www.photozone.de reviewed EF-S 24/2.8 STM

[Khalai]

Pretty good, apart from vignetting...

Click for review

Optical Quality: 4/5
Mechanical Quality: 4/5
Price/Performance: 5/5

Verdict: highly recommended

 

[Maximilian]

Pretty good, apart from vignetting...
...
Verdict: highly recommended

Thanks for sharing.
Interesting and good to read that the expectations (coming from the 40/2.8 ) will be fulfilled.
It's on my wish list for a small travel kit, likely next year.

 

[Khalai]

Pretty good, apart from vignetting...
...
Verdict: highly recommended

Thanks for sharing.
Interesting and good to read that the expectations (coming from the 40/2.8) will be fulfilled.
It's on my wish list for a small travel kit, likely next year.

I am only a bit sad that the lens is not full-fledged EF mount (knowing it would be almost impossible in this focal length and dimensions combination), because that would be very nice combined with 40 waffle... erm, pancake lens as dual walk-around lenscaps

 

[Maximilian]

I am only a bit sad that the lens is not full-fledged EF mount (knowing it would be almost impossible in this focal length and dimensions combination), because that would be very nice combined with 40 waffle... erm, pancake lens as dual walk-around lenscaps

Me too. It would have been a really nice and small FF combo.
But it has been enough time since the announcement for me to arrange with that.

And maybe Canons main reason to keep it for APS-C only was that the FF vignetting was unacceptable for their IQ standards.

 

[Khalai]

I am only a bit sad that the lens is not full-fledged EF mount (knowing it would be almost impossible in this focal length and dimensions combination), because that would be very nice combined with 40 waffle... erm, pancake lens as dual walk-around lenscaps

Me too. It would have been a really nice and small FF combo.
But it has been enough time since the announcement for me to arrange with that.

And maybe Canons main reason to keep it for APS-C only was that the FF vignetting was unacceptable for their IQ standards.

Or it would possibly cannibalize the sales of 24/2.8 IS USM (which is awesome walkaround wideangle FF lens anyway)...

 

[AvTvM]

Or it would possibly cannibalize the sales of 24/2.8 IS USM (which is awesome walkaround wideangle FF lens anyway)...

The old "cannibalization" song. Canon should be more than happy, as long as people buy their products, rather than those from competitors.

A EF 24/2.8 pancake could perfectly exist in parallel to the 24/2.8 IS. Some like it as small as possible, others want a "more solid lens with a proper focus ring and IS" ... some have more budget, others less. No problem, as long as a manufacturer can serve as many of these wishes as possible.

This 24/2.8 pancake should have definitely been EF, "full frame". It would also work on APS-C cameras, no problem.

 

[andrei1989]

Or it would possibly cannibalize the sales of 24/2.8 IS USM (which is awesome walkaround wideangle FF lens anyway)...

The old "cannibalization" song. Canon should be more than happy, as long as people buy their products, rather than those from competitors.

A EF 24/2.8 pancake could perfectly exist in parallel to the 24/2.8 IS. Some like it as small as possible, others want a "more solid lens with a proper focus ring and IS" ... some have more budget, others less. No problem, as long as a manufacturer can serve as many of these wishes as possible.

This 24/2.8 pancake should have definitely been EF, "full frame". It would also work on APS-C cameras, no problem.

it's been said many times already..it would hit the mirror of a FF camera. i have both the 40 and the 24 mm pancakes (got the 24 yesterday but didn't manage to go out and test it). i will post a photo with both side by side with the rear element all the way retracted, hopefully we can stop this debate...

 

[AvTvM]

Or it would possibly cannibalize the sales of 24/2.8 IS USM (which is awesome walkaround wideangle FF lens anyway)...

The old "cannibalization" song. Canon should be more than happy, as long as people buy their products, rather than those from competitors.

A EF 24/2.8 pancake could perfectly exist in parallel to the 24/2.8 IS. Some like it as small as possible, others want a "more solid lens with a proper focus ring and IS" ... some have more budget, others less. No problem, as long as a manufacturer can serve as many of these wishes as possible.

This 24/2.8 pancake should have definitely been EF, "full frame". It would also work on APS-C cameras, no problem.

it's been said many times already..it would hit the mirror of a FF camera. i have both the 40 and the 24 mm pancakes (got the 24 yesterday but didn't manage to go out and test it). i will post a photo with both side by side with the rear element all the way retracted, hopefully we can stop this debate...

I am fully aware, that as an EF lens it would need to be designed differently from EF-S ... without rear lement protruding into mirror box. But it would still have been way more useful as an EF lens. Even if it were slightly larger.

 

[Loswr]

it's been said many times already..it would hit the mirror of a FF camera. i have both the 40 and the 24 mm pancakes (got the 24 yesterday but didn't manage to go out and test it). i will post a photo with both side by side with the rear element all the way retracted, hopefully we can stop this debate...

I am fully aware, that as an EF lens it would need to be designed differently from EF-S ... without rear lement protruding into mirror box. But it would still have been way more useful as an EF lens. Even if it were slightly larger.

You may be fully aware that the lens would need to be designed differently, but it seems you're not aware of the consequences. It would not be 'slightly larger' as an EF lens, it would be significantly larger. The rear protrusion and smaller image circle (a 27mm lens is 'normal' on APS-C) mean a standard design. As an EF lens, it would need to be a retrofocal design, more complex, more elements = much bigger.

 

[AvTvM]

it's been said many times already..it would hit the mirror of a FF camera. i have both the 40 and the 24 mm pancakes (got the 24 yesterday but didn't manage to go out and test it). i will post a photo with both side by side with the rear element all the way retracted, hopefully we can stop this debate...

I am fully aware, that as an EF lens it would need to be designed differently from EF-S ... without rear lement protruding into mirror box. But it would still have been way more useful as an EF lens. Even if it were slightly larger.

You may be fully aware that the lens would need to be designed differently, but it seems you're not aware of the consequences. It would not be 'slightly larger' as an EF lens, it would be significantly larger. The rear protrusion and smaller image circle (a 27mm lens is 'normal' on APS-C) mean a standard design. As an EF lens, it would need to be a retrofocal design, more complex, more elements = much bigger.

Thanks, I am aware of this. I still expect a design quite a bit more compact than (even the not very large) EF 24/2.8 IS could be done.

Any way, the EF-S 24 has a limited market. Basically it really only makes sense on SL1/100D, if one wants really compact size ... and lowest possible price - for an optically very decent lens.

 

[Loswr]

Any way, the EF-S 24 has a limited market. Basically it really only makes sense on SL1/100D, if one wants really compact size ... and lowest possible price - for an optically very decent lens.

I think that a 'normal' lens that fits easily in one's pocket makes a lot of sense. I certainly find the 40/2.8 useful for just that reason – when I'm primarily shooting with a telephoto lens, I don't have to carry another lens in a bag/case.

 

[e17paul]

it's been said many times already..it would hit the mirror of a FF camera. i have both the 40 and the 24 mm pancakes (got the 24 yesterday but didn't manage to go out and test it). i will post a photo with both side by side with the rear element all the way retracted, hopefully we can stop this debate...

I am fully aware, that as an EF lens it would need to be designed differently from EF-S ... without rear lement protruding into mirror box. But it would still have been way more useful as an EF lens. Even if it were slightly larger.

You may be fully aware that the lens would need to be designed differently, but it seems you're not aware of the consequences. It would not be 'slightly larger' as an EF lens, it would be significantly larger. The rear protrusion and smaller image circle (a 27mm lens is 'normal' on APS-C) mean a standard design. As an EF lens, it would need to be a retrofocal design, more complex, more elements = much bigger.

Thanks, I am aware of this. I still expect a design quite a bit more compact than (even the not very large) EF 24/2.8 IS could be done.

Any way, the EF-S 24 has a limited market. Basically it really only makes sense on SL1/100D, if one wants really compact size ... and lowest possible price - for an optically very decent lens.

A 24/2.8 with a large enough image circle for full frame would be no more compact than the 24/2.8 IS. Geometry is driven more by angle of view than absolute focal length - study the cross sections of other 24mm lenses for crop and full frame lenses.

 

[dhr90]

Any way, the EF-S 24 has a limited market. Basically it really only makes sense on SL1/100D, if one wants really compact size ... and lowest possible price - for an optically very decent lens.

I think that a 'normal' lens that fits easily in one's pocket makes a lot of sense. I certainly find the 40/2.8 useful for just that reason – when I'm primarily shooting with a telephoto lens, I don't have to carry another lens in a bag/case.

I echo this. For me as a crop shooter the 40 is just a focal length I don't really tend to use. The 24 however will be a perfect pocket lens (if image quality is good and I can get it for a reasonable price here in the UK) to take to airshows and motorsport events if I don't want to take a general zoom or will mainly have a telephoto equipped.

 

[Sporgon]

Haven't people been whinging out Canon not making dedicated prime lenses for APS-c ? Now one has been produced they are claiming it should have been FF ? :

If I was a crop shooter I'd be very pleased with this offering. 38 -40 mm FF equivalent is a great all purpose focal length.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Haven't people been whinging out Canon not making dedicated prime lenses for APS-c ? Now one has been produced they are claiming it should have been FF ? :

I am one of those who lived whining by the lack of primes EF-S.

One detail prevented me from bursting champagne, full of joy... :
The F2.8 aperture at 24mm, could already be covered by a zoom. :-\
Maybe I'll buy an EF-S 24mm, but I'd be singing praises for Canon, if this was an EF-S with maximum aperture F2 or F1.8, though it have double the size, weight and price of the pancake.

 

[Sporgon]

Haven't people been whinging out Canon not making dedicated prime lenses for APS-c ? Now one has been produced they are claiming it should have been FF ? :

I am one of those who lived whining by the lack of primes EF-S.

One detail prevented me from popping champagne joy... ??? The F2.8 aperture at 24mm, could already be covered by a zoom. :-\

Maybe I'll buy an EF-S 24mm, but I'd be singing praises for Canon, had it been an EF-S with maximum aperture F2, F1.8 or even the size, weight and price were doubled. :

My understanding of the pancake design is that they are pretty much an unmodified planar, and therefore (relatively) slow. But on the subject of 2.8 being accessible with a zoom, I do find that what makes even a relatively large dslr like the 5D 'big' and 'heavy' is the unsatisfactory balance that larger zoom lenses give the body when carrying around. So for me these 2.8 prime lenses do have a use. Maybe not this new 24/2.8 because I shoot FF. Pitty it wasn't in an EF mount

 

[zlatko]

Haven't people been whinging out Canon not making dedicated prime lenses for APS-c ? Now one has been produced they are claiming it should have been FF ? :

If I was a crop shooter I'd be very pleased with this offering. 38 -40 mm FF equivalent is a great all purpose focal length.

I'm happy about this new lens too. It's the APS-C equivalent of the 40mm pancake on FF. Sweet!

But Canon gets bashed no matter what they do. Every product they release "should" have been some other product. And the old cannibalization song is sung about every product. Meanwhile, if you look at the product line, it is full of products that cannibalize each other in some way. There are currently four 24mm primes, and about 15 zooms that cover the 24mm focal length.

 

[sdsr]

A 24/2.8 with a large enough image circle for full frame would be no more compact than the 24/2.8 IS. Geometry is driven more by angle of view than absolute focal length - study the cross sections of other 24mm lenses for crop and full frame lenses.

My Olympus/Zuiko 24mm 2.8 is quite a bit more compact than the 24mm IS, and not much thicker than my Canon 40mm pancake. Is that because it's MF only?

(It's nice, by the way, to see that despite the complaints we often read about Canon pricing, this new Canon EF-S pancake, like the recent 10-18mm, is a remarkable bargain.)

 

[rrcphoto]

I am fully aware, that as an EF lens it would need to be designed differently from EF-S ... without rear lement protruding into mirror box. But it would still have been way more useful as an EF lens. Even if it were slightly larger.

apparently you're not fully aware. because a pancake design usually is around the registration distance. Canon cheats in this case by giving up the corners and the outer extremities as being unimportant - scrubbing the bad parts of the equivalent image circle, because it only has to be good on APS-C.

a 24mm on a full frame would still have to be a full retro focal lens covering the full frame image circle, it also can't sit as low - it would be wow.. almost the same bloody size as the current EF 24mm 2.8?

but complain .. my god - you're complaining about canon releasing an EF-S pancake - is there any limit to what you complain about?

 

[AvTvM]

my statement regarding 24/2.8 being EF-S rather than EF was meant not so much as a complaint, but rather as "an observation". Maybe my wording was too strong.

After reading the posts here ... I take the point, that for some/many people the 24 pancake may have value as really small, light, tiny, chap and optically decent "general use lens" to take along when you're out birding or to an airshow or to motorsport events etc. with an APS-C DSLR plus long tele lens as your main rig.

While it may serve very well for that purpose, I still believe, the lens has only very limited appeal beyond that scenario. After all it is only "only" f/2.8 - and many serious Canon APS-C shooters already got a 17-55/2.8 and many of those who wish(ed) for EF-S primes are mainly interested in getting primes that are at least 1 stop faster than zooms coverng the same focal length. A still very compact, optically decent and sensibly priced EF-S 24mm/1.8 would have been more interesting.

I am still convinced an EF 24/2.8 could be built quite a bit shorter and smaller than the EF 24/2.8 IS. Using the right lens design and 2014 glass [ED], algorithms, and computing power I think it could be a bit smaller yet optically much better than e.g. the age-old, full frame Pentax FA 20mm (!) /2.8 -> http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-fa-20mm-f28/review.html?src=lrdb#specs

Anyways, it is a "theoretical" discussion. Personally, I am not interested in any 24mm f/2.8 lens, as I already have a faster, extremely compact, optically excellent, very "price-worthy" WA prime for APS-C. Made by Canon, called EF-M 22/2.0 8)
All I want now, is a better camera body to put it on. However, that's a different topic and probably considered "complaining" and "whining" around here. ;D