24mm F/1.4 II vs new 24mm F/2.8 IS

[EvilTed]

Any thoughts or reviews on how the new 24mm F/2.8 with IS stacks up against the 24mm F/1.4L.

Seems a tad like the 24-105 F/4 w IS vs. the  24-70 2.8.

Thoughts?

ET

[LostArk]

Do you mean the 24 1.4L II? It's better than the 24 2.8 at all apertures and is 2 stops faster. The 24 w/ IS is probably only a better choice for videographers or prime shooters on a budget.

Now if only they'd refresh the 28 1.8, it has the most horrific IQ of any lens I've ever used. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Canon only keeps that lens around to torture people into buying the 24 1.4. Well, it's a good marketing strategy, as I'm order my 24 1.4 tomorrow

[M.ST]

The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II performs very well and is better then the EF 24 2.8 L. You dont need IS.

The EF 24-70 2.8 II L is a bing step forward and leaves the 24-105 far behind. The EF 24-70 2.8 II L focusses very quick, has minimal distortion and produces sharp line without visible CA.

[brad-man]

The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II performs very well and is better then the EF 24 2.8 L. You dont need IS.

The EF 24-70 2.8 II L is a bing step forward and leaves the 24-105 far behind. The EF 24-70 2.8 II L focusses very quick, has minimal distortion and produces sharp line without visible CA.




Where did you manage to get a copy of the new 24-70???

[RLPhoto]

Speed>>>>IS

[IIIHobbs]

Any thoughts or reviews on how the new 24mm F/2.8 with IS stacks up against the 24mm F/1.4L II

It's not really a fair comparison. What the 1.4 offers may not be needed or appreciated by everyone, but for those who utilize it's wider aperture and stunning performance, it has no equal (yes, I have used both, bought the 1.4).

[preppyak]

Any thoughts or reviews on how the new 24mm F/2.8 with IS stacks up against the 24mm F/1.4L.

Completely different lenses for very different purposes. The 24mm f/2.8 would be a great video lens if you needed to be mobile with a rig. It tested pretty well, so the IS version may also be sharper across the frame. But, the 24mm f/1.4 will be way more versatile for pictures, with the light gathering and shallow DOF.

Seems a tad like the 24-105 F/4 w IS vs. the  24-70 2.8.

The major difference is that this debate is between IS (non-moving subjects) and extra light. If you're someone who travels and shoots landscapes/buildings, then you get the 24-105 cause its longer and the IS is useful. If you shoot pictures of people, you get the 24-70 cause faster shutter speeds always win. But, they are close in price, so it can be a genuine choice.

In the 24mm case, there is pretty much no reason not to get the 24mmL unless you don't have the money, or unless you shoot mostly video. There's not really anything the new 24mm IS will do better

[Zlatko]

There are two other factors that deserves mention: size and weight.  The new 24/2.8 is much smaller and lighter than the 24/1.4.  While the 24/1.4 may be better by other measures, it requires carrying a bigger, heavier lens all day. If you have to carry all of your gear for many hours, size & weight can be decisive factors.

[c3hammer]

I have a 24 L II and it's a spectacular lens, but the 24 IS is 1/4 the weight and size in addition to being very useful for lower light work where you can't use the fast aperture of the 24 L.  The depth of field is so shallow at f/2 and lower that it's has very limited usefulness.  At f/2.8 - f/4 you can have some depth of field and get a steady shot at slower shutter speeds.

For outdoor and landscape work like I do up in the mtns the 24 IS might just be the perfect ticket of size portability and performance.  Not to mention it's almost half the cost.

Cheers,
Pete

[Stephen Melvin]

The 24 f/2.8 IS isn't going to be particularly useful in low light, because of the laws of diminishing returns. Using the 1/F rule, we can handhold a 24mm lens down to 1/30. If the meter calls for 1/30 at f/1.4, then the shutter speed will need to be 1/8 at f/2.8, which is getting real close to the limits of how long we can hold still, IS or no IS.

I shot this picture with the 24mm f/1.4L II at 1/15 at f/1.4, with the camera set to ISO 51200. Shooting this at f/2.8 would have meant a shutter speed of 1/4. I have enough experience with my IS lenses to know that it doesn't improve things nearly as much once we start getting that far down the shutter speed scale. It helps, yes, but not as much as a larger aperture. And the model couldn't have held steady that long, with the poses she was doing.



This new lens looks like it is built primarily for video work, and it should be excellent for that purpose.

[dafrank]

Aside from the contributions of previous posters, there is one more thing to think about in regards to the 24mm f/1.4 L vs the f/2.8 IS; if you look at the Lensrental.com article on lens focus performance - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/autofocus-reality-part-3a-canon-lenses - you can see that the the new 24 f/2.8 focuses slower, but approximately twice as accurately as the faster lens with Canon's newest full-frame DSLR's, the 1DX and the 5D3. What this probably means is that the firmware algorthyms in the lens and the focusing hardware aboard have more accurate focusing in mind. I'm not sure of Canon's strategy here, because the slower but more accurate performance seems to favor studied still images, while the STM harware on the 24 f/2,8 IS supposedly was thought to have been mostly made for video use, wherein extremely fast and quiet autofocus operation is required; unfortunately, while STM is quieter, it is also much slower than USM, making video use much more problematic. It's really hard to rationalize what all this means. Unless a future Canon video body comes along which will help to greatly speed the autofocus on STM lenses in video mode, then it looks like Canon has made a new lens focus system which is not best suited to any but the most unlikely of all applications - slow, accurate and deliberate autofocus for studied still images, an application often suited to manual focus more than anything else. Go figure!

As to which I would get, I'm planning on a new 24-70 mm f/2.8 v2. It will probably be much better optically than than the f/2.8 IS and a good match for the f/1.4 at f/2.8 and smaller apertures. The zoom function greatly outweighs the IS on the 24 f/2.8 for me, and I'm sure the focusing will be much faster as well. Therefore, since I will rarely need to shoot at apertures faster than f/2.8, and I assume the new zoom will have the more accurate firmware and hardware focusing stuff already baked in, I don't think I'll need either of the new 24's; I'd rather save up for a wide 24mm and/or 17mm TSE lens with much greater functionality instead.
 

[pdirestajr]

I think they are very different lenses that only share a similar focal length.

I have the original 24 2.8 (so not exactly the same as OP's Q) and the 24 1.4 II.

I bought the 24L because I recently started to get into shooting landscape photography this summer. On my first morning trip to a rocky beach shore I found 2 reasons for wanting to buy the L:

1. I dropped my 24mm f/2.8 on the rocks (it was still dark out- lens was fine)

2. Fog rolled in and all my gear got "damp"

the 24 1.4 can also do this:

Rainy Day by Philip DiResta, on Flickr
Awesome close-ups with nice background blur.


The 24mm 2.8IS has, IS. I'm sure that is good for run-and-gun video to help with jittery footage. Or if for some reason you are into landscape photography but not tripods? Which is weird.

Otherwise, I'd just get the original 24mm f/2.8- it's MUCH cheaper and super sharp. It doesn't have USM, but not REALLY an issue. It still is capable of shooting super sharp images right to the edges on FF if needed. and it is small and light and, um, vintage!

[Wideopen]

Speed>>>>IS

+1 Ill turn IS off unless I'm doing panning shots.

[insanitybeard]

I have a 24 L II and it's a spectacular lens, but the 24 IS is 1/4 the weight and size in addition to being very useful for lower light work where you can't use the fast aperture of the 24 L.  The depth of field is so shallow at f/2 and lower that it's has very limited usefulness.  At f/2.8 - f/4 you can have some depth of field and get a steady shot at slower shutter speeds.

For outdoor and landscape work like I do up in the mtns the 24 IS might just be the perfect ticket of size portability and performance.  Not to mention it's almost half the cost.

Cheers,
Pete

+1

I am considering the 24 2.8 IS for exactly these reasons- lightweight and compact so a good choice for taking up a mountain, with IS which will be good for a video pan once at the top- taking a tripod up a mountain isn't always possible or practical. Yes it isn't F1.4 but for landscape work, as long as it has good corner to corner performance stopped down a little, it could be a winner for me. I agree it is expensive for what it is- for that reason I shall wait and see if it drops a bit in price several months down the line. Even so, it is still a fair bit less than the L!

  Paul

[preppyak]

For outdoor and landscape work like I do up in the mtns the 24 IS might just be the perfect ticket of size portability and performance.  Not to mention it's almost half the cost.

In that case, get the older 24mm for Canon at half the price of the new one. The IS isn't going to allow you to blur water and keep the images sharp at the same time, so you're either taking a tripod or shooting fast enough shutter speeds that the original 24mm is fine. Cause the MTF numbers that Lensrental showed basically say the difference between old and new is maybe noticeable on a print at f/2.8, but probably not. And if you're shooting landscapes, you're probably at f/8+ anyway, so no advantage gained.

For that one shot you need to take a 1/15 f/2.8, it's great, otherwise their is a much cheaper option that's just as good.