Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 vs. EF 24mm f/1.4 L

[pierre_bize]

Hi everyone. I'm looking for a fast wide prime to mount on my EOS 10D.

I already have the 24mm f/2.8 and many poeple are telling me to keep

it, arguing that 2.8 is fast enough for a 24mm. What do you think

about that? Who has been using the 24mm f/1.4 on a digital body and

what is it really worth? Has anyone done side by side comparison of

these 2 lenes.

Thanx, Pierre.

[pavel_toman]

Are you not happy with your f/2.8?

filter size of a f/1.4 is 77mm compared to 58mm of a f/2.8. - not very convenient. Bigger glass is not always better glass. Needs more corrections. I don't have any experience with this particular lens, so I can't tell how good it is at wide open. And I doubt you would use it at wide open very often.

price is about four times higher too.

I think that you would be better off with a tilt/shift lens. it's f/3.5 but you gain a lot by perspective control.

[tom_burke3]

I bought the Sigma f1.8 24mm for exactly the same reason. I have the 17-40 f4, and

decided I wanted a faster prime, for low-light situations. I'm using a D60.

 

I practice I haven't used it, other than on occasions when I've done so deliberately for the

sake of doing so. With the D60 I've found it's easier to simply increase the 'ISO' rating for

an individual shot, so I could safely use the 17-40. I haven't yet been in a situation where

I was already using 400 or 800 ISO anyway, and thus wouldn't have any more to dial in.

 

In addition the Sigma lens is quite big, so it's not as if it's a small, inconspicuous lens to

pop on and forget. All in all, I'm beginning to think it was a mistaken purchase.

 

So if you've already got the 24mm f2.8, carry on using it & enjoying it, but in practice you

may not get much value from the 24mm f1.4. Especially given the fact that it's quite a lot

more expensive.

[digitmstr]

Actually, the 24mm f/1.4L is one of the BEST wide lenses anywhere in terms of sharpness, color and aberrations. I have rented one for a shoot now published in a science magazine and the pictures (slides) looked considerably better than those took with my old 24 f/2.8 (which I have sold since...).

<br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Primes/Canon,EF,24mm,f-1.4L,USM/PRD_83401_3111crx.aspx"></a>

 

<br>

 

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=20&sort=7&thecat=2"></a>

[john_nastelin1]

For a performance comparison with other "L" glass, see:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml

 

Although this article doesn't compare it with the 24/2.8, it doesn't especially commend the 24/1.4 for performance. So I find it unlikely that there is a huge difference in image quality between the two lenses. It just comes down to whether the number of low-light wide-angle shots you need to take justifies the additional $800.

 

One of the nicest things about the 10D is that it gives you a very usable ISO 800 speed. At IS0 800 and f1.4, there isn't much you can't photograph!

[jim_larson1]

Generally, I have found 2.8 adequate for DOF control. I agree that simply adjusting ISO upto 400 covers most situations. Beyond that, I would go to a monopod or tripod before going to ISO 800.

[wgpinc]

I would personally have trouble justifying the additional cost, specially if I already had the 2.8. Good article using the 24 1.4 in National Geographic.

 

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0405/feature7/zoom1.html

[jbq]

John - Reichmann's conclusion is to be taken with a grain of salt (or even 2 if shooting on a 10D):

 

-he compared the 24/1.4 at f/1.4 with other lenses at f/2.8 or f/3.5, and unsurprisingly at f/1.4 the 24/1.4 isn't the sharpest lens of the bunch. I'd rather see a comparison with all the lenses at f/2.8.

 

-he concluded that the 24/1.4 had sharpness issues wide open in the corners. On a 10D you don't use the corners. On the other hand Reichmann noticed that it is surprisingly sharp in the center, even when wide open.

 

I actually shot in low light during this week-end (hadn't planned for it, so I didn't have a tripod), at the limit of what my gear could do (hand-held moving subject 1/90s f/1.4 ISO 3200 with a 10D and 50/1.4), and I sure wish that I had had a wide lens. A 24/1.4 would have been perfect im this case, where a 24/2.8 would have been too slow.

[pierre_bize]

I have read Michael Reichmann's review too but it does not respond to my questions... I know that the 24mm f/2.8 is really good, light and compact but I was wondering if 2.8 is enough for the kind of pictures I would like to take: I d'like to take indoor pictures of people at work or during parties, without flash. This link to the NG article is a very good example of what the 24mm 1.4 can do and I'd be happy to share some more with people who have used it and can compare to the 2.8.

[jim_larson1]

Ya know. . . larger aperture is <b>NOT</B> a substitute for inadequate light. Increasing aperture has the affect of reducing depth of field. I have <b>ruined</b> shots by shooting wide open and having a depth of field that is too tight.

<p>

So.. . here is the question:

<p>A 24mm at 5' on a 10D; F2.8 has a DOF of 16.7 inches while F1.4 yields 8.2 inches.<p>At 3 feet, the DOF is 5.9 and 2.9 inches for F2.8 and F1.4 respectively.

<p>

<i>How shallow of a depth of field do you need?</i>

<p>

If your problem is inadequate light, you need to either a) bump up the ISO or b) use a mono/tri-pod

[john_nastelin1]

If you want no-flash indoor photography with a 10D, the 24mm f/1.4 is the ticket, no question. It's especially useful in situations where you can't bouce a flash and don't want the harsh shadows of a direct flash. DOF is a concern though - especially if you're trying to capture more than one subject in the frame that you want in focus.

 

Also, I've had good success using noise reduction software with a higher ISO. I use NeatImage because it has a PS plug-in. That improves your tradeoff between DOF and noise level.