24mm f/1.4L and 135mm f/2.0L

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jorge_ituarte|3, Aug 27, 2003.

  1. Two of the lens I currently own are the 24mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/2.8L I
    have been thinking about 24mm f/1.4L and 135mm f/2.0L and possibly
    compartmentalizing things with 300 f/2.8 or new Sigma 120-300mm
    f/2.8. In other words separating my kit a bit depending on what I am
    doing that day. I would appreciate some feedback on 24mm f/1.4L and
    135mm f/2.0L from users with hands on. Most of the work I sell is
    covered in the 24-135mm range so the additional cost is justifiable.
    But, I would like to dabble in wildlife a bit. I live in the Fl,
    Keys. My back yard is the Florida Everglades and in my front yard
    are the reef and the Caribbean. Please understand that a great deal
    of our birds are 4 and 5 feet tall. So 300mm f/2.8 and TCs are
    probably more than adequate. They are not to shy if you leave your
    door open they will walk into your house.
     
  2. "Please understand that a great deal of our birds are 4 and 5 feet tall. They are not to shy if you leave your door open they will walk into your house."

    Jorge, please send some of these birds over to Europe! We would love to have such photographic subjects. And of course the bright light you have.
     
  3. I think one of the most humorous anecdotes about these birds occurred once while having a discussion about America Egrets in mating plumage on a forum. The forum members where discussing their trip to the Florida Everglades and trekking down the Inhinga Trail for miles to capture the quintessential image of an American Egret in mating plumage. One of our Egrets we call "Buddy Bird". Buddy walks in the house and loves to watch one wash dishes. He will stand on the kitchen counter and be in absolute awe of the whole process. My spouse took a snapshot of "Buddy Bird" in all his glory with me washing dishes. He was in full mating plumage complete with the iridescent turquoise color change around the beak. I posted the picture on the forum. They hated my guts on that forum. I will look for that image. It's really just a snapshot. I'll scan it and post it for you.
     
  4. I haven't used the EF 24mm/f:1.4L USM, but the EF 135mm/f:2.0L USM as fantastic: very good build quality and outstanding optical performance. If it's not the best lens Canon makes, it's on par with the best.
    Hans, cygnus olor has a total length of approx. 150cm and a wingspan of 235cm. In my neighbourhood, they aren't shy at all. I haven't had one walk into houses yet, but I've often had their beaks in my gear bag. And they love to chase dogs.
    Jorge, please post that picture of Buddy! Can you train him to carry the dishes back into the cupboard? I think helping you with the dishes themselves might be difficult if you don't have hands.
     
  5. Probably cant train him to help with the dishes, but sure the hell wish he could be house trained. I swear these Egrets and Herons *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* plaster of Paris. The worst part of that is they also love hanging out on my boats. Pressure hose and scrub brush every f..king day!
     
  6. I have the 135/2 and can say without hesitation it is one of Canon's best. Incredibly sharp from f2 up. As for the 24/1.4, I have not personally used one but do own and use the 24/2.8 as well as the 24 TS-E. Check out this review of 24's at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml As you can see in this review the 24 at 1.4 is pretty dismal at the edge. What I can tell you is that the 24/2.8 performs very well from f4 up, and IMO is a sharper lens than the 24 TS-E until f8 where they are about equal. Hope this helps.
    Cheers,
     
  7. I have no problem with sharpness even wide open with the 24mm f/2.8 however I think it's just "OK" as far as contrast and saturation. Not bad just not fantastic. I was hoping the 24mm f/1.4L would be better from f/2.8 up in this area.
     
  8. I have to confess, I have pretty much made my mind up about getting the 135mm f/2.0L. However I'm not as certain about the 24mm f/1.4L. If all I am going to gain with the 24mm /f1.4L is speed then I'll keep my 24mm f/2.8. I prefer its smaller size. However, if the 24mm f/1.4L has more "pop" I'll buy it. It's not as easy as it is for most to go to a shop and see for myself. I'm about 90 miles from the nearest one. I also feel a little cheesy taking up that much of a sales clerks time when I know I'm going to buy it from B&H. Ordering from B&H trying it out and sending it back after having been a customer for so many years wears a little thin as well.
     
  9. Jorge,

    I have used the 24mm/2.8 for a long time and now have acquired a 24mm/1.4 L. I have only used the 24mm/1.4 for a waterfront shoot at night and some flower shots in a garden. My first impressions are it has a lot more "pop" than my 24mm/2.8 had.

    Regards,
     
  10. Ralph, how does it compare as far as sharpness (at f/2.8 for example). How well does it perform in f/8 to f/14 range.
     
  11. Jorge,

    I haven't used the 24mm/1.4 enough to give a thorough evaulation. I will be using it quite a bit more in a soon to be trip to the Rockies and Oregon coastline. I believe, in the limited use that I have used it, it is sharper than my 24mm/2.8. I took several shots with it at different stops, which I didn't save, when I purchased it to evaluate it and right away I saw the improvement over the 24/2.8. It wasn't night and day but it was enough to notice. In addition the lower light capabilites already have paid off for me. The aforementioned waterfront shoot paid for a third of it already. I also wanted the faster lens just for those times that the 2.8 couldn't pull it off for me.

    Sorry I can't help you more at this time. In a few months I will have a lot more information available.

    Regards,
     

Share This Page