Unboxing of the the Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM

[mememe]

Wow the f2.8 Image (and even the f4) of your copy looks bad... I hope its just calibration.

After the pancake being so sharp at 2.8 there is no excuse for that lens being that soft. I mean its f*ing expensive...

If you look at the 5.6 image out of the 5d you notice that the extreme edges are a bit soft. And thats not nice for that price if you look at what the shorty fourty does...

[hyles]

while the f2.8 shot of the fower does seems a bit soft, I would not make decision based upon a close up shot test. It is not a macro lens, and it is not unusual that a non-macro lens behave sub-standard in closeup. The 17-55 2.8 IS USM is a good example of a very good lens that behave poorly in closeup photography.
Make some more test with more distant subject to see how the lens behave in its native use.
Diego

[wockawocka]

2.8 isn't pretty. My 40mm Pancake blows it away.

Take a few more shots to rule out focus error.

[DianeK]

while the f2.8 shot of the fower does seems a bit soft, I would not make decision based upon a close up shot test. It is not a macro lens, and it is not unusual that a non-macro lens behave sub-standard in closeup. The 17-55 2.8 IS USM is a good example of a very good lens that behave poorly in closeup photography.
Make some more test with more distant subject to see how the lens behave in its native use.
Diego

I only posted the flower images because they showed the poor IQ at 2.8 compared to 4 so clearly.  I did lots of shooting at various distances.
Diane

[DianeK]

2.8 isn't pretty. My 40mm Pancake blows it away.

Take a few more shots to rule out focus error.

No this wasn't just focus error.  This is representative of what I was seeing with all the images I was taking.  My 15-85mm at 24mm and f/4 is even a tad sharper, so this new lens gives me nothing I don't already have in my bag.  Back it goes.
Diane

[RLPhoto]

This lens is good and all, but I just dont see a solid purpose besides video.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Taken with 5DII @ 1/160 f5.6 iso50, resized to half with DXO.

can you post a full, non-resized image like that at f/8?

that looks quite promising edge to edge, but with half-resize you can't really tell much, it could be blurring 2 pixels into 1 for all we know

[LetTheRightLensIn]

2.8 isn't pretty. My 40mm Pancake blows it away.

Take a few more shots to rule out focus error.

No this wasn't just focus error.  This is representative of what I was seeing with all the images I was taking.  My 15-85mm at 24mm and f/4 is even a tad sharper, so this new lens gives me nothing I don't already have in my bag.  Back it goes.
Diane

Your 15-85 at 24mm f/4 is sharper than the 24 IS at f/4? Or do you mean the 15-85 at f/4 is sharper than the 24 IS at f/2.8?

[LetTheRightLensIn]

This lens is good and all, but I just dont see a solid purpose besides video.

Sharp corner to corner (or so one would hope  ) landscape lens for FF at less cost than 24 1.4 II or 24-70 II (or 24 T&S II while also being a bit more quick and ready than that one) that also has IS so, for the times, when you don't want constant tripod work slowing you down and becoming a bother you can still get some nice snaps along the way?

Anyway that is what I'd look to it for.

[DianeK]

2.8 isn't pretty. My 40mm Pancake blows it away.

Take a few more shots to rule out focus error.

No this wasn't just focus error.  This is representative of what I was seeing with all the images I was taking.  My 15-85mm at 24mm and f/4 is even a tad sharper, so this new lens gives me nothing I don't already have in my bag.  Back it goes.
Diane

Your 15-85 at 24mm f/4 is sharper than the 24 IS at f/4? Or do you mean the 15-85 at f/4 is sharper than the 24 IS at f/2.8?

I meant the former, but also the latter is true obviously.
The lens did get returned and I tried the new 28mm with disappointing results.  In fact my results were the opposite of LensRentals quick review.  The 24mm sharpened up from f/2.8 to f/4 but didn't sharpen all that much after that.  The 28mm, on the other hand, was softer at f/2.8 than the 24mm, sharpened up at f/4 and sharpened even more noticeably at f/5.6.
I would like to try different copies of the new 24mm and 28mm, but I'm not so sure the camera store will let me back in 
Diane

[RLPhoto]

This lens is good and all, but I just dont see a solid purpose besides video.

Sharp corner to corner (or so one would hope  ) landscape lens for FF at less cost than 24 1.4 II or 24-70 II (or 24 T&S II while also being a bit more quick and ready than that one) that also has IS so, for the times, when you don't want constant tripod work slowing you down and becoming a bother you can still get some nice snaps along the way?

Anyway that is what I'd look to it for.

17-40L is more of a landscape lens that this prime for about the same $$$.