EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM

[Apebrains]

Etienne, that's exactly how I feel (the gun shy, time intensive bit, though I do love the lens that much). I know someone with a 5D III, so I may see if I can borrow theirs for a day to test it on that. If it's just the body/lens combo, then I don't have any problem with that. I've been meaning to upgrade to a 5DIII as soon as I can afford to anyway. Do you find the 16-35 can do the same beautiful things that this one can do when shooting people though?

LetTheRightLensIn, I'm glad to get that feedback from you, because that's kind of what I'm thinking; that this is just a lens that doesn't marry all that well to the 7D. However, several people on here have said the same thing about the 5D II, although we all know about the AF on THAT body... Unfortunately, the issue in this case is that it is distinctly INconsistent front or back focus. It just doesn't hit where it's supposed to the same way each time, even if the conditions are completely perfect. So because of this, Micro Adjustments won't help at all. It's so bizarre.

What really throws me for a loop is that under the exact same testing conditions, the 100mm L Macro prime tested 100% perfect.

 

[Etienne]

Etienne, that's exactly how I feel (the gun shy, time intensive bit, though I do love the lens that much). I know someone with a 5D III, so I may see if I can borrow theirs for a day to test it on that. If it's just the body/lens combo, then I don't have any problem with that. I've been meaning to upgrade to a 5DIII as soon as I can afford to anyway. Do you find the 16-35 can do the same beautiful things that this one can do when shooting people though?

LetTheRightLensIn, I'm glad to get that feedback from you, because that's kind of what I'm thinking; that this is just a lens that doesn't marry all that well to the 7D. However, several people on here have said the same thing about the 5D II, although we all know about the AF on THAT body... Unfortunately, the issue in this case is that it is distinctly INconsistent front or back focus. It just doesn't hit where it's supposed to the same way each time, even if the conditions are completely perfect. So because of this, Micro Adjustments won't help at all. It's so bizarre.

What really throws me for a loop is that under the exact same testing conditions, the 100mm L Macro prime tested 100% perfect.

I'm interested in what you find with the 5DIII - 24 1.4 combo.
wrt 16-35L 2.8 II ... it's my most frequently used lens. Obviously you can't get to f/1.4 but you can get to 16 mm and 35 mm. It's a bit soft at 2.8 on the edges, but an extremely versatile lens. You'd be surprised at how many top photojournalism shots are made with this lens.
I have the 28 2.8 IS, and I'm thinking about the 24 2.8 IS. These are really nice light little lenses that are sharp at 2.8

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Etienne, that's exactly how I feel (the gun shy, time intensive bit, though I do love the lens that much). I know someone with a 5D III, so I may see if I can borrow theirs for a day to test it on that. If it's just the body/lens combo, then I don't have any problem with that. I've been meaning to upgrade to a 5DIII as soon as I can afford to anyway. Do you find the 16-35 can do the same beautiful things that this one can do when shooting people though?

LetTheRightLensIn, I'm glad to get that feedback from you, because that's kind of what I'm thinking; that this is just a lens that doesn't marry all that well to the 7D. However, several people on here have said the same thing about the 5D II, although we all know about the AF on THAT body... Unfortunately, the issue in this case is that it is distinctly INconsistent front or back focus. It just doesn't hit where it's supposed to the same way each time, even if the conditions are completely perfect. So because of this, Micro Adjustments won't help at all. It's so bizarre.

What really throws me for a loop is that under the exact same testing conditions, the 100mm L Macro prime tested 100% perfect.

Maybe some copies of the 24 1.4 II have sloppier breaking on the AF and combine that with the older measuring device that didn't measure slop as precisely and then combine that with a less precise AF system (for all the talk about the advanced 7D AF, it's mostly it's speed and having so many points and so many cross points where it is advanced, the one shot AF precision of it is still basically a good deal less than the 1 series or 5D3 and not even quite a match for 5D/5D2 either for one shot precision) and maybe that explains it?

I don't know. I've felt almost all Canon bodies struggle a bit (although some 1 series and 5D3 help) once you start getting to f/1.4 and the 24 1.4 II didn't seem any worse to me than other f/1.4 lenses, but I have seen enough complaints, even from users who have never complained about anything before, to think there are probably some issues with some 24 1.4 II plus 7D combinations that go above the regular fast lens issues.

Talking about bodies only, I recall that under brutal dark lighting, like a single light bulb heavily shaded and then aiming at a darker part of the room, the 5D3 and 5D2 did about the same while the 7D did much worse. Under regular indoor lighting the 5D3 definitely did the best and then the 5D2 a ways back and then the 7D just a tiny bit back. Under good lighting outdoors the 5D3 did best again and then the 5D2 and then a tiny bit back the 7D.

Some new lenses such as the 24-70 II 2.8 have a high precision measuring device to track exactly how the AF breaking carried out and the newest bodies like the 5D3 and 1DX can access the extra precision (and thus you can sometimes get results like where I set the 24-70 II to f/2.8 and then shot 100 shots in a row, indoors, all in focus).

 

[sarangiman]

Saringiman, I utilized only the central focus point throughout the entirety of the testing process, but thanks for making sure it remained stringently scientific; that is of course of the utmost importance. I am glad to hear that you've experienced similar fickleness with this lens, as I know many others have as well, but I just really wonder how much of it is the result of the BODY's AF performance in low light, as opposed to simply a lens issue. This obviously can't be completely the case, because when I pair up the 7D with the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro, the issue is completely gone, but I find it interesting that in better lighting conditions, the 24L performs flawlessly. What design flaw in the lens would cause this? Is the 85 1.2L a beast in the good sense (performs well) or in the bad sense (is VERY moody), in the context of your comment about it...? That's certainly another lens I'm interested in, but I need a wide angle solution right now, and this lens is certainly the best horse for the job if it would only behave...

Interesting -- there really are quite a few people here talking about completely random, inconsistent focus. I wonder if the AF motor in the lens is very inaccurate on some copies (one hypothesis for why the nifty fifty is so poor at focus is just that: possible a very inaccurate motor/focus element placement).

I forgot to mention that I'm shooting on a 5D III. I stopped even bothering with primes on my 5D II. You could only use the center AF point, properly microadjusted. And focus & recompose at f/1.4 with wide angle primes where you have to move the camera quite a bit to recompose (compared to, say, >85mm focal lengths) just doesn't work. So my higher levels of consistency may be due to the rather outstanding AF performance of the 5D III.

I should also add that in low light I've typically used the 24/1.4 with a 600EX-RT flash attached to my body; the pattern the flash fires most certainly helped the lens autofocus.

By 'beast' I meant it's very hard to tame the 85/1.2. The optimal AFMA even seemed to change on a day-to-day basis; however, it's hard to decouple variables like subject distance & AF point used, so take that comment with a grain of salt (remember: AFMA can change based on subject distance & AF point; Sigma's new USB dock addresses the former by allowing 4 different AFMA values per focal length). The 85/1.2's particular sensitivity to AFMA is not surprising: at f/1.2, the plane of focus is extremely shallow; furthermore, any uncorrected spherical aberration will have a large effect on focus/sharpness at such large apertures. OTOH, given how sharp the lens *can* be wide open, I would think Canon went a long way to correcting spherical aberration. On a good day, the 85/1.2 can focus tack sharp right at f/1.2. But given that often I don't want to gamble, I find myself shooting at f/1.8-f/2.8. Hence I just picked up the 85/1.8, & may be looking to get rid of the 85/1.2 once I do a controlled AF precision test comparing the two (also against a Sigma 85/1.4).

On a related note, I hope Sigma comes out with a 85/1.4 'Art' lens where we can adjust AFMA for 4 different subject distances. OTOH, if Canon's 70D Dual-Pixel AF system makes AFMA irrelevant... that'd be revolutionary. It's an exciting time in photography (always is )!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I never used my 24 1.4 II all that much below f/2.8 or even f/4 so I actually ended up selling it for the 24-70 II (which, remarkably, more or less matches it for 24mm quality, other than more distortion and bit worse corners near wide open, but with actually LESS purple fringing/LoCA, many shots stopped down were almost identical between the two other than more distortion and LESS LoCA from the zoom; when I compared the 24 1.4 II to 24-105 OTOH, the prime blew that zoom out of the water, yes even at f/8 or f/10, believe it is a fallacy that all lenses perform the same once well stopped down, not even close.) Here and there I miss the 1.4, but not much and love the 24-70 II.

 

[sarangiman]

Maybe some copies of the 24 1.4 II have sloppier breaking on the AF and combine that with the older measuring device that didn't measure slop as precisely and then combine that with a less precise AF system (for all the talk about the advanced 7D AF, it's mostly it's speed and having so many points and so many cross points where it is advanced, the one shot AF precision of it is still basically a good deal less than the 1 series or 5D3 and not even quite a match for 5D/5D2 either for one shot precision) and maybe that explains it?

Very good point. Roger Cicala hypothesizes that the extra feedback from the AF motors (or sensors that can measure movement of the focus element) help the more advanced AF systems be more precise. This extra information is present with some of the newer lenses & work in conjunction with newer bodies, apparently. Not sure about the 24/1.4 II since that's a bit older. But who knows? The best you can do is treat the system like a black box & just test it.

 

[Random Orbits]

I had bought a used 24L II and it was the focus was off. It didn't come close to focusing accurately until f/5.6. Live View was a lot more accurate. Sent to Canon, and the problem was fixed. Used it on a 20D and it was fine using the center point. Used it on a 5DII, and the center point was fine. Use it on a 5D III and it is fine at a lot more focus points.

In general, the target should have high contrast. In low light, that is tougher and the focus accuracy falls. Focus beam helps.

If your not getting good center sharpness in good light (go outside on a bright day, ISO 100 with shutter speeds in the 1/1000s) at your AFMA CALIBRATED distance, then it would make sense to have it checked out.

 

[sarangiman]

I never used my 24 1.4 II all that much below f/2.8 or even f/4 so I actually ended up selling it for the 24-70 II (which, remarkably, more or less matches it for 24mm quality, other than more distortion and bit worse corners near wide open, but with actually LESS purple fringing/LoCA, many shots stopped down were almost identical between the two other than more distortion and LESS LoCA from the zoom; when I compared the 24 1.4 II to 24-105 OTOH, the prime blew that zoom out of the water, yes even at f/8 or f/10, believe it is a fallacy that all lenses perform the same once well stopped down, not even close.) Here and there I miss the 1.4, but not much and love the 24-70 II.

Hmm. I actually shoot the 24/1.4 at f/1.4 on the 5DIII & center AF precision is quite good after AFMA. I do remember corner/side compositions being quite out of focus though at anything wider than f/2.8 or so during the last wedding shoot, so I had to switch to live view AF. Part of this was also just side/corner softness at wide apertures. Actually, it's quite appalling how bad some of these primes are on the sides once you go to a higher resolution sensor -- plop the 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 on a NEX-7 (no optics in between, just a Metabones Smart Adapter) & you'll see flaws of the lens you'd barely see on a 5D II/III or what-have-you FF body with larger pixels. And that's not even using the full image circle of the lens. Use a SpeedBooster to use the full image circle of the lens & some copies of these primes don't sharpen up on the sides until f/8-f/11 (whereas they're sharp by f/4 on my 5DIII). But of course, in the latter scenario I'm adding extra optics in the way... anyway, I'm getting OT now.

 

[Apebrains]

Maybe some copies of the 24 1.4 II have sloppier breaking on the AF and combine that with the older measuring device that didn't measure slop as precisely and then combine that with a less precise AF system (for all the talk about the advanced 7D AF, it's mostly it's speed and having so many points and so many cross points where it is advanced, the one shot AF precision of it is still basically a good deal less than the 1 series or 5D3 and not even quite a match for 5D/5D2 either for one shot precision) and maybe that explains it?

I don't know. I've felt almost all Canon bodies struggle a bit (although some 1 series and 5D3 help) once you start getting to f/1.4 and the 24 1.4 II didn't seem any worse to me than other f/1.4 lenses, but I have seen enough complaints, even from users who have never complained about anything before, to think there are probably some issues with some 24 1.4 II plus 7D combinations that go above the regular fast lens issues.

Talking about bodies only, I recall that under brutal dark lighting, like a single light bulb heavily shaded and then aiming at a darker part of the room, the 5D3 and 5D2 did about the same while the 7D did much worse. Under regular indoor lighting the 5D3 definitely did the best and then the 5D2 a ways back and then the 7D just a tiny bit back. Under good lighting outdoors the 5D3 did best again and then the 5D2 and then a tiny bit back the 7D.

Some new lenses such as the 24-70 II 2.8 have a high precision measuring device to track exactly how the AF breaking carried out and the newest bodies like the 5D3 and 1DX can access the extra precision (and thus you can sometimes get results like where I set the 24-70 II to f/2.8 and then shot 100 shots in a row, indoors, all in focus).

I think this is probably spot on. LetTheRightLensIn and Sarangiman, I think we're all on the right page with this. I've really been messing around with it, and it just seems to me that at the wider apertures, the 7Ds AF system just isn't quite up to handling finer subjects and details. I think that's why the 100L Macro was spanking it when I was testing it on the fine writing of the DVD cases, because at the same distance, the Macro 'sees' those details larger and much clearer and was able to focus on them far easier. I find that when I focus on a larger subject, like an eyeball at relatively close range (like within a meter or so), it seems to lock just fine. At that point, the standard drivel about proper technique causing you to lose your narrow DOF and yadda yadda yadda comes into play, but that's nothing I'm not already used to. I know that this copy of the lens can produce killer sharp detail, and it does with regularity. Just playing around I've taken some fun shots with it. It's just the consistency issue in low light. The only thing that really sucks about that was that I kinda bought the lens expecting it to be a superior low light performer when compared with the 16-35 II, ya know, being a faster lens and all. ???

 

[BozillaNZ]

The 24L II is one of the best primes canon ever made. Sharp and contrasty straight from f1.4. But early batches the AF can be a problem.

I'm actually on my second copy of the 24L II.

First one has date number UX, the AF is a bit inconsistent. It just takes (very) OOF shot out of no where, yeah, and the hood ring has a thin layer of matte paint on it which wears off quickly and looks ugly as hell. The Manual focus ring also produces this scratchy sound when being rotated.

Second one has date number UY, the AF is very consistent and a bit faster and quieter than the first one. I am totally happy about it and will likely to keep it for the foreseeable future. And the hood ring has been upgraded to anodized matte finish, same with all my other lenses, which resists wear very well. MF ring is quiet and lighter to move.

So I'd say there is definitely batch differences and late ones (>= UY) seems to be better.

Borrowed an image to show what I was talking about, look at the hood ring, some UX batches suffer from this badly. Because it's a shinny metal finish with thin layer of matte paint. Maybe Canon's part provider goofed up and provided the parts with wrong finish and Canon tried to salvage them by good old can-o-paint. The UY I have is anodized and looks a lot better.

 

[birtembuk]

Very interesting discussion and great photos here, guys. I've been procrastinating over this lens for quite a while now. Cannot decide for a 24-70/II as I'd definitely miss larger apertures and I've got other primes. If it was for sure that newer batches are clear from this erratic focusing behavior - and especially on 5D3 - it's time to give it a go.

 

[adhocphotographer]

Very interesting discussion and great photos here, guys. I've been procrastinating over this lens for quite a while now. Cannot decide for a 24-70/II as I'd definitely miss larger apertures and I've got other primes. If it was for sure that newer batches are clear from this erratic focusing behavior - and especially on 5D3 - it's time to give it a go.

Same boat... hmmmm... really missed this weekend shooting in a low light temple....

 

[Viggo]

My three copies were all 2011, fwiw.

 

[Apebrains]

Quick update, for what it's worth:

Gave the 24 a reasonably wide range of subjects and finished a shoot on a 1Ds Mark II body, and the accuracy and performance were remarkably improved, even in pretty significant low light situations. I'm thinking this lens is just too sensitive for a lesser camera body's AF system. The 1Ds II's AF is even a little dated compared to, say, the 1DX, or what have you, but regardless, there was a CLEAR difference in performance. I haven't sat down and played with the DVD cases like I did before, to test the exactness of the accuracy, but I'll do that soon...

Haven't gotten a chance to give it a whirl on the 5DIII yet, but when I do, I'll let everyone know.