Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
padmasana said:
It's my favorite lens, too. Great results on both 5DIII and 7D. If I had to look for quibbles, it would be that the lens hood on mine isn't secure enough in busy environments unless I use a bit of gaffers tape to keep it from rotating.

Same with my hood. I use two very small pieces of plastic pushed into the slot where the locking-"bumps" are from inside the hood to push them further out and lock harder, it works, but I can't tell you how many times I have taken a quick shot of something and have top and bottom corner all black from the slightly twisted hood, REALLY annoying.

I love my 24 and agree with the review completely. 1.4 at 24 is unique when used with a close'ish subject. I am on my third copy, the first two had the same focusing error, tested it in one shot with a LensCal target on a tripod, defocused between shots, and 18 out of 20 were completely off and the last two where far from useable, seems just random when it tried to focus. MY current copy works like it should, but the precision of AF is not even kind of close to the 35.
 
Upvote 0
wayno said:
I love this lens however I reach for the 35L more often as I do find that length somewhat more practical. However portraits from the 24 - particularly childrens', can be stunning.

I've recently compared the 24-70ii at 24 with this and whilst the zoom is as sharp, I actually like the 'look' of the prime marginally more - something almost 'film-like' about it. A tired or vague description perhaps but the 24L is really unique.

The 24-70 II zoom actually has less purple fringing though so if you shoot branches against clouds they stay normal with the zoom and go a bit purple and green fringed with the prime so I almost feel the 24-70 II has the purer look at 24mm! (once you start getting above 35mm the zoom does start getting a bit weak in the corners and eventually even far edges even at f/8 when compared to primes or even the 70-200/300s though- although it's f/2.8 performance in the center remains insanely good right up to 70mm! and it's PF free too!) Although the prime still does that a lot better than say the 24-105L zoom.
 
Upvote 0
frozengogo said:
I'm looking to rent a lens for a backpacking trip this summer in the Sierras and was looking at the Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8 would you go with the Zeiss 21 or Canon 24. Manual focus isn't an issue.

def zeiss 21mm IF it's not too wide for you and you don't mind loss of AF or f/1.4

24mm does more (AF,f/1.4, not crazy wide) but the zeiss has some insane beyond insane micro-contrast, people go much to much on about zeiss 3D magic and all that (my canon 50mm 1.4 looked no different to me than the zeiss 50 1.4 i tried and and so on) BUT for a very few of their lenses they do seem to have something special and this 21mm of theirs is one

depending waht you shoot the canon 24 T&S II might be even better, but only if you will make use of the tilts and shifts
 
Upvote 0
extremeinstability said:
I'd hoped to use the fastness of the 24 for night sky stuff but the coma is so extreme it rendered it useless for that and needed stopped to at least F2.8 anyway.
This needs emphasizing. This lens is *terrible* for starfield astronomy due to coma. Justin's review is actually very misleading on this -- and I'm fine with the rest of the review. He admits "...I haven’t explored this type of work myself...".

I try to get the best equipment and am keen on astrophotography. I thought "the coma can't be that bad; people must be pixel-peeping; it's an L lens!". I was very wrong.

Please see:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50949062
http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html
http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.com/2013/02/overcoming-coma-aberration-part-2.html
 
Upvote 0

infared

Kodak Brownie!
Jul 19, 2011
1,416
16
Real review, no BS. Great images, all around!...I do not own this lens but have considered it...although to be honest what has put me off on it is the focus issues that I have read about online. I know that any lens is difficult to focus at f/1.4..but I am thinking that Justin's repeated comments about how he has difficulty focusing this lens but that it is all him, not the lens, leads me also to believe that it may not be all Justin's fault!? :) Clearly he is a VERY competent photographer.
I just took delivery of a Sigma 35mm f.1.4 yesterday and am leaving for the weekend to give it a run thru...hopefully it is as good as promised. If Sigma stays true to their word about producing more Art lenses at this caliber, the Canon 24mm f/1.4 could become a footnote for this photographer, if Sigma can make us one as good and reasonably-priced as the 35mm???..oh..and the lens hood on the Sigma is IMPRESSIVELY secure. (the only thing that Sigma did wrong so far, was they included a zippered toaster cozy for the lens instead of cool, simple lens pouch...????? LOL..that thing is staying in the box!). I hope they can deliver more lenses like this.
 
Upvote 0
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
 
Upvote 0
swldstn said:
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

I did like it on the 7D, I had actually forgot how much until I looked back at the images I shot with it. In fact, I might have liked the tighter framing a crop sensor buys me. On full frame, I'm partial to 35mm lenses, and this makes sense in this context. As CRguy mentioned in his intro, it's a great lens on all camera formats. Obviously you take full advantage of it on a FF camera, but I was able to get some great results on crop too.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 19, 2012
718
0
JVLphoto said:
On full frame, I'm partial to 35mm lenses, and this makes sense in this context.

Yup, 35mm is a lot more versatile on Full Frame...as the 24mm becomes a ~38mm FOV on the crop sensor it finds more use on the crop.

But on a FF, 24mm is a tad more of a specialized lens...it works best for outdoor portraits and groups etc IMHO...for indoors low light I prefer the 35mm as it provides better control of the framing...when the 24mm is used for typical indoor shots, you get unwanted items on the borders of the frame... furniture, window sills, ceilings.

Yes, you can always crop, then why not just use a straight 35mm or a 50mm instead? :)

JVLphoto said:
As CRguy mentioned in his intro, it's a great lens on all camera formats. Obviously you take full advantage of it on a FF camera, but I was able to get some great results on crop too.

Now JVL, you are just trying to get in a few nice things to say to be PC in the review. ;D

I dont' dislike the 24mm actually, I just think it is really a niche lens for "most" users. If it is landscape, I will rather use a TSE or even the UWA zoom.
 
Upvote 0

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,620
1,651
Good discussion all. I appreciate your comments!

Regarding usage of this lens, I find it odd that the 24L seems relegated to environmental portraiture, full body portraits, etc. Would one not use this for landscape work? I appreciate that the tilt-shift is preferred for some things (architecture comes to mind) but is the 24L II an underperformer when you stop it down for landscape work? Is there another lens that is preferred to this (on FF) for landscape work? Surely not the 16-35... (-10 if you say the Nikon 14-24.)

I would never think to ask this for another ultra-wide aperture lens, like the 50L or 85L. I honestly see those lenses as some form of troublesome prima donnas; they seem to be used principally for what they can do that other lenses cant -- shooting between F/1.2 and perhaps F/2.

But a 24mm prime strikes me as (a) sharper than zooms (the impressive new 24-70 II notwithstanding) and (b) an ideal FOV for landscape work.

So talk me down -- if you're at a great natural vista, why wouldn't you use this lens?

I ask because I am considering a move away from zooms and selling my 24-70 F/2.8L Mk I for this 24 prime and likely the 50 F/2 IS that should come out this year. Understand that I would use the 24 prime for the reasons discussed on this thread, but if it's not excellent for landscape work, I might switch to the 35L and the new 50 instead.

Thoughts?

- A
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
So talk me down -- if you're at a great natural vista, why wouldn't you use this lens?

If it's what you've got in your bag, sure, of course, use it. And it'll just just fine.

But if you're looking to get a 24mm lens to shoot landscapes, the TS-E 24 outperforms the 24 f/1.4 by such a significant margin at that sort of thing that you'd be silly to get the 24 f/1.4.

And, similarly, if you're looking to do environmental portraiture...well, yes, the TS-E 24 can do that as well as the 24 f/1.4 can do landscapes, but the 24 f/1.4 is so much better than the TS-E 24 at environmental portraiture that you'd again be silly to get the TS-E 24 for environmental portraiture.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that, if you do a lot of both, you should have both lenses....

It's like choosing between a minivan and a pickup truck. Can you haul a bunch of stuff in a minivan? Sure, but would you really want to? And can you ferry a bunch of people in a pickup truck? Again, yes, but why?

Horses for courses and all that....

Cheers,

b&
 
Upvote 0
ahsanford said:
Good discussion all. I appreciate your comments!

Regarding usage of this lens, I find it odd that the 24L seems relegated to environmental portraiture, full body portraits, etc. Would one not use this for landscape work? I appreciate that the tilt-shift is preferred for some things (architecture comes to mind) but is the 24L II an underperformer when you stop it down for landscape work? Is there another lens that is preferred to this (on FF) for landscape work? Surely not the 16-35... (-10 if you say the Nikon 14-24.)

I would never think to ask this for another ultra-wide aperture lens, like the 50L or 85L. I honestly see those lenses as some form of troublesome prima donnas; they seem to be used principally for what they can do that other lenses cant -- shooting between F/1.2 and perhaps F/2.

But a 24mm prime strikes me as (a) sharper than zooms (the impressive new 24-70 II notwithstanding) and (b) an ideal FOV for landscape work.

So talk me down -- if you're at a great natural vista, why wouldn't you use this lens?

I ask because I am considering a move away from zooms and selling my 24-70 F/2.8L Mk I for this 24 prime and likely the 50 F/2 IS that should come out this year. Understand that I would use the 24 prime for the reasons discussed on this thread, but if it's not excellent for landscape work, I might switch to the 35L and the new 50 instead.

Thoughts?

- A

The 24L is not sharper than the new 24-70L II lens. The zoom is sharper. Only advantage is the prime can go wider, nothing else.
 
Upvote 0
Standard said:
The 24L is not sharper than the new 24-70L II lens. The zoom is sharper. Only advantage is the prime can go wider, nothing else.

Really? What are you basing this off? Your own experience or other reviews and tests you have read? Just curious.

Yes I own both. It's not so dramatic with the 24L as it is with the 35L and 50L. Sharpness only, the new zoom whips the 35L and 50L stopped down by enough that I sold both of them, but kept the 24L. I still like the 24L for unique shooting wider than f/2.8 on a wide lens. Love it.

Even though I hate charts, they do support my observations as well.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.