Welcome to Photo.net: A Community of Photographers

Home > Equipment > Canon > Canon EF 24/1.4L

Canon EF 24/1.4L

by Javier Henderson; created 1998

I had been thinking about getting a 24mm lens for a while, and kept wondering if the non-L lens would be adequate, or if I should get the 17-35 2.8L zoom. Eventually Canon came out with the 24/1.4L, and answered the question for me.

This lens uses the USM motor, which makes focusing nearly instant, and, more importantly, allows simultaneous manual and auto focus. You can read Canon's marketing blurb for some details on the glass, and the rest of this review for some subjective comments.

As with all L lenses, this one has the familiar red ring, which should tell everyone around you that you're a consumate pro. It also has a depth-of-field scale that's not too useful, as all the markings are really close to each other (my theory is that AF lenses are designed with relatively small movements to make focusing faster). This shouldn't be too much of a hindrance, however, I never had much of a need for such a scale on wide angle lenses.

Weight comes in at just over a pound.

With a maximum aperture of 1.4, the image on the viewfinder is bright and crisp. Manual focusing is relatively easy, the focusing ring is ribbed and easy to actuate, though it could use a little more dampening. The image doesn't sharply snap in and out of focus, but you can definitely tell when you have achieved optimum focus.

Taking pictures

It takes nice, contrasty slides, and light falloff at the edges is minimal with f4.0 or smaller apertures. At f1.4, you can definitely see a little falloff on the corners if your subject is of uniform color (say, the sky above a valley). The image is sharp from edge to edge, even at 1.4, however.

If your subject matter includes a lot of straight lines towards the edges of the frame, you'll probably want to stop down to at least f3.5, though f5.6 and smaller seem to produce the straightest lines. The barrel distortion is really noticeable at 1.4, as evidenced by a pair of slides I took of my computer rack.

Definitely worth it

The retailers on the photo.net list charge about $1,500 for the lens, four times the price of the 24/2.8 lens. I borrowed a 24/2.8 and exposed the same scene, at the same settings, on the same roll of film, with the two lenses. I found readibly observable differences in contrast and flare control. Plus, the L lens has the extra speed that could mean the difference between making or losing the shot if the light is low and a tripod is not available.

Photo of lens from Canon USA Web site .

Readers' Comments


Add a comment



Frank Sheeran , January 22, 1998; 10:43 P.M.

Javier, thanks for the quick review of this curiousity (it came out just a couple months ago).

I've been wondering if it can blur background at all with its 17mm aperture. If you get a scan of such a photo, add it to the page sometime. (also like to see blur results with a 12mm extension)

Curious about one thing. Your ultimate paragraph reads as if distortion improves as the lens stops down. If so the lens would have to be insanely astigmatic (turning points of light near edges into lines an appreciable portion of a mm long and pointed at the image center). (Or, maybe I mis- understand something?)

If you have identical shots at (say) f/1.4 and f/8, perhaps you could post some scans to illustrate A) the bad curvature you mention, B) the difference in distortion I understand you to refer to, and C) (if difference exists) the resulting astigmatism I suspect.

I second Javier's instinct that primes can be still be the right choice in the 90's. I just sold my 17-35L, even though its not much worse than the already relatively poor wide-angle SLR primes. The problem: when I work past 24mm or so I'm not worrying about specific elements in the picture so much as trying to shock. I used my 17-35L basicly as a 17mm prime.

And that only when I didn't have the 14L on me... 14mm is the lens for fast wide-angle work. Ignore all the secondary elements in the picture while shooting. Get the subjects on film, and maybe crop in Photoshop later. (I've passed off shots cropped to 28mm field of view without eliciting comment.)

For slow wide-angle work, the 24TS is king. It takes sharper pictures simply from focusing both background and foreground in many very common compositions. You can also pick any detail out of a 12.5mm field of view and give it 4x more grains to sit on than the same detail cropped out of a wider lens' shot. Not to mention matted panoramas.

So why am I curious about the 24/1.4 if I already love these two lenses? Your 1.4L shares "low- light hand-held possibilities" honor with only the 50/1L. And, I'm dying to see blurred backgrounds with or without EF12/25 or 250D. Be sure to give us some graphics that illustrate this lens' unique possibilities.

Javier Henderson , January 24, 1998; 03:12 P.M.

I should probably re-write a few paragraphs of the review. The comment that suggests that aperture and distortion are related is somewhat of an apples to pears comparison. I took some shots of my computer rack at close distance, and I compared them against straight lines on buildings taken from a few dozen feet, I should make this more clear.


Add a comment