Canon EF 24mm F/1.4 USM II EF L vs Sigma 24mm f/1.8

<p>Have an EF 17-40 f/4. Happy in outdoors but not happy at indoors and low much distortion especially with people.<br>

Decided to sell 17-40 and buy a 24 mm for wide angle.</p>

<p>Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 is an expensive lens. Sigma seems half price but also seem quality is half too.</p>

<p>Anybody any experience with both lenses?</p>

<p>After I sell 17-40, I need to add nearly 900 bucks for ef 24mm !</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The Sigma is pretty miserable... it is one of their older designs, and it's performance is sub par in this day and age. It is much less sharp than even the 17-40/4. Even when stopped down <em>completely</em> (f11), it has poor performance on FF units. On crop sensor units it's better, but not much. As far as it vs. the 24/1.4L? OMG not even the same <em>planet</em>.</p>

<p>That said, you may try the EF 28/1.8 USM, it gets very very good very very fast (though it's not great at f1.8, by f2 it's very usable (w/ a large sweet spot), and it's superb before f2.8). It is also vastly more inexpensive than the 24/1.4. On FF units, it is a marvelous FL, though somewhat more awkward on APS-C sensors (~44mm FOV).</p>

<p>If you shoot cropped sensor, consider replacing the 17-40 with the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. To the extent that shooting in low light is limited by ability to hand hold the camera, the IS will gain you more than the extra two stops, and the versatility of the zoom is going to be very valuable.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(I own the 17-40 and the 24mm f/1.4)</p>

<p>With wideangles, distortion is a fact of life. A different lens with the same focal length is not going to make a difference. Wither use a longer focal length, or else learn to work with it. To photograph people with a wideangle, be sure to place them near the center of the frame.</p>

<p>Note, fish-eyes are much kinder to people than rectilinears. Of course fisheyes mess up perspectives and lines, but you can't have it all. I sometimes use my Tokina 10-17 fish-eye for ultrawide people photos. Not sure if you shoot FX or DX, but in the case of DX this lens may offer a solution. No equivalent exists for FX.</p>

<p>Perhaps also consider the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS that will be released soon (end of this month, according to B&H).</p>

<p>shooting with 5d Mrk II</p>

<p>How about 24mm f/2.8?</p>

<p>I'd keep the zoom and go for a cheaper (slower) 24mm lens, myself.<br>

But I'm not you, I'm just saying think it through - if you haven't already. What do you need the faster aperture for? I could see format of the camera also being a factor in your choice.</p>

<p>don't like to use flash indoors. Like to shoot low ISO and need higher aperture and over 1/15 sec time. Of course sharpness is important factor.</p>

<p>For the EF 24/2.8 for optimal results on the 5D2, you'll need to be shooting @ f5.6+. It is still better than the Sigma 24/1.8, but only moderately. As a point of comparison, @ 24mm & f2.8, on FF and crop, the 24-70/2.8 L is <em>vastly better</em> than the EF 24/2.8 @f2.8 (as well as throughout the aperture range), plus, it has FTM USM. (and will only cost you another $1000 ;-) )</p>

<p>Of course the new one will likely be <em>significantly</em> better, optically speaking. Plus it has USM and IS. & only 3x the cost! If you can afford it (when it's available) I'd get it, over the current EF 24/2.8 which is antiquated optically, and mechanically. </p>

<p>It's been a few years since I traded in my 17-40 for Canon's 17-55/2.8, but my recollection is that at 24mm, the 17-40 had relatively little curvilinear distortion (barrel or pincushion). If you're finding this sort of distortion (and there's plenty of barrel distortion in this lens at shorter focal lengths), there are many software tools to fix it, including Canon's DPP, the lens aberration correction functions in many other RAW converters (including ACR in the full Photoshop product), and PTLens.</p>

 

<p>If it's that people's heads get stretched in weird ways if they're near the corners of the frame, well, as someone else said, that's par for the course with a wide-angle lens, and the cure is not to put people's heads near the corners of the frame when shooting with a wide-angle lens. Particularly if you're shooting at an angle, which adds perspective distortion as well (but that can also be corrected by a number of tools including some of the same ones mentioned above).</p>

<p>Distortion is a complete non issue if you shoot digital. Just tick the correct for lens distortion option.</p>

<p>This was shot with a 15mm fisheye yet distortion was easily corrected.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>As a point of comparison, @ 24mm & f2.8, on FF and crop, the 24-70/2.8 L is <em>vastly better</em> than the EF 24/2.8 @f2.8 (as well as throughout the aperture range), plus, it has FTM USM. (and will only cost you another $1000 ;-) )</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is an exaggeration in my opinion and the lens testing charts at the Digital Picture do not support this and it's not my experience either on FF. It is superior to the ver 1 24-70mmL at f2.8-4, they are equal at f5.6. The 24/2.8 is very useable wide open although it has CA - but it is easily removed. I find it better than the zoom although the zoom is not at all bad. The 24/2.8 in my opinion is a good lens made excellent by its bargain price. The new 24-70mm and 24mm IS designs we assume will be better. The Digital Picture charts suggests that there is not a lot of difference between the 24/2.8 and the 24 f1.4 II at comparable apertures, although I suspect far corner sharpness and central resolution for the L is better at f2.8 thru 16 - but you can't see this really in the lens charts. I have to say, I am impressed with what a good performer the old 24/2.8 is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is an exaggeration in my opinion and the lens testing charts at the Digital Picture do not support this and it's not my experience either on FF</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And my experience is the polar opposite. I certainly wouldn't say my results are better than your results, but they certainly are different. I found the 24/2.8's results to be very poor all the way through f5.6 (and beyond, though to a lesser extent), and this was consistent with it's build, focus, age, and price. The adage 'you get what you pay for' held true with this lens -- at least in <em>my</em> experience. Perhaps part of the reason yours performed so much better for you is the shoddy build - tolerances worked in <em>your</em> lenses favor.</p>

<p> The specific failings (optically) of the lens were a drastic difference in edge to center sharpness when using on a FF cameras. Additionally, until f4 there isn't much of a sweet spot, nor a consistent one. By f4, my 24-70/2.8 (@24mm) is consistently sharp from edge to edge and corner to corner - unlike the EF 24/2.8 whose corners even at f4 are frankly miserable. By f5.6, the 24/2.8 gets reasonably clean, but still isn't anywhere near 'tack-sharp' across the frame, unlike the 24-70/2.8 - which is @f5.6. @f2.8, while the 24-70 is pretty good, and has a broad, consistent, sweet spot (though w/o perfect corners), the 24/2.8 WO doesn't even<em> have</em> edge sharpness (it's corners are just a mash), and good luck finding the 'sweet spot' -- I couldn't.</p>

<p>It's a shame too, I really wanted to like it, at it's price and size, I wanted it to be another 50/1.8. ...but, it's not. ...and, taken w/ it's other limitations (f2.8 WO, and no USM) this 'david' is pretty outclassed by modern glass.</p>

<p>BTW, I looked at the digital picture, and, aside from similar performance in the center of the frame (<em>very</em> similar WO and near), my results clearly matched theirs for mid frame and corners... in other words, the digital picture <em>also</em>, confirms this assessment. Though, <em>clearly</em> sample variation is wiiiiide w/ these guys...</p>

<p>The best way seems to go for a</p>

<h1>Canon EF 24mm F/1.4 USM II EF L</h1>

<p>What is the comparison between 24 mm f/1.4 vs f/2.8 might be ?</p>

<p>Well, Marcus, mine is completely different. Did you buy yours new, or was it secondhand? If secondhand, maybe it was never OK? I can only support my claim via the Digital Picture site which almost entirely mirrors my experience - see the comparison pics vs the 24L and the resolution charts.</p>

<p>It doesn't have great bokeh, but I don't think the 24L is a champ in this department either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It doesn't have great bokeh, but I don't think the 24L is a champ in this department either.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Generally speaking, bokeh is not a strong point of wide angle lenses.</p>

<p>I lust after a 24 1.4. However the need does not justify the cost. I owned a Sigma 24 but sold it. It was not sharp enough in the corners for me.</p>

<p>Robin, I certainly can respect that your experience was different, but the DP clearly shows <em>substantially</em> decreased IQ at the (smearing, ghosting and a general lack of contrast) edges, and to a lesser extent the midframe of <em>their</em> picture, w/ the 24/2.8 WO and anywhere near (it is much more usable at f5.6) The absolute center certainly is quite sharp for such a cheap lens, even WO, but it's the rest of the frame I'd be worried about. stopping it down to 5.6 doesn't seem to fix any of the optical failings at the corners except for vignetting. Beyond, perhaps? Of course if you only shoot crop, you may not see the practical impact of these flaws to nearly the same degree I did, since I used it on a 5D. (the OP though is using a 5D2)</p>

<p>I didn't originally compare it to the 24/1.4L (just the 24-70/2.8L, since that was what you referred to in your post), though (now that I look at it), it seems the 24/1.4L II is better substantially also. </p>

<p>The fact that your experience was so much different (from myself, the DP, as well as several others) implies the presence of significant variation from lens to lens. Given that it was introduced in 1988, over the last <em>24years</em> of production, It would, in fact, be surprising if there <em>wasn't</em> significant sample variation. Overall though, given it's failings (as seen at the DP, and noted on other sites), even if <em>my</em> experience hadn't been thus (also) I'd have a hard time recommending it as anything other than a last resort </p>

<p>As far as my copy went, I got it used of course (on a whim) as I do for all but my workhorse lenses, saw, practically, it's limited value in adding to my photography (the optical flaws, antiquated AF, and limited speed -- since I already had the 24-70/2.8), did some brief verification online (to make sure i didn't really have a 'bad' copy) and so sold it again shortly after - that was several years ago though. Maybe new ones are better?</p>

<p>Sami, Why not consider the Zeiss 25mm f2 lens in EOS mount. Manual focus though. Or Canon's 24mm 3.5 TSE lens (which I own, and is my only Canon lens...love it). Again it's MF. Both are expensive. The suggestion given earlier, to wait for the new 24mm 2.8 IS would seem the most prudent. </p>