Review: Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM Pancake

[Canon Rumors]

<p>Bryan at the-digital-picture has completed his review of the Canon EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens. This lens seems to be the APS-C equivalent of the 40mm f/2.8 STM for full frame shooters and looks to be just as highly regarded.</p>
<p><strong>From TDP

</strong><em>“At the end of the 40 STM review, I made a statement that also applies to this pancake-style lens: “Overall, I’m finding very “little” to not like about this tiny, inexpensive lens.” It is fun to joke about this little lens, but … it is the real deal. Not only will it get the job done, it will do the job as well or better than many other lenses. And for a lower price. It is not hard to justify this purchase.”</em></p>
<p><strong>In Stock: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1081812-REG/canon_9522b002_ef_s_24mm_f_2_8_is.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM $149 at B&H Photo</a></strong><strong>

</strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[mrzero]

Where's the link to his review?

 

[ahsanford]

Here you go:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-40mm-f-2.8-STM-Pancake-Lens-Review.aspx

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Ha! Just kidding, here it is:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-24mm-f-2.8-STM-Lens.aspx

- A

 

[jebrady03]

I'm not nearly as sold on this lens. Everything about it seems GREAT except that most people get the 18-55 STM or 18-135 STM with their camera and at 23mm those lenses shoot at f/3.5. That's only 2/3 of a stop difference but you get IS with them. This is the same conclusion I came to after trying out the 24mm IS lens, and then selling it. I think if you're looking to spend $150 on an f/2.8 pancake prime, it's smarter to go with the 40mm as it provides a significant advantage over the kit lens lens which is at f/5 as soon as 37mm making the 40 1&2/3 stops faster.

Now, that's not to say no one should buy the 24 IS, just that it shouldn't be a blanket recommendation for everyone.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm not nearly as sold on this lens. Everything about it seems GREAT except that most people get the 18-55 STM or 18-135 STM with their camera and at 23mm those lenses shoot at f/3.5. That's only 2/3 of a stop difference but you get IS with them. This is the same conclusion I came to after trying out the 24mm IS lens, and then selling it. I think if you're looking to spend $150 on an f/2.8 pancake prime, it's smarter to go with the 40mm as it provides a significant advantage over the kit lens lens which is at f/5 as soon as 37mm making the 40 1&2/3 stops faster.

Now, that's not to say no one should buy the 24 IS, just that it shouldn't be a blanket recommendation for everyone.

Disagree, though I understand your point. You don't buy/not buy a lens solely for max aperture reasons. That's just one consideration.

Consider:

• Both 24 primes you referenced will be sharper than the kit zooms, esp. on the more wide open end, say f/2.8 - f/4 or so.
• The pancake is as big as a minute with only vignetting, focus by wire and STM focusing speed as it's only limitations. Just like the EF 40mm, it's shockingly sharp for its size.
• The 24 f/2.8 IS is in another league entirely. Sharpness equivalent to the 24L II. It's a fantastic lens with modern fast USM, internal focusing, great build quality and of course the IS. That's effectively a "slow" 24L prime without weather sealing, and I honestly rate it as good a value at $549 as the pancake is at $149.

Kit lenses are great, but both of the 24 primes you referenced are clear upgrades over kit glass to me.

- A

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Why would anyone buy this EF-S 24mm STM, instead of the EF 24mm IS?

Size, weight and price. :
A perfect match for the Rebel SL1.
For larger cameras as 7D, it's worth paying more for EF 24mm IS which has Image Stabilizer and will serve in all EOS bodies.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

Why would anyone buy this EF-S 24mm STM, instead of the EF 24mm IS?

Size, weight and price. :
A perfect match for the Rebel SL1.
For larger cameras as 7D, it's worth paying more for EF 24mm IS which has Image Stabilizer and will serve in all EOS bodies.

+1 its a perfect fit for the sl1 and the 40 stm great for lite on the go travel

 

[benherman]

Tried one in a shop on the weekend on sl1, focus was fast, images were sharp at 2.8, will be getting this gem in the near future, even if I'm looking at nikon for full frame.

 

[jebrady03]

Disagree, though I understand your point. You don't buy/not buy a lens solely for max aperture reasons. That's just one consideration.

Consider:

• Both 24 primes you referenced will be sharper than the kit zooms, esp. on the more wide open end, say f/2.8 - f/4 or so.
• The pancake is as big as a minute with only vignetting, focus by wire and STM focusing speed as it's only limitations. Just like the EF 40mm, it's shockingly sharp for its size.
• The 24 f/2.8 IS is in another league entirely. Sharpness equivalent to the 24L II. It's a fantastic lens with modern fast USM, internal focusing, great build quality and of course the IS. That's effectively a "slow" 24L prime without weather sealing, and I honestly rate it as good a value at $549 as the pancake is at $149.

Kit lenses are great, but both of the 24 primes you referenced are clear upgrades over kit glass to me.

- A

To be fair, I rarely used the 24mm IS. I think I used it a handful of times and each one was basically me forcing myself to use it.

But... take a look at the PhotoZone resolution charts for the 18-55 IS STM and the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. They're not very different at all.

18-55: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis?start=1
EF-S 24mm: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/889-canon_24_28stm?start=1

Check out the 18-55 resolution chart at 18mm and 24mm (below). Again, neither are at f/2.8. But at 18mm and 24mm (f/3.5 and f/4 respectively), it resolves almost identical lp/ph in all 3 measured areas. So, it's probably safe to say that 23mm at f/3.5 is in that neighborhood.

Now, check out the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM.

It's basically the same as the 18-55 STM (it resolves about 3% more in the center than the 18-55 STM). There are some minor differences, but likely nothing that would show up in the real world. So, the assertion that the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is a "clear upgrade" over the 18-55 IS STM kit lens is not true at all. You're exchanging a loss of 2/3 of a stop of light (at 23mm) to gain 4 stops of IS plus zoom capabilities for 2/3 stop of light gain plus a smaller size and lower weight... and $150 gone. Again... IF you already have the 18-55 IS STM.

So again, my recommendation is - if you already have the 18-55 STM, don't bother with the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. Yes it's smaller and lighter and 2/3 of a stop faster, but the kit zoom isn't heavy and it isn't big by any means. Obviously if you NEED or really want the small size and or the extra 2/3 of a stop of light, then yes... go for it for $150. But don't buy it just to buy it if you already have the 18-55 STM.

I have no doubts the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS performs even better. After all, it is a full frame lens and we're talking about using it on a crop sensor camera (PZ hasn't tested it). But we're also talking about investing $550 for it too... and is it $550 better? Maybe... if "excellent" in the center and "very good" everywhere else isn't already enough.

 

[Luds34]

Why would anyone buy this EF-S 24mm STM, instead of the EF 24mm IS?

Size, weight and price. :
A perfect match for the Rebel SL1.
For larger cameras as 7D, it's worth paying more for EF 24mm IS which has Image Stabilizer and will serve in all EOS bodies.

+1 its a perfect fit for the sl1 and the 40 stm great for lite on the go travel

Love them both on my old Rebel (T2i) as a portable kit. The 40mm was great, but this 24mm is the much more useful focal length for me. Best $150 I spent on this hobby!

 

[Funky funk]

The compactness of the pancake lens is a great blessing. It allows for a secondary lens without adding any more bulk to your gear. A lens this small does not need image stabilization and it should not be considered a negative selling point when considering such a lens. Either one of the pancakes are good starting points for those wondering are primes worth it.

That compactness is a strong selling point, especially if you are making strong elevation changes! Tight spaces, narrow spaces, climbing, hanging over cliffs, crowds, commercial air travel, hiking, or strapped to a drone are all reasons one may want a smaller more compact lens.

It may be true this lens does perform the same as other lenses with more bulk and weight, but there are other things to consider.

 

[pdirestajr]

I love throwing my 40mm 2.8 in a pocket when I go out with just a 70-200 mounted to a FF body. That way IF I need something wider I'm not stuck.

I can totally see this lens filling the same hole with my 7D and 70-200.

They take up no space, cost very little and have great optics.

There is a place for that.

 

[ajperk]

While I also like to look at photozone's numbers, I think the raw resolution numbers don't always reflect the whole picture, so to speak. If you look at TDP, you can see pretty obvious and immediate differences in image quality between the two lenses, particularly CA which can rob an image of that pleasing sense of overall sharpness and clarity.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=836&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=960&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

I actually have one of these little lenses and I can attest to it being nice and small and having very great image quality.

 

[Joey]

...So again, my recommendation is - if you already have the 18-55 STM, don't bother with the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM. Yes it's smaller and lighter and 2/3 of a stop faster, but the kit zoom isn't heavy and it isn't big by any means. Obviously if you NEED or really want the small size and or the extra 2/3 of a stop of light, then yes... go for it for $150. But don't buy it just to buy it if you already have the 18-55 STM...

I don't have, never have had, the 18-55mm kit lens in any of its iterations. I do however have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens which is a stellar performer. Nevertheless I have bought, and am delighted with, the 24mm pancake lens. With this lens on my 7DmkII I can carry my camera unobtrusively for street photography, and unlike with any of my other lenses the camera hangs nicely from its neck strap without angling downwards and digging into my ribs as I walk. The performance of this tiny lens is great, in particular chromatic aberration, a particular bugbear of mine, is almost non-existant.
Nice to note that the Digital Picture review mentions the preposterous pricing in Europe and the UK. Here we pay £179 - the equivalent of $280 including tax. It's worth it, but it isn't the bargain that it is in the USA!

 

[slclick]

I'm not nearly as sold on this lens. Everything about it seems GREAT except that most people get the 18-55 STM or 18-135 STM with their camera and at 23mm those lenses shoot at f/3.5. That's only 2/3 of a stop difference but you get IS with them. This is the same conclusion I came to after trying out the 24mm IS lens, and then selling it. I think if you're looking to spend $150 on an f/2.8 pancake prime, it's smarter to go with the 40mm as it provides a significant advantage over the kit lens lens which is at f/5 as soon as 37mm making the 40 1&2/3 stops faster.

Now, that's not to say no one should buy the 24 IS, just that it shouldn't be a blanket recommendation for everyone.

This lens makes perfect sense for my setup. I have a 5d3 with a sweet suite of L glass but I also own the 40 pancake (which I LOVE). So when I picked up an SL1 getting the little brother pancake was perfect sense. Fantastic little kit. I'm thinking it's my perfect Disney kit. Leashed onto a Black Rapid Cross Shot, it's an all day walk around setup that my back thanks me for.

 

[ahsanford]

This lens makes perfect sense for my setup. I have a 5d3 with a sweet suite of L glass but I also own the 40 pancake (which I LOVE). So when I picked up an SL1 getting the little brother pancake was perfect sense. Fantastic little kit. I'm thinking it's my perfect Disney kit. Leashed onto a Black Rapid Cross Shot, it's an all day walk around setup that my back thanks me for.

My only regret with the pancake is that it's an EF-S mount. I'd love a wide AF pancake for my 5D3.

- A

 

[AshtonNekolah]

the 24 prime is clearly sharper, what i would expect of a prime, no offence on kit lenses but they are like popcorn at the movies just a good starter for a mediate buy. what i read about the 24mm IS is that the blades are not the same and has a softer coat to the lens. the 40mm is a great glass i use all the time and is just as sharp as the L quality this 24mm is just as nice and for the weight its a great pair with the 40mm. on a magnification of 1.6 it will hit a 40mm just right and then the 40mm in a 65mm both nice angles of view. 40mm is very wide for me so the 24mm i can work it like on the 35mm censor no sweat. Those kit lenses get slack over time, one of my buddies all he have to do is just tilt the body with lens to the ground and watch the lens zoom out to gravity. thank goodness i gave up zooms in that class long time ago.

 

[NancyP]

I will be considering that pancake lens for the upcoming 7D2. I love the 40 f/2.8 on the 6D. OK, manual focusing is a bit wonky, but it works fine for landscape. Light weight is a big plus.

A poster on dpreview macro forum brought up an interesting point - 24mm as ultra-macro lens on a bellows?

 

[Dantana]

If I was still shooting crop, I'd nab this in a heartbeat.

I picked up the 40 for my 6D when it was on sale last year over the holidays, not sure how much I'd use it. It's great to be able to leave my 24-105 in the bag and just take the camera and the 40 when I don't want to be toting anything around. And the images are great. I wish the 24 was an EF lens.