center and of course is faster. Had to buy a $30 lens hood, come on Canon!
|
|
|
This little gem is a sleeper! Looking for a lightweight, ultra wide, I picked this lens up, hoping it would work for landscape and architectural work. It has passed all my tests so far, but keep in mind I shoot on tripod, and at f8-11 only, so no test for background blur and wide open, as I dont care about those f stops.
Do not pass up a chance to test this lens instead of buying 24L, as in some cases, it is sharper. And it fits in a pocket, and is a great companion lens to the 35mm 2.0. This is also much better in my opinion than the 17-40 zoom which I sold to buy this and the 35 2.0.
Stopped down, it shows excellent edge to edge sharpness, good CA and distortion control. I am very happy with it.
|
|
|
Jun 6, 2008
|
|
humaniverse
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 102
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, fast AF, sharp to corner, very low distortion
|
|
Cons:
|
Not USM AF but no complain at this price.
|
|
|
I have 24f1.4L but still got this little "ugly duckling". I need a compact 24mm prime on 5D. I compare it to 24L. The border and corner sharpness is better than 24L!. Center falls short to 24L which is expected. IMO, from f2.8 and above, 24L is about equal to 24f2.8. 24f2.8 also has very low distortion, seems better than 24L. However, 24L has better color, contrast and silky boken. I know it' not fair to compare it to 4 time priced lens. What I want to say is if you don't need f1.4~f2.8, 24f2.8 is obviously better buy.
This little guy makes me think whether I should keep 24L. It looks like 24L is only useful for extreme low light or better boken. No much strength in other situation.
|
|
|
May 29, 2008
|
|
titi_67207
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 14, 2008
Location: France
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 14, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp on FF, moderate distorsions, very light, standard 58mm filter size
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I've bought this fix lens to complete my new 5D's package....
I've hesitated between this lens and the best-seller 17-40L, but as I've a fisheye Zenitar 16mm and a nice zoom beginning at 28mm, its range has appeared to be ideal.
The most important : its incredible sharpness on full format cameras like my 5D, with very moderate distorsions.
Very useful for architecture or seashore landscapes... And its lightness allows you to keep it always in your camera's bag. Its small filter size (58mm) is very useful to exchange filters with other lens like Canon 501.4 or 100mm2.8Macro.
I bought it at second hand, 200 Euros so the third of a 17/40L.
I think this lens is under-rated because of its medium performances on APS sensors cameras, but on a FF like 5D it's a gem !
Titi
|
|
|
May 14, 2008
|
|
jcw1982
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2333
|
|
Review Date: Feb 28, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
a very sharp lens, light-weight, compact, low price, very unobtrusive, beuild is alot better than I expected
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I recently moved back to primes after trying several zooms-Canons and others. While it may not be for everyone, there isn't too much I don't like about using prime lenses such as this one. The 24 2.8 by Canon is a great lens for the money. I don't mean that since it is priced low, that makes up for mediocre quality, I mean you get alot of quality for the money. Some may complain it doesn't have USM, and that was a concern of mine at first, but with a small, light-weight wide-angle lens such as this, it really isn't that big of a deal. I also found the build quality to be very good-maybe not up there with the "L"s, but plenty rugged enough. The lens works well for the type of shooting I do, both digital and film, and the added speed over some zooms is an important shooting characteristic for me. I know there are some zooms with this kind of speed, but their size and expense makes them less disable for myself. I also posted a similar review about the Canon 35 f2, combined with the 24 2.8 they make a good combination that won't break the bank, are light , take up little space, are relatively fast, and most importantly are cabable of sharp, contrasty, photographs.
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2008
|
|
MindsEye
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $290.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, light, sharp with FF for the most part, depth of field scale
|
|
Cons:
|
Would have preferred USM for focusing but this is a minor gripe
|
|
|
My tests are based on certain goals and criterea:
1. Shooting with FF cameras, primarily 1Ds MkII.
2. Size and weight are very important as I do back country work and foreign travel
3. I regularly make very large prints (60X40 and larger) for my clients
I chose to test the this lens against the 24-70L 2.8 with the zoom set at 24mm. Here is my assessment in a comparison shooting landscapes at distances beyond 30 feet and out to infinity.
At 2.8 and 4.0 the prime is noticeably sharper in the center but from 2/3 out in the frame to the edges they are similar with the zoom a bit better on the far edges.
By f8 the two are virtually the same except the prime is better at the far corners. The zoom exhibits some of that infamous Canon wide zoom soft corner syndrome.
At f11 they are even more similar than at f8. The prime still slightly better at extreme corners.
I chose to keep the 24 2.8 and time/situation permitting will use it over the zoom (I have since gone to the 24-105 f4 L primarily for the IS) I usually shoot at smaller apertures so the 24 2.8 gives me slightly better corners and edges which are noticeable at the size prints I make. The 24 1.4L may be a tad better but I don't need the wide aperture and don't want the extra weight and size.
Now if Canon would just come out with some good ultra wide primes like a 17 or 20...
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2007
|
|
damongrounsell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 3, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 165
|
|
Review Date: Jul 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, small, fast focus, internal focus, f2.8 better than cheap zooms
|
|
Cons:
|
Focus piont shifts at low apperture settings 3.2-7causing soft focussing in some situations
|
|
|
This is a sharp lens and I purchased it because I disliked the colour and CA's of my cheap sigma 18-50. I have a 50mm 1.8 mark I that I love and wished all canon primes were like this. I can say they are not. This lens produces good results but is not as easy to use or as reliable as the 50mm. I alike fast appertures and needed a wide for my canon croped body.
First thing this is sharp no matter what people say, get it to infinity focus and you have a great lens, get it to any distance close at f2.8 and its still very impressive, at 2.8 I love this lens and I use it at that apperture for many shots. But at close ranges at different apperture settings the focus piont seems to shift causing soft shots, you can compenate by focussing nearer than usual thus focus on nose to get eyes in focus but it is annoying. By f8 everything seems to be fine and focussing predictable.
I cansider this a lens you have to know and work around it weaknesses
If you do this and are smart enough with it it will perform well, sharp and cheap for the results you get. I've tried epensive L zooms and wasn' ovely imporessed this does the job very well
If you don't do this the lens will often dissapiont. and you will get upset with it. Flare can be an issue so use a hood
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2007
|
|
vinke
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 343
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $280.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
small, light, wonderful focal length and fit on 1.6x, close minimum focus, generally super image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
my 3rd go-around with this lens. each copy has been excellent. maybe i've learned my lesson and will hold on to this one? interesting side note: my first copy was (i swear) a metal case. the last two have very much been plastic. maybe someone else can verify that this lens was produced at some time past with a metal case?
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2007
|
|
chris-ditto
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 826
|
|
Review Date: Mar 31, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $290.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, feel, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality
|
|
|
I am going overseas this summer and wanted a general purpose prime lens in order to travel light. I wanted a lens that would give me a 45mm "standard" perspective from a 20D, however, having read the abysmal Canon 28mm reviews, and owning the 35mm f2.0, but deeming it too long for my intended purposes, reluctantly purchased this lens hoping that it would be a fair compromise. Unfortunately my fears were realized: Not only is the 24mm focal length not sufficient for the types of shots that I want to take, but overall I was not impressed with the lens itself.
As a happy owner of the 35mm f2.0, I was expecting a similar size, feel, and quality to the 24mm. As reference, I would like to address differences between the 24mm and 35mm that I did not read about when reviewing this lens:
-The 24mm is about 1/4" longer than the 35mm, however, it fit very snugly onto my 20D and felt more robust than my 35mm.
-The 24mm has a much larger front element than the 35mm which may warrant a filter if you feel skittish about exposed glass.
-The 24mm internally focuses, as opposed to the 35mm which has a rotating head.
I found the 24mm AF to be just as responsive than the 35mm, if not slightly more so and aesthetically it looks and feels great.
The downside to this lens, which surprised me given its rave reviews, is the image quality. The corners on my copy, even stopped down to f4 and beyond exhibited slight vignetting, corner softness, and unacceptable amounts of chromatic aberration--I felt like I was using a Sigma.
This lens is being promptly returned and I certainly hope the 28mm f1.8 that I'm purchasing in its stead will defy its reviews and serve my purposes better.
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2007
|
|
Wirelezzz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, good Color , ligth ,pretty fast, good build UU, 58mm
|
|
Cons:
|
weird focus ring
|
|
|
Great Lens, non USM dont bother me its quick lens.
I sold my 17-40L to geta couple primes that are faster, and if not same quality, i cant tell the diference in pictures on my 30D, i bought this lens to take mainly pictures of cars, and this lens will do the trick, great shapness and color for the buck.
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2007
|
|
ryan aguas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: Philippines
Posts: 42
|
|
Review Date: Dec 13, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $120.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Quick AF, sharp, cheap, decent build
|
|
Cons:
|
not so contrasty, noisy motor
|
|
|
I bought mine used for $120 and got myself a treat with another 'value lens' from canon. IMHO this is the best walkaround lens for street photography on a 1.6 crop SLR.
It is small, light, and very unobstrusive yet the pictures that you'll get are of good quality. the small profile of this lens makes it useful for documenting events, parties, street life & everyday activities without being typecasted as a pro. Its cheap price enables you to use it sparingly on any place or situation without worries of being mugged, stolen or damaged--it's more easily replaceable than an L prime. And the results? They're quite good & usable and sometimes even stunning.
On the build quality department, I would atest that this is one tough lens. One time, I was shooting a gig in a bar in manila, I accidentally dropped this lens from the height of five feet on a concrete floor. Fortunately, it hit the floor by the corner of the barrel at the mount end so the glass didn't break. It ended up having a dent on the lens mount. I tried it back on my 20d, it was a tight fit though, but voila, it still worked -- AF is still ok, images still sharp as before, and no unusual sounds or clicks from inside. Its performance is still good that even with the dent, I was still able to sell it when I sold my 20d.
.
|
|
|
Dec 13, 2006
|
|
Snappie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 265
|
|
Review Date: Oct 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, image quality, reliability, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality
|
|
|
A great little lens for its price. I love the wonderful colors and sharp images this lens is capable off. Junked my 24/1.4L for this and never been happier. AF is sharp and fast, flare control is decent and the price just right. Could be better built but you get more than what you pay for.
Recommended!
|
|
|
Oct 3, 2006
|
|
recordproducti
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 381
|
|
Review Date: May 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, pretty sharp and good contrast. Very affordable.
|
|
Cons:
|
Shame it's only f/2.8. It's not the strongest of lenses but at this price who cares?
|
|
|
I bought mine off eBay for about £120 so roughly $200.
This is an interesting lens, it is very cheap and it gives consistantly good images. I made a very silly mistake on a shoot the other day, I was working in very low light and fumbled around in a dark corner and put the wrong lens on, the 28-106 f/3.5-4.5, and only because there were so many distractions and at 28 the FL isn't that far off I didn't realise for a minute until I couldn't figure why the image was so soft. Doh, realised my mistake (I still don't know how I didn't realise with it's size!) and put on the 24mm, ah, that's better, nice and sharp! It was like opening a dirty window.
In low light I can shoot wide open and know I will have a tad of work in PS to improve the images but from around f/4 it's very good. For the money I think it deserves a 10 for value. The build is a bit flimsy so gave it a 7 for that though it will probably work fine for years.
I compared sharpness and overall quality with my 50mm f/1.4 and it's not quite as god but it is good. I also compared with my Sigma 15-30 at the 15mm end (I have a very good copy) and it's not as sharp but has better colour.
If you're looking for a good general wide lens for full frame I think that this is an excellent lens, on 1.6 crop it's probably not wide enough.
I use this on my 5D and it gives great results. I don't think that I've used it above f/5.6 so maybe people who shoot at higher apertures will be even more pleased.
|
|
|
May 18, 2006
|
|
edelsolar
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $290.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, price, portability.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some flare shooting into the sun.
|
|
|
I've had this lens for a couple of years. I got this lens as I found the kit lens to have soft corners and center. This lens is sharp, center and corners, very portable and a terrific value at his price range.
I get some flare if shooting into the direction of the sun but this is not a major problem. The old hat trick works well for this problem.
Overall, a very good low-cost performer.
|
|
|
May 17, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
69
|
292281
|
Jun 29, 2018
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
93% of reviewers
|
$268.64
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.68
|
9.02
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
