EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM - Am I just unlucky, or is this lens just not very good?

Nov 12, 2016
240
48
#1
About a year ago I sold off my Sigma 24mm art and replaced it with a EF 24mm f/1.4L II. I was sick of the inconsistency in focus of the Sigma art lenses in general, and I just wanted to change everything over to first party lenses.

However, the 24mm 1.4 II has consistently been my least favorite lens. The thing just seems soft at f1.4, and the focus doesn't seem very consistent. However I read the reviews of the lens, and they all heap praise on it, so I decided to get a second copy, and if it was significantly better, I'd sell off the one I least preferred.

Well, I got another one, and it seems just as bad as the one I've had, and disdained, for a year.

I recently bought Reican FoCal, and neither of the two EF 24mm f/1.4L II lenses ever achieve what would be considered "good" focus, according to the standards of that program. Most of my lenses are able to get sharper focus with the proper adjustments, even my 50mm 1.2L, which is often maligned for being soft.

So what's going on here? Did I get two poor copies of this lens? Is it just not a great lens wide open, contrary to the good reviews? I'm also wondering if maybe I'm expecting too precise of details from such a wide angle lens. But the FoCal program seems to confirm that both of these lenses just aren't that sharp.
 

Viggo

EOS 5DS R
Dec 13, 2010
3,255
19
#2
It is that way I'm afraid... I also bought three brand new copies, and they all were very poor compared to my 35 L mk1. VERY soft, horrible vignetting and CA. And yes, the reason I went through three copies was inconsistent AF, it was useless.... Since I bought it new and never had any luck with it I got my money back and never looked back. Went with TS 17, 24-70 etc to cover wider focal length. The good thing is it is the only lens I ever used from Canon that had inconsistent AF...
 
Last edited:
Nov 12, 2016
240
48
#3
Well that sucks. Forget an update to the 50mm 1.2, where is the furor over getting a decent 24mm? The 50mm 1.2 is a gem compared to this thing.
 

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark II
Jul 20, 2010
6,954
51
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
#5
About a year ago I sold off my Sigma 24mm art and replaced it with a EF 24mm f/1.4L II. I was sick of the inconsistency in focus of the Sigma art lenses in general, and I just wanted to change everything over to first party lenses.

However, the 24mm 1.4 II has consistently been my least favorite lens. The thing just seems soft at f1.4, and the focus doesn't seem very consistent. However I read the reviews of the lens, and they all heap praise on it, so I decided to get a second copy, and if it was significantly better, I'd sell off the one I least preferred.

Well, I got another one, and it seems just as bad as the one I've had, and disdained, for a year.

I recently bought Reican FoCal, and neither of the two EF 24mm f/1.4L II lenses ever achieve what would be considered "good" focus, according to the standards of that program. Most of my lenses are able to get sharper focus with the proper adjustments, even my 50mm 1.2L, which is often maligned for being soft.

So what's going on here? Did I get two poor copies of this lens? Is it just not a great lens wide open, contrary to the good reviews? I'm also wondering if maybe I'm expecting too precise of details from such a wide angle lens. But the FoCal program seems to confirm that both of these lenses just aren't that sharp.
That is definitely not my experience with it, it's my second favourite Canon EF lens and has never let me down.

Give me a day to reach out to a friend who may be able to shed some light on copy variance.
 

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,409
62
#6
My experience with the lens, until you stop down to say f/1.8 it is soft.

The AF issue I have found is a 24mm (wide lens) issue rather than a 24m II issue. DOF is about 2.5 at 10' at f/1.4.
Because of the wider DOF I have always found it harder to pin point for a AFMA with the 24mm than longer lenses.
 

zim

EOS 7D Mark II
Oct 18, 2011
1,821
36
#7
That is definitely not my experience with it, it's my second favourite Canon EF lens and has never let me down.

Give me a day to reach out to a friend who may be able to shed some light on copy variance.
This is an upgrade lens on my list so very interested in what you come back with
 
#8
Had both, found the Sigma 24 1.4 better. The Canon has a heavier vignette, is more contrasty leaving darker areas lacking detail and doesn't focus as well as the Sigma which - coupled with the Canon appearing to have a shallower depth of field at equivelent apertures and a less pleasing/rougher drawing of background elements - delivers more consistently focussed shots, in comparison.
 

zim

EOS 7D Mark II
Oct 18, 2011
1,821
36
#10
That is definitely not my experience with it, it's my second favourite Canon EF lens and has never let me down.

Give me a day to reach out to a friend who may be able to shed some light on copy variance.
I guess you forgot you were going on safari! :D