Jump to content

is the 24L THAT bad?


jati_lindsay

Recommended Posts

hello all. i have two 1vs. one has 35L. need another lens for the other one.

with leicas, my primary lenses are 21, 28, 35. never shot with 24 before, but i

like how it feels. since itll be much easier to get 400 to get the 28 in the

future than 1100 for the 24, i figured id get it while i have the money. i

already know ill like the 28 focal lengh-wise, even though its not an L. my

question is, is the 24 that bad? ive read a few good things, but mostly bad

about its sharpness. some of my colleagues are saying dont even bother with the

24, its sharpness is that bad. but its an L! i want it! what do yall think? whos

actually using the 24L out here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 24L. It doesn't get as much use as my 35L. As far as sharpness I really do not know how it compares to my other L's. I've never tested it and I really don't care either. I've also never checked any lens test websites either. I just use in low light usually at high ISO's. It does it's job. Makes me $$$ too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drilling down into the details, I don't see many contradictions among the various lens tests cited in this topic.

 

16-9 doesn't do any numerical testing, preferring to eyeball shots at similar perspectives and identical apertures. While his tests are hardest to compare to the others, I find they have strong credibility because of their methodology. However, he notes that his results may be at variance with others if his 24mm happened to be atypical. I argue that is not ostensibly the case -- rather its confusion because of different presentation formats from different sources.

 

Castleman doesn't compare resolution at the same apertures, except for f8. Instead, he focuses on relative aperture, i.e., wide open, one stop down, two stops down. There is some interest in this comparison, but its difficult to draw conclusions about the relative merits of the lenses overall and to compare his results to those of others.

 

The photozone.de numerical tests are consistent with all the other reports. Plus the variety of its tests and their consistent format makes it possible to generate some interesting comparisons and trends that the other sites don't immediately afford. For example, compare photozone.de's results for the 24mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, and 50mm 1.4 -- admittedly the 50mm is not "L" glass.

 

They form a clear pattern: The 24 is sharpest at the center, the 35 next and the 50 last; while the 24 is softest at the edges, the 35 next, and the 50 is best at the edges. This suggest something about the inherent design problems of wide-angle lenses.

 

Of course, there may be sample variation in lenses, but overall I think the main problem is that people aren't necessarily comparing apples to oranges. Its necessary to drill down below appearances and pull out the details into more meaningful formats. I could elaborate, but I think I've suggested enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have used the 24 L in the past. If you need a fast 24mm lens in EOS mount, there are no other options. So that should be the deciding factor, not what other people write about it in the internet...

 

From your post, you say you want the lens, rather than need it for some specific photographic task; to me, this explains why you are here asking about the lens: if you had a specific photographic task, you would have bought it already.

 

Fast lenses are never very sharp wide open, or near wide open. But they do get you the shot.

 

On a side note, it's about time for Canon to update its 24 f/2.8 with better build and ring-USM (like the 28 f/1.8).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take is that people who read lens tests and pixel peep are amateurs, no? I have the 24 3.5 L shift lens which I'm happy with, go over to dpreview.com if you get a boner with pixel peeping..oh boy. I have a ton of non-L FD lenses, and some EF non-L lenses, and I didn't know they were bad until I got on photonet for someone to inform me. Like the other fellow said, his lens "makes him money" .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

from knowing what lengths i like to shoot with, i 'need' both the 28 and something a little wider. so i was leaning toward the 24L. for me, its way easier to scrape up 400 for the 28, so i can kinda get that whenever. with the 24L, when i have that much money at one time, i need to make my move, before i start chipping away at the money. so since i know im gonna have enough to get it soon, im tryin to get more opinions on it. it seems like everyone who tells me its not a good lens never actually had one, but knew someone else who had it. im pretty confident that its probably a really good lens, but ive never really heard any of my friends say so many negative things about a top-of-the-line lens like the 24L. i am going to buy one soon. :-) thanks for the responses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The link that Bruce supplied is one of my favorite review sites, yet the results presented there are substantially better than results found elsewhere (such as the links that Lester provided). Its puzzling."

 

The only problem with the 16-9.net tests is they are tests against 3D subjects, this is problematical (particularly with fast lenses) as differing flatness of field can cause contradictory results.

 

While all these tests are interesting and informative, it is worth keeping in mind that very few real photographs require teriffic sharpness and in practice limits of DOF etc make peak sharpness issues in real life less important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 24L mostly used in low light/night/indoor when flash is not allowed. There is no other choice available (maybe some MF lenses thru adaptors, but I dont' want any adaptors). This is the only 1.4 in the 24mm AF game. If I want edge sharpness, I use other slower lenses like 24-105 and step down to f8-f11. This lens 24L is for low light condition with no flash. my 2 cents.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...