Another thread turned into a test chart comparison argument. I'm surprised there's no BBQ in these photos.
Notice how I don't do that in my reviews
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Justin from your article "Vignetting is incredibly prevalent on this lens, enough so that you may have to adjust your metering accordingly." What aperture did u use on the last shot in the review of the boy reading? I suppose one could just crop a bit or as u say use post editing to wash away the added imperfection. Funny that proprietary s/w enables people to add vignetting but that's another story. I really loved the shots and the other pro shots I've seen with the 5D3 are incredibly sharp and the color tuned to "what that can't be" level. Wish I could get those results. Checked out your Huff review and the pros who liked your stuff on Flickr, Best of luck with your career and being a "stay at home dad".
Justin, just curious about the photo labeled "Trevor Portrait". Was that lit with flash or natural light?
I would buy it... If it has weather sealing... !
An expensive lens need this I think!
I had the Sigma in my amazon cart at one point and almost bought it. Went for a 2nd hand 135L instead. So tempted now after reading the review!
How many lenses is too much? I used to think 5 was my limit. Somehow I want less lenses. Is that weird?
Hope Sigma updates their 50mm 1.4 to the same standard.
Sigma's on a bit of a roll i got a 30mm for my m4/3 camera last year that is really good.
i've been struggling with my next lens purchase and i've narrowed it down to the 24-70ii and this sigma 1.4. clearly, price is not the issue - space in my bag is! i like to pack light, and i love 35mm. the question: do you guys believe the 24-70ii will outperform the sigma 35 at 35 f/2.8? i generally prefer primes due to size/weight but everyone can't stop talking about how great the 24-70ii is, and i don't often shoot in low light but man, if i get this sigma i might just have to!
extra, relevant info: i own the 24-105L
i plan on making the purchase after canon's apr23rd announcement - i know it's a long shot but i've been waiting for a 35mm 1.4ii from canon for a long time - what say you canonrumors? thank you in advance for your help
There is no reason to buy any other 35mm 1.4 from either canon or nikon. Why bother? If sigma made a 24mm 1.4 as good as this 35mm, I'll sell my 24L II and pocket the cash.
Your review is the first one not to complain about the hood and lens cap. I find the them fine, others seem to have issues.
In all honesty, bad though the cap/hood is, I had loads of problems with the cap on my 15mm f2.8 - it was forever falling off.
Justin "You are wrong about how good this lens is" - The 24 1.4 II is in desperate need for an upgrade!! This is not a lens you buy to stop down, this is a lens you buy to be able to use wide open in low lit conditions.
The vignetting I guess is something you to a certain degree must accept. But the level of Chromatic Aberration (purple fringe) this lens produces wide open is absolutely unacceptable.
The worst negative of this lens however is not the CA, but the coma distortion.
I work a lot in night/low light photography, and stars in the edges of this lens get distorted to the level that they look like "bananas". If you shoot wide open in contrasting light sources, eg. night photos of a city, the coma distortion in the edges is so bad that it is ridiculous!
A slight positive is that the 24mm 1.4 from Nikon is not any better. But that still does not mean that this lens from Canon is optically a good lens.
The Samyang 24mm 1.4 which I also own 2 samples of, may not be as sharp in the center as the Canon/Nikon 24, but it is virtually free of CA and coma distortion in the edges, and the Samyang even has more glass/lens elements!! Hence I more often tend to use my Samyang 24 than my Canon 24.
The Canon 24mm 1.4 II, as well as all other of Canons L wide angle primes (14mm 2.8 II/35mm 1.4/50mm 1.4/1.8/1.2) are in desperate need of upgrades! I wish Canon would start to prioritize the wide angle department, and not only focus on tele-lenses.
So it's unclear from the review if the reviewer really likes his focal length on the cropped frame 7D used for all the shots shown in the review or for full frame body. Certainly there are lots of people who love the 35L on a full frame body so I old suspect users of the 24L II will love it on 7D. I have the 24L II, 35L, and 24-70L II, and the TS-E 24L II and find the 24L II doesn't get on my camera. 24-70L II for general use and in events with and without a flash. 35L for low light down to F/1.4, TSE for architecture mostly with a tripod. Steve
24mm isn't particularly flattering for portraiture
If your definition of "portrait" is "head-and-shoulders passport-style photograph," then, yes, that's true.
But your review has one portrait after another, and they're all really good! Indeed, I'd say that the 24 f/1.4 is one of the best portrait lenses there is -- provided you're not trying to use it for headshots.
Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.
Most of the time that I'm looking for 24mm, I'm almost instinctively reaching for the TS-E 24. And I'm not looking for speed at those times.
I think most people would be very happy with either the 24 f/1.4 or the TS-E 24, but I don't think very many would get a lot of use out of both. They're both 24mm L lenses, yes, but they're not at all interchangeable and have no overlap except focal length. One might think that therefore there'd be room in the kit for both...but, as I see it, if you're happy with the one the other isn't going to interest you much except as a very expensive novelty.
And I couldn't be more thrilled with the TS-E 24....
I think the 24L II's utility depends on whether one shoots primes or zooms. I see it as competition with a 24-70 or a 24-105 (zoom vs. prime).