My new 24-70L and 50

[edward_h]

Well, I've been playing around with my 24-70 and 50 for about a day

now. The 24-70 is the replacement for my ex Sigma 24-60 which front

focused.

 

From the few rounds I've shot (could it be about 100 or so?) I can say

that I like the 24-70 already. It focuses correctly and fast, the

shade is large and protective andthe build quality feels great. What I

wonder, on the other hand, is why it's longest at 24mm... Kinda

negates the advantage of 24mm if the lens is so long I figures...

 

The 50, on the other hand, I have had a hard time with. There's

nothing wrong with it mechanically, it's just that I don't see why

everybody loves it so unconditionally. What's so great about it? Sure

it's small and lightweight and it's f1.8, but is not as sharp at f1.8

as people seem to say it is. It focuses fast enough so there aren't

any complaints there, but the 50mm (80mm on my 10D) is _really_ tight.

Tight enough for it to be a pain to use.

 

Sure, the 50 cost me 85euros + a little more for the UV filter, but

it's not as "wonderfully sharp" as people seem to think it is. Maybe

it's just my copy (I doubt it) but I've seen better.

 

The 24-70L, on the other hand, I'm sure will stay with me until it breaks.<div></div>

[nick roberts]

Try getting the subject in focus - then you'll see.

[edward_h]

That's a 100% crop of the sharpest part of the stalk, and since the camera was in AI servo I'm sure it was in focus.

[mark u]

AI Servo will not guarantee focus on the first shot of a sequence. See

 

http://photonotes.org/other/ai-servo.html

[chris_carroll]

Edward H wrote: "What I wonder, on the other hand, is why it's

longest at 24mm... Kinda negates the advantage of 24mm if the

lens is so long I figures..."

 

Don't understand why you say the physical length of the lens

"negates" the characteristics of the 24mm focal length. It doesn't

affect the angle of view, does it? Lots of medium zooms are

physically longest at the short end of the zoom.

[edward_h]

> Don't understand why you say the physical length of the lens "negates" the characteristics of the 24mm focal length. It doesn't affect the angle of view, does it?

 

Say that the lens of a 10cm long 24mm is 100cm from the subject.

Now say that the lens of a 20cm long 24mm (24-70) and it is now 90cm from the subject. Therefore: you see less.

 

I'm willing to go so far as to say that the 24-70 at 24mm is about the same as a short 28mm...

[casey mcallister]

The 50 f1.4 blows the doors off a 1.8

 

I have both.

 

AI Servo for plants? No!

[PuppyDigs]

"AI Servo for plants? No!"

 

I know someone else that uses AI servo and continuous frame advance for still life, landscapes and flora portraits. Sort of the gun slinger approach I'd guess...

[b.j._porter]

I've had my 24-70L for a couple of weeks now too, I'm having great fun with it.

<br><br><br>

<IMG src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/2529503-lg.jpg">

[barry_books]

I thought the lens being longer at 24mm was rather clever. You get more lens hood at 70mm than at 24mm.

[tom_burke3]

I think the point about the 50 f1.8 is that it's a 'care less' lens. As you say it cost you ?85.

How much was the 24-70? On a day when it's maybe raining, or you might be going out

into wild country - which one would you be more worried about putting on your camera?

 

I agree that it's not the sharpest lens in the world. But I've found that mine is sharp

enough; it's fast; and it's very very cheap. There are times when it's just the right lens.

 

And on a 10D or D60, with the 1.6 factor, used wide open it's a good portrait lens.

[qtluong]

50 is a versatile focal length on a 24mmx36mm format.

[bevan_donovan]

Keep working with the 50mm, once you know its ins & outs you'll find out why so many people like it.

 

In general this lens kicks in from about f2.8 from my experience, and is really hot from f4 onwards.

 

That said, I've taken good shot at f1.8 but it's through trial and error that I found when it works better at this aperture.

As an example, not so long ago I took some head & shoulder portrait shots of my wife at f1.8, and they came really good. My wifes face was sharp and the background blurred just how I wanted it.

 

In general I found that they closer you are to your subject, the smaller the aperture that should be used (I'm talking from f1.8 downwards). That's a crude way of putting it but it works.

 

Stick with this little baby and it'll serve you well

 

My five cents worth

 

Bevan

[jay dougherty]

The 1.8 is a horrible lens, the worst Canon lens I have ever used. It is a piece of you know what. I hate it.

 

The 1.4 is super.

[alexdi]

BJ, was that f/11? Just curious.

 

 

Ed,

 

How sharp is your 24-70 at f/1.8? What about f/1.4?

 

The latter 50 is fantastic for available-light candid photography. If this isn't your gig, then by all means stick with the L.

 

DI

[john_clare1]

I have the 50 1.4 - very sharp (even wide open in my experience) but seems to have significant barrel distortion. Has anyone else noticed this?

[terence_uy]

My copy of the 50 only seems to get sharp at 2.8, try putting it on a tripod and manually focusing so you can see how sharp yours is but that wheat picture doesn't look any worse than mine at 1.8, the lens is handy for low light though and when you want something light.

[michael_peters1]

The wheat looks out of focus to me. If it was shot at f1.8 it wouldn't take much movement of the stock to lose your focus. Depth of field is horrible on close shots - especially wide open.

 

Try shooting something bigger - and try it at f5.6 or so.

 

I love my 50/1.8

I wish I had a 50/1.4 USM - but that's a lot more expensive (about 3 times the price - I got the metal mount 50/1.8)

[jirka_vejrazka]

> I'm willing to go so far as to say that the 24-70 at 24mm is about the same as a short 28mm

 

Correct... but only for very close distances (I guess it'd be usually less than minimal focusing distance of the lens).

 

If you draw it on a piece of paper (view from above would be the best), you'll see that you are right up to certain point not far from the camera. Beyond that point, 24mm is wider.

 

Try to take some landscape photo at 28mm and then make few steps forward (simulate longer lens) and take a picture with 24mm lens. The 24mm photo will be wider at far horizon, but it will lack some areas that you passed while taking the "few steps forward".

[chris_carroll]

Edward H. writes: "Say that the lens of a 10cm long 24mm is

100cm from the subject. Now say that the lens of a 20cm long

24mm (24-70) and it is now 90cm from the subject. Therefore:

you see less."

 

I'm not an expert in optics, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt

in your assertion that moving the front element forward is

equivalent to moving the film (sensor) plane forward. (Maybe

someone more knowledgeable can weigh in.) Still, it's not very

hard to move backward 4 inches. Unless you're shooting inside

a phone booth, of course; )

[madwand]

The gist of the message seems to be this: I have a $1200 lens and a $70 lens, and I can't see why people like the $70 lens.

 

D'oh?

 

That $70 lens blows the doors of lenses costing $200 and some even more. At $1200, the landscape had better change.

 

Dough aside, this round of "the 1.8 is crap / the 1.4 is much better" bandwagon is really a sad disservice to the 1.8. It's "dog bites man", not news that the much more expensive lenses are better in some ways. It would be big news and an embarrasment to Canon if the reverse was true in such cases.

 

The original poster, I'm sorry, comes across as an unmotivated evaluator of this lens. As are all the owners of 1.4's. It takes an effort to be impartial after you've spent much more money on the alternative. More formal comparisons have been done. You can find them for yourself, and see that, as expected, the 1.4 is considered better, but not much so.

 

All these indications should be enough to make the interested observer, who really should consider the 1.8 (not a person who's spent $1200 or so on another lens that covers this focal length with very little effective difference in max aperture) see that this lens is has a great performance / price ratio, and also a very good absolute performance.