Canon EF 24/1.4L USM vs. Sigma 24/1.8 EX ; which one?

[simon_kull]

hi,

 

ok, let me get straight to the point: besides that the sigma costs

1/5 of the canon and has a min. aperture of 1.8, can somebody

convince me to buy the one or the other? i read already some reviews

but i couldn't make up my mind. any practical information? overall

performance experiences? did somebody use it for eg. desert shots?

(BTW i will need the lens for shots in the desert)

 

thanx in advance

[ky2]

Get the Canon 24/2.8 instead.

[mark_chappell]

I agree with Yaron: get an f2.8 lens instead. Especially if you are working in the desert,

which -- during the day at least -- is not known for lacking light. But maybe you want to

do nighttime exposures?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Ditto. Do you really need the speed of f/1.8 or f/1.4, or will f/2.8 do the job? Wide-angle lenses are often (though certainly not always) used stopped down, and if you're going to stop all of these lenses down to f/8 or something like that, you probably aren't going to see much of a difference between them.</p>

[tracktikz]

i agree with the three above. i have a 19-35/3.5-4.5 and it's all good~

[andrew robertson]

How much money you got?

 

The Canon is about 5x the price.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>I agree with Yaron: get an f2.8 lens instead. </i> </p>

<p> Me too. I have the 24/2.8 and am very happy with it. F/1.4 is <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AWef">very tempting</a> but so is the 1Ds Mk II....... :-)</p>

<p> To the point, I seriously doubt if anyone made a formal and complete test. User reviews are - unfortunately - your only hope. Unless of course you live near a big store which has them both. </p>

<p> HTH.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[gareth_harper]

I've got both the 24mmf2.8 and the 24mmf1.4L

The reason I have both is that I bought the f2.8 first. I can't say I got on with this lens, it's distorts quite a bit but worse than that it is very soft. I even took it to Canon for repair but they told me it was in perfect working condition.

So a few months ago I was in New York and bagged a 24mmf1.4L (I live in Scotland, they are way too expensive here). Distortion wise it's quite amazing, but on the sharpness side, while it is a good bit better than the f2.8 it's still not that great.

If you can get a secondhand Sigma f1.8 maybe give that a whirl, but if you are fussy about sharpness and distortion give the EF24mmf2.8 a miss. Put it this way I suspect the 17-40f4L will outperfrom the EF24mmf2.8.

[alan_krantz]

I've heard the 24f2.8 has chromatic aberation which shows up quite a bit when used with digital bodies (you didn't mention if you were using film or digital). I wonder if the 24f1.4L is better in this area ?

[lei_zong]

My Canon 24/2.8 does show some CA in high contrast situation, both at center and edge (with DR). But generally it is very good - sharp and resistant to flare. I do not have any sample by my hand, but can send you some later if you like.

 

I also agree with Steve that big apertures are not so often used with wide angle lenses.

 

Happy shooting,

 

Lei

[navarra]

Well, I recently bought the 24 1.4L for low light indoor photography with my 300D, and have almost always used it quite open. At f1.4 it's soft but gets better a f2.0 and then it gets quite sharp. As all L lenses, it's big and heavy. Smaller than my 16-35L but heavier. That's to say that if you need the speed there is no substitute for this lens (the 28 1.8 might be nice, but some say it's not that good), but if you don't need the speed just get a slower prime wich will cost 1/5 and will be much lighter and smaller.

 

Simone