First L Lens... OH MY #^(*^!& GOD

[LostArk]

So my 24 1.4L II arrived from B&H this afternoon. Having rented the lens last week and been blown away with its performance, I knew what it was capable of in "real world" shooting situations:


Untitled by Nοah Fence, on Flickr

Though, being my first L lens and all, I decided to conduct an impromptu "formal" test just to see the differences between it and my 28mm 1.8 under relatively controlled conditions. Suffice it to say, my jaw hit the floor and I had to mop up the drool. Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a pixel peeper, gearhead, or test chart shooter. The following results are 100% crops from the original images, representing about 50% of the frame (this means the edges of the test shots are actually mid-frame). Shot on a 5D Mark II, center AF point. No processing other than crop and jpeg compression. The 28 1.8 image was 1/3 stop underexposed, since I was geeking out so much over my new 24mm that I forgot 1.8 is actually 2/3 stop slower.

Canon 28 1.8 @ f/1.8:
ISO 100 1/50


Canon 24 1.4 II @ f/1.4:
ISO 100 1/60


My only regret is that I didn't spring for one of these babies sooner!

 

[1255]

enjoy!!!!

 

[Drizzt321]

Haha, yea, the 24L is an awesome lens. I've rented it in the past, still need to buy it.

 

[DanoPhoto]

.......and that is how the L addiction starts.

 

[bdunbar79]

I found that after I purchased the 24L, I hardly ever use the 16-35L zoom lens anymore.

 

[helpful]

You are so right about the 24mm f/1.4 L II. It's one of those treasures in the Canon lens lineup. I barely ever use my 16-35mm L II now, and it's because of the 24mm. My lens has been dusty, taped with duct tape in conditions where the hood might drop into an abyss, and through a lot. And it's still so sharp and beautiful all over the images that it takes that I love it even more.

 

[pwp]

If this is your first L lens, you've gone straight to the top shelf with this one. The 24 f/1.4II is a totally awesome piece of glass. Right now I'm doing PP on a job I shot at a large, new supermarket for an advert, and I shot most of the job available light with the 24 f/1.4II on a 5D3. Quality, fast lenses can change the way we shoot, especially with the high iso performance of cameras like the 5D3. 1000iso is the new 200iso!

Trouble is, now that you have tasted the best, it's hard to work with the rest...

PW

 

[caoko]

is it just me, or do I see two test charts?

 

[Drizzt321]

is it just me, or do I see two test charts?

You do. One is his 28mm, the other his new 24L

 

[KurtStevens]

Been wondering if its worth trading 16-35 up for 24L but I can't pull the trigger on it. 16 is super nice, especially for those epic photos. I like the 24 though, hope you enjoy the lens!

 

[c3hammer]

The 24L II is an incredible lens. I think you still need 16mm in the lineup though if you are on a crop cam. The Tokina 11-16 is a good complement to the 24L II if you are on the 1.6x sensor.

Cheers,
Pete

 

[Drizzt321]

The 24L II is an incredible lens. I think you still need 16mm in the lineup though if you are on a crop cam. The Tokina 11-16 is a good complement to the 24L II if you are on the 1.6x sensor.

Cheers,
Pete

According to his Flikr groups, he has a 5d2 or 5d3 based on one of the groups he added the image to. I do agree, UWA at 16/17mm is awesome on a FF.

 

[unadog]

high iso performance of cameras like the 5D3. 1000iso is the new 200iso!

For truth on the High ISO?

I have a 5D3 coming on Friday. I am shooting a musical group 2x per week. On my T4i I was shooting tonight at 1600 ISO, 1/50 sec. I need 1-2 stops more, to 3200, 6400, or more on the 5D3. That is the one reson I bought it.

Can you compare to the T3i/7D? Will 6400 on the 5D3 be better than 1600 on T3i/T2i/7D?

On the "L" lenses: I had 7 L's, plus 6 other lenses. I decided to downsize to only 3+- lenses. It didn't work - I am right back up there, with the 24-70, 70-200 2.8, 70-200 4.0, 24-105, 45 TS-E, 90 TS-E, and need to add some prime L's.

Once you use good glass, everything else sucks! The 40mm pancake is right in there though, very nice.

Looking forward to the 24-70 II! If I had to choose 1 lens for life, it would be the 24-70.

But good Canon glass holds it's value very well. As prices go up over 5-8 years, you might even break even on it.

Good luck!
Michael

 

[M.ST]

The 24 1.4L II is a gret lens. Forget the zooms

 

[Drizzt321]

high iso performance of cameras like the 5D3. 1000iso is the new 200iso!

For truth on the High ISO?

I have a 5D3 coming on Friday. I am shooting a musical group 2x per week. On my T4i I was shooting tonight at 1600 ISO, 1/50 sec. I need 1-2 stops more, to 3200, 6400, or more on the 5D3. That is the one reson I bought it.

Can you compare to the T3i/7D? Will 6400 on the 5D3 be better than 1600 on T3i/T2i/7D?

On the "L" lenses: I had 7 L's, plus 6 other lenses. I decided to downsize to only 3+- lenses. It didn't work - I am right back up there, with the 24-70, 70-200 2.8, 70-200 4.0, 24-105, 45 TS-E, 90 TS-E, and need to add some prime L's.

Once you use good glass, everything else sucks! The 40mm pancake is right in there though, very nice.

Looking forward to the 24-70 II! If I had to choose 1 lens for life, it would be the 24-70.

But good Canon glass holds it's value very well. As prices go up over 5-8 years, you might even break even on it.

Good luck!
Michael

ISO 6400 on the 5d3 is quite usable for web, especially live music where people are very forgiving of grainy or much less than perfect images. Not ever owning the T3i/T2i/7D, I'd say it's likely that ISO 6400 is probably as good, or better (in terms of look & feel of the noise) as ISO 1600 on those bodies. This shot is taking at ISO 10,000 on EF-135@f/2.0, 1/100. Definitely not an ideal situation, and lots of noise in the dark spaces on the water. But overall, pretty usable for what it is.

 

[unadog]

[quote author=Drizzt321] I'd say it's likely that ISO 6400 is probably as good, or better (in terms of look & feel of the noise) as ISO 1600 on those bodies. [/quote]

Thanks Aaron!

I spent about 10 years doing medium format & then digital studio and location strobe work. Highest quality, big prints, never never never above ISO 100.

Time to explore some new terrain I guess. Amazing tools we have today!

I did a lot of blurry, grainy, challenging images when I was a Photograpy undergraduate, and in B&W. When I went to almost all color in 1998, I kept going to more refined, pure, beautiful color, smooth tonalities, big prints on my 7600 & 9600.

Time to mix the two I guess.

Dang, I ordered the 5D3 2nd day from adorama and paid $51 to get it here Friday. A Canon 9500 II printer, with free ground, ordered and shipped the same day is also getting here Friday. You think they might have said hey, free will get there .... (Free said 7-10 days.)

Oh well ... Back to our regularly scheduled L glass fest!

Thanks for helping. And nice web site too, nice images. Have fun!

Best,
Michael

 

[Drizzt321]

[quote author=Drizzt321] I'd say it's likely that ISO 6400 is probably as good, or better (in terms of look & feel of the noise) as ISO 1600 on those bodies.

Thanks Aaron!

I spent about 10 years doing medium format & then digital studio and location strobe work. Highest quality, big prints, never never never above ISO 100.

Time to explore some new terrain I guess. Amazing tools we have today!

I did a lot of blurry, grainy, challenging images when I was a Photograpy undergraduate, and in B&W. When I went to almost all color in 1998, I kept going to more refined, pure, beautiful color, smooth tonalities, big prints on my 7600 & 9600.

Time to mix the two I guess.

Dang, I ordered the 5D3 2nd day from adorama and paid $51 to get it here Friday. A Canon 9500 II printer, with free ground, ordered and shipped the same day is also getting here Friday. You think they might have said hey, free will get there .... (Free said 7-10 days.)

Oh well ... Back to our regularly scheduled L glass fest!

Thanks for helping. And nice web site too, nice images. Have fun!

Best,
Michael
[/quote]

Your welcome, glad to help you see some of the possibilities with the current 35mm format cameras these days.

Thanks for the compliment, although personally I think I need to re-do some of my website UX, but damnit Jim, I'm a software engineer, not a designer!

 

[Bruce Photography]

The 24mm 1.4 L mark 2 is a great lens. I'm a landscape guy and the only lens that I like better is the tilt-shift 24mm II lens but it is only 3.5. But it is sharp everywhere in the frame and no CA. It even takes a filter that the 17mm tse does not. Dual axis is wonderful. Nikon is only single axis.

Enjoy your 24 and welcome to L land.

 

[IIIHobbs]

After getting the 5D3, I was finding my 16-35 II a bit on the wide side. I already had the 50 L, and decided to try the 24 1.4 II. I used it for one weekend, was amazed and sold the 16-35 the following week.
No regrets.

 

[RLPhoto]

24L II > 35L