[moved] Canon 24mm 2.8 IS - anyone have experience with this lens?
- Lenses
- 0 Replies
[Sorry, just realized I posted in the wrong area... moving to Gear Talk]
+10, I am so happy that I disregarded the opinion on this forum and bought 50 f/1.4 and 28 f/1.8. Please try and compare with 'L' counterpart yourself before making decision.They are not perfect (neither are some L for that matter) but very good (and perfectly usable under most conditions) esp. at that price. IMO,CR crowd opinion has been wrong on these lens. I wonder if its because most people who flock here has the bigger/L/more expensive the better bug. Some people flaunt it rather obscenely.bdunbar79 said:LOALTD said:Mt Spokane Photography said:Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field.
If you a new 5D MK III user, give it a while with the 24-105, you will get used to the weight. Good lenses are heavier due to the large amount of glass in them. The 24-105 is on the light side compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 or some of the other popular "L" lenses.
More versatile: yes
Sharper:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
No.
I use the 50/1.4 for about 90% of my work, it's an oustanding lens. So many people on here have drank the "L" koolaid. I've borrowed the 50/1.2 from CPS and I found it quite soft.
Yep. I dismissed the "L" bug myself when I sold my 50L and got the 50 f/1.4. The 1.4 is very sharp and I have not noticed any of the problems that some have mentioned. I typically shoot f/2 and narrower and the lens is very sharp and I don't miss the 50L. I also have the 24-70L II lens, which is just as sharp at f/2.8 at 50mm as the 50L, or even slightly sharper, but it's not much of a difference. I just do not understand the 50L's high price tag. It's the only L prime of Canon's that I dislike.
HeavenHell said:What happened to the enforcement of MAP? Seems like there have been Canon lens sales everywhere you look the past few days. Our retailers allowed to skirt the rules by forcing you to add it to your cart before showing you the price. NOT that I'm complaining.
rpt said:Try another with him crossing his hands across his chest and taken at a bit of an angle say 30 degrees from the current position and head turned to look straight at the camera. That will give a bit of a perspective view. You could vary the angle and see what works best. And the lights - like everybody has said. The facial expression is good.
Thanks @Dylan777 - I do have a license for FoCal Pro - and have done AFMA - so I had forgotten that it also shows the shutter count!Dylan777 said:I got my 5D III from 1st patch...and it starts from 99. I'm guessing your had 1300clicks on it - that is nothing if you got some great discount from your dealer.
FoCal also shows shutter count after you run AFMA.
If that's the case, I would have suggested the Panasonic FZ200 for compactness (smaller than a DSLR+lens) and versatility (25-600mm f/2.8 lens). Although the AF speed would likely have disappointed and resulted in lost photo opportunities (and it would be pretty worthless in the dark).aaronh said:I asked him about some of the more serious high-tech they must use (he works for Homeland Security) and they do have all that stuff. He just needed something small and simple to keep with him for when he was out doing whatever it is he does. He said he mostly needs it for taking pictures of license plates and stuff like that.
Af performance is very good. Just as fast as the Canon. It uses Sigmas high speed motor too so everything has been very good. This review pointed out something interesting with the focusing though vs the Canon. The throw for the focus in the Sigma is shorter than the Canon so it creates an interesting illusion that was pointed out in depth in this video:tbisu said:Anyone have an personal experience to report about this lens? We're in the market for a good 35mm and am wondering if this is a good choice over Canon's 35 1.4L. Lots of reports about how shart it is, but I'm more curious about the focus accuracy - anyone have information about the AF performance?
crasher8 said:RLPhoto said:You get my digital thumbs up.
_
( ((
\ =\
__\_ `-\
(____))( \----
(____)) _
(____))
(____))____/----
omg you DIDN'T just make one of those goofy drawings? lmao.
Hey btw, when are you going to do another review/comparison of primes on your blog? good reads.
I do not need to convince anybody to use any lens, I'm only saying what I found out and what I use the most...Dylan777 said:PavelR said:Yes, I'm comparing because OP asking to compare primes vs zooms and I choose primes 98% of the time.
I do not usually shoot architecture, thus I can use "feet zoom" and pick up 85,200 anytime against 24-70 + 70-200.
I tested new 24-70 taking several shots and difference between 2.8 and 3.5 was clearly seen on the camera display...
So, there is no FF AF prime wider than 85 matching the IQ 85+ (only TS24II w/o AF), thus I use 85+ 98% of the time...
Everyone can say my lens is SUPER sharp at bla-bla-bla....it's difficult to debate when there no hard facts included.
I was hearing Depeche Mode...neuroanatomist said:Drizzt321 said:frozengogo said:Is it like freeway numbers? Take the 55 to the 5 to the 10 the 15 to the 395 or take CA55 to I5 to I10 to I15 to US395. :-X
You left out the 405 to the 101 to the 170 to the 118 to the 210![]()
Won't you get hip to this timely tip
When you make that Photography trip
A-get your kicks on efff five-point-six
--Nat King Cole (well...sort of)