I need a 24mm focal lenght Lens.. is the 24mm f2.8 IS right for me?

[Tanja]

i tried the EF 17-40mm and was not satisfied, then i tried the 24-105mm and was also not satisfied.

is there really no 24mm lens with better image quality in the canon lineup that does not cost a fortune??
the borders looked bad with the 17-40mm and 24-105mm.
i compared the images to my uncles images and his 14-24mm nikkor lens is much better.
the nikkor is sharper and has less distortions.

so i thought i buy the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.
it´s a prime and i expect better image quality then the zooms, right?

is the 24mm f2.8 IS noticable better than the zooms i have tested?

i really only need the 24mm, but the image quality has to be great from center to border.
is there another 24mm lens option for me, around 600-800 euro?


before i forget, i have a 5D MK3.


ps: the 24-70mm f2.8 II is to expensive.

 

[Artifex]

I don't have any first-hand experience with 24mm lens, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
If you don't use autofocus, I heard some nice thing about the Samyang 24mm f/1.4. According to lenstip.com, the border performances, although far from perfect, are better on FF than the canon 24mm f/1.4. Also, you can find it at 609$. However, keep in mind that it doesn't have any electronic, so that means no autofocus, no IS, no EXIF, etc.

Source: http://www.lenstip.com/330.4-Lens_review-Samyang_24_mm_f_1.4_ED_AS_UMC_Image_resolution.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/819786-REG/Rokinon_24mm_f_1_4_ED_AS.html

P.S: The Rokinon is just a rebranding of the Samyang.

 

[Tanja]

reading the summary from lenstip it sounds not that good.
and vignetting is realy bad.. even stopped down.

i don´t need f1.4 so if the image quality of the canon 24mm f2.8 IS is better or equal, it would be the better choice.

but thx for the suggestion!

 

[iMagic]

How much are you willing to spend. Not necessarily your "budget" but the absolute maximum you are willing to spend. Good 24mm is going to cost $

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

i tried the EF 17-40mm and was not satisfied, then i tried the 24-105mm and was also not satisfied.

is there really no 24mm lens with better image quality in the canon lineup that does not cost a fortune??
the borders looked bad with the 17-40mm and 24-105mm.
i compared the images to my uncles images and his 14-24mm nikkor lens is much better.
the nikkor is sharper and has less distortions.

so i thought i buy the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.
it´s a prime and i expect better image quality then the zooms, right?

is the 24mm f2.8 IS noticable better than the zooms i have tested?

i really only need the 24mm, but the image quality has to be great from center to border.
is there another 24mm lens option for me, around 600-800 euro?


before i forget, i have a 5D MK3.


ps: the 24-70mm f2.8 II is to expensive.

You want something like the $2,000 Nikon 14-24, and wonder why you can't have it for $700?
You have to shell out $$$ for a excellent lens, or just stop down any lens to f/8 or f/11 and they will all be fine.

You can preview images taken with various lenses at different apertures here:
As you can see, at f/8 they are pretty much equal. Its just a matter of understanding that those extra dollars give you the higher IQ at wide apertures.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=3&LensComp=615&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=4

 

[Sella174]

I liked my Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/24 when I was still shooting film. Don't have a full-frame DSLR, so can't test its "modern" performance.

 

[timmy_650]

Yes the 24 is will be sharper than both the 17-40 and 24-105.
PS remember the 14-24mm nikkor is a $2000 lens, so if you want a lens with than kind of sharpness on a zoom it is the 24-70 but the 24 is will be pretty close

If you want numbers

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-24mm-F28-IS-USM/(camera)/795/(cameraname)/CANON-EOS-5D-Mark-III

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM/(camera)/795/(cameraname)/CANON-EOS-5D-Mark-III

 

[ahsanford]

I have the 28 2.8 IS and adore it -- it's right up there with the 24L II for sharpness. The 24 2.8 IS is nearly as sharp but not quite from the data I've seen.

What do you shoot with your wide lenses? If it's large DOF landscape work, any chance you might be...

1) focusing on an infinity point rather than the recommended hyperfocal distance / a third of the way into the frame?
2) stopping down so far as to have softness from diffraction? Depending on what you read, stopping down past the F/11 - F/14 neighborhood things get a little soft.

I just want to make sure it's not the glass. I don't know your experience level, but if you own a 5D3 I must presume 1 and 2 above are not the problem. ;D

- A

 

[Tanja]

You want something like the $2,000 Nikon 14-24, and wonder why you can't have it for $700?

never said that, where did you read that?

has canon a 14-24mm like nikon.. no! 8)
otherwise i would think about buying it.

canons 16-35mm is no match either and in the price range of the nikkor 14-24mm.
nikkor 14-24 = 1500 euros , canon 16-35 = 1350 euros
the 16-35 is a f2.8 but otherwise, stopped down, not much better then the 17-40mm.

so im looking for a prime from 600 to 800 euro.
a prime should be cheaper then a zoom but with good image quality.

the EF 24mm f1.4 from canon is nice. but then im paying for f1.4 i don´t really need.

You have to shell out $$$ for a excellent lens, or just stop down any lens to f/8 or f/11 and they will all be fine

well that opinion is relative. or why did you think i made this thread?
i did not find the 17-40mm or 24-105mm "fine" on the borders.
useable.. but not great.

 

[ahsanford]

You want something like the $2,000 Nikon 14-24, and wonder why you can't have it for $700?

never said that, where did you read that?

has canon a 14-24mm like nikon.. no! 8)
otherwise i would think about buying it.

canons 16-35mm is no match either and in the price range of the nikkor 14-24mm.
nikkor 14-24 = 1500 euros , canon 16-35 = 1350 euros
the 16-35 is a f2.8 but otherwise, stopped down, not much better then the 17-40mm.

so im looking for a prime from 600 to 800 euro.
a prime should be cheaper then a zoom but with good image quality.

the EF 24mm f1.4 from canon is nice. but then im paying for f1.4 i don´t really need.

You have to shell out $$$ for a excellent lens, or just stop down any lens to f/8 or f/11 and they will all be fine

well that opinion is relative. or why did you think i made this thread?
i did not find the 17-40mm or 24-105mm "fine" on the borders.
useable.. but not great.

Everything you just wrote says to get the best modern non-L 24mm prime that you can. Assuming that you don't want a manual focus lens, then the 24mm 2.8 IS is the best choice.

My crude logic:

• Canon Tilt-Shift, Zeiss, and RokiBowYang are MF lenses
• Sigma hasn't made a 24 as good as their most excellent new 35 (yet)
• Canon's prior 24mm non-L prime desperately needed to be updated

So I'd get the new 24mm 2.8 IS. It is an L lens minus a weathersealing gasket and a red ring. Best option based on your parameters. Consider renting first if there is any doubt.

- A

 

[Tanja]

I just want to make sure it's not the glass. I don't know your experience level, but if you own a 5D3 I must presume 1 and 2 above are not the problem. ;D

i was shooting for 12 years with pentax.
but as pentax is going nowhere as it seems i switched to canon this year.

i have what i need so far (70-200mm f2.8 IS II, 50mm f1.2, sigma 35mm f1.4)

but im struggling to find a really good 24mm (my prefered focal length).

i buy fast glass when i think i need it.
but for my 24mm work f2.8 is fast enough.
so i prefer not to "waste" money in this case, if i don´t have too.

if there is nothing for 800 euro that is as good as the EF 24mm f1.4 L from canon, then i will buy the EF 24mm f1.4 L.

but i think the 24mm f2.8 IS is maybe pretty close?
i mean it´s a new design.

How much are you willing to spend. Not necessarily your "budget" but the absolute maximum you are willing to spend. Good 24mm is going to cost $

as much as i have too.
but it does not have to be very fast glass.
it only has to be sharp and distortion free.

the 24-70mm f2,8 IS II is sure a great lens but costs 2000 euro.
i am not willing to pay that only for the 24mm end. i have a good 35mm and 50mm lenses already.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

If autofocus isn't a requirement, you're not going to find a better 24 than the TS-E 24 II.

Cheers,

b&

 

[ahsanford]

Here's the data you want, then:

Primes: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

Basic finding: 24L II @ F/2.8 > 28 IS @ 2.8 (just barely) > 24 IS @ 2.8
To be fair, all of these are considerably sharper compared to the old flagship 24-70L I.

Zooms: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
Also: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests

Basic finding: @24mm, the new 24-70L II truly does stack up against Canon's primes, beating the 24L II @ 2.8
in center and border but just barely losing in the corners. But it's very expensive, and despite improvements
in weight, it's still not a tiny thing to carry around.

Hope that helps. I have to make the statement that resolution is but one of a great many variables in buying a lens, but I would imagine that you know that given your years of shooting. I love the new IS primes as they are small and light, inconspicuous / unassuming (great for street), use a very common filter diameter, are internal focusing, and have the latest focusing tech -- all being upsides in my book.

- A

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You want something like the $2,000 Nikon 14-24, and wonder why you can't have it for $700?

never said that, where did you read that?

Your OP
"i compared the images to my uncles images and his 14-24mm nikkor lens is much better.
the nikkor is sharper and has less distortions.

so i thought i buy the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.
it´s a prime and i expect better image quality then the zooms, right?
"

You appear to be asking if a low cost prime is going to be as good as a $2,000 lens.

 

[barracuda]

I have the 24 2.8 IS and love it. IQ is the best of all my lenses at 24mm. I have the 16-35 II, 17-40, 24-105, and EF-S 17-55. I've just ordered the 24-70 2.8 II which I'm sure will rival the 24 2.8 IS, but I'll probably keep the latter for when its diminutive size matters.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

You want something like the $2,000 Nikon 14-24, and wonder why you can't have it for $700?

never said that, where did you read that?

Your OP
"i compared the images to my uncles images and his 14-24mm nikkor lens is much better.
the nikkor is sharper and has less distortions.

so i thought i buy the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.
it´s a prime and i expect better image quality then the zooms, right?
"

You appear to be asking if a low cost prime is going to be as good as a $2,000 lens.

Well, to be fair, she does seem to be under the common misconception that all primes are better than all zooms.

That hasn't been the case for ages. The 16-35 II, for example, stomps all over all the non-L primes in the same focal length range (though I don't know about the new IS ones). The new 24-70 even gives the TS-E 24 II a run for its money. The new 70-200 eats (almost) all the primes in that range for lunch. The 5-15 is the best fisheye ever made. And so on....

What primes get you is fast apertures, smaller size, cheaper cost (often), and, in some cases, features like movements or macro that you can't get in a zoom. Oftentimes there's also less distortion. (And then there's the Great Whites, of course....)

But the days when you could automatically assume that a prime beats a zoom are long past.

Cheers,

b&

 

[SteenerMe]

if sharpness is what you're after then the new 24 - 70 would be the best way to go and you could get there by selling one of your L primes plus the money you plan to spend already. that lens is awesome across the board and could easily replace one of the fast primes in your kit. Otherwise I don't see a canon AF lens matching up to that nikon...

 

[bycostello]

Yes the 24 is will be sharper than both the 17-40 and 24-105.
PS remember the 14-24mm nikkor is a $2000 lens, so if you want a lens with than kind of sharpness on a zoom it is the 24-70 but the 24 is will be pretty close

If you want numbers

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-24mm-F28-IS-USM/(camera)/795/(cameraname)/CANON-EOS-5D-Mark-III

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM/(camera)/795/(cameraname)/CANON-EOS-5D-Mark-III

+!

 

[scottkinfw]

Really? I love my 24 to 105 kit lens.

i tried the EF 17-40mm and was not satisfied, then i tried the 24-105mm and was also not satisfied.

is there really no 24mm lens with better image quality in the canon lineup that does not cost a fortune??
the borders looked bad with the 17-40mm and 24-105mm.
i compared the images to my uncles images and his 14-24mm nikkor lens is much better.
the nikkor is sharper and has less distortions.

so i thought i buy the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.
it´s a prime and i expect better image quality then the zooms, right?

is the 24mm f2.8 IS noticable better than the zooms i have tested?

i really only need the 24mm, but the image quality has to be great from center to border.
is there another 24mm lens option for me, around 600-800 euro?


before i forget, i have a 5D MK3.


ps: the 24-70mm f2.8 II is to expensive.

 

[Tanja]

You want something like the $2,000 Nikon 14-24, and wonder why you can't have it for $700?

never said that, where did you read that?

Your OP
"i compared the images to my uncles images and his 14-24mm nikkor lens is much better.
the nikkor is sharper and has less distortions.

so i thought i buy the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.
it´s a prime and i expect better image quality then the zooms, right?
"

You appear to be asking if a low cost prime is going to be as good as a $2,000 lens.

the nikkor zoom cost 1500 euro, i asked for a prime for around 800 euro.
the nikkor was an example and i compared it to the canon zooms i have tested (24-105mm = 900 euro).

so you say it´s absolutley ridiculous what i ask for? i don´t think so.

there is a 90 euro prime lens from canon that prove me right.
primes are much cheaper to build, easier to design and should have better image quality. (*)
in the end the engineers can focus all their efforts on just one focal lenght.

the 150 euro 40mm f2.8 pancake is no slouch either.

(*) of course you can´t compare old FD or EF primes from the late 80 or early 90 with todays zooms. technology does not stand still.

and i like to say beforehand, i know zeiss primes are more expensive.

That hasn't been the case for ages. The 16-35 II, for example, stomps all over all the non-L primes in the same focal length range (though I don't know about the new IS ones). The new 24-70 even gives the TS-E 24 II a run for its money. The new 70-200 eats (almost) all the primes in that range for lunch. The 5-15 is the best fisheye ever made. And so on....

you compare 20 year old lenses like the 50mm f1.4, 20mm f/2.8 or EF 28mm f/1.8 to relatively new ones are you?

but i asked about a very new prime lens... the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.

so no, im not under the impression every old prime is better than new lenses with better designs, coatings etc.

but i think the 24mm f2.8 IS is maybe pretty close?
i mean it´s a new design.

The new 24-70 even gives the TS-E 24 II a run for its money.

well not in terms of distortion.
yes you can fix that in post, as you can fix CA´s in post.
but let us talk about pure lens performance here.