I would appreciate direct opinions about Canon 24 1.4

[freelance]

After having bought several Canon primes as 15 mm fisheye, 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 85

1.8, 100 macro, 400 5.6 and a 28 2.8 that somebody gave to me(I forgot to

mention a Peleng 8 mm) , I confess that I am addict to primes. The 28 is the

one I use more in a 40D and I am thinking to buy a 28 1.8 because is fast, but

it is not wide enough for parties and friends meetings. Sometimes I use the 18-

55 EF-S IS for that, but I cannot avoid comparisons, being the last one an

excellent lens. I also use a Sigma 12-24 for architectural work (I need to be

alone to use this lens, as I have to try several shots before being sure of

the focusing. And I don't want seeing people moving around either). You can

see I buy EF and not EF-S lenses, as I am waiting a better price to buy a 5D.

Then I will have wider possibilities.

 

I have read a few reviews about the 24 1.4 and they generally lead you to

zoom options (slower, as everybody knows). They don't say it but I can

recognize hints about that the relation ''value for money'' is not good for

this lens and for its limited use.

 

I would appreciate direct opinions of this lens' owners.

 

In this moment I have to leave to dine with a friend. But tomorrow morning I

will collect you valuable answers.

[freelance]

Corrections:

 

"your valuable..."

and

 

"owners or users"

[nhut-nguyen]

why not rent it and try it out

[freelance]

In Spain (or in the place where I live, Marbella) we cannot rent a lens like this. I am still here :)

[._._z]

Great lens but for the money...?

 

On your 40D it acts like a 38mm lens, which makes it a fast normal-to-slightly-wide lens. Do you need a fast normal lens? Can you afford it?

 

Sigma's 24/1.8 is said to be pretty good too.

 

http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/325/superspeed-sigma-trio.html

[fotograf]

Here are a few reviews from people who own the lens. It's probably a great lens- faster than any wide angle zoom, and probably far less distortion than the 16-35mm f/2.8L and 17-40mm f/4L but the cost would be just over a thousand dollars. I suppose, if you ended up buying this lens and not liking it- there's always EBAY which you could get close to the price paid new.

 

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-primes/canon/PRD_83401_3111crx.aspx

[tdigi]

Hi, I am considering this lens as well. I have been doing some research on it and its seems its

good but not as good as the 35 1.4.

 

Here is a review

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-

Review.aspx

[Ian Taylor]

I like it. I used it originally on my 20D (more or less as a 35mm), and then on my 5Ds. Bunch of samples:

<p>

On a 20D:

<p>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1167/1411827018_174c2c36a3.jpg?v=0">

<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/76/196722790_ced690c87d.jpg?v=0">

<p>

And a 5D:

<p>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1086/1098697313_42586a63a1.jpg?v=0">

<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/472467294_3e9a7af543.jpg?v=0">

<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/178/469500782_03493bf916.jpg?v=0">

<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/302804917_caf08c384c.jpg?v=0">

[tdigi]

Ian did you use a flash for any of those shots? It looks like a good FL for the 20D

[bueh]

I have one, too. It's an excellent lens with good sharpness even wide open and creamy, medium format-like bokeh. On the other hand it is quite expensive (but not as expensive as the Nikkor 28mm f/1.4), big and heavy. On my 20D, I like the perspective of the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM better, but the EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM is still a great and versatile lens -- I use it for event, portrait and street photography. Due the short focal length and large aperture it is the best lens for handholding, even with moving subjects.

[Ian Taylor]

Tommy - No flash.

<p>

Unless you are in really uneven light you just don't need it with that lens IMO. Here's another on the 20D.

<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/73/205779977_9ba950dbbe.jpg?v=0">

[._._z]

<small><i><blockquote>

 

it is quite expensive (but not as expensive as the Nikkor 28mm f/1.4)

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Comparing it to a discontinued lens hardly seems fair. How does it compare to the Sigma, which costs one-third the price? <p>

 

PopPhoto: <p>

 

<small><b><blockquote>

 

SQF data for the 24mm f/1.8 indicate excellent overall imaging performance. Barrel distotion was slight (0.63%). Exposure at the film plane was judged very accurate, with 3/5-stop underexposure at f/1.8 due to light falloff, 2/5-stop under from f/2 to f/11, 1/3-stop under at f/16, and 1/2-stop under at f/22. At the closest focusing distance of 71/4 inches (1:2.7) center sharpness was excellent from f/1.8 to f/2.8, very good from f/4 to f/5.6, excellent from f/8 to f/16, and very good at f/22. Corner sharpness was poor from f/1.8 to f/2.8, acceptable at f/4, very good at f/5.6, excellent from f/8 to f/16, and very good at f/22. Optimum performance was at f/11.... <p>

 

In the field: Test slides... were uniformly sharp and contrasty from center to corners at all apertures, with the following exceptions: ...from f/1.8 to f/2 (24mm)... were slightly soft. Flare was very well controlled with all the lenses. AF timing was average, and autofocus action was judged slightly noisy.

 

Conclusion: ... superior picture-taking performance.... That this high level has been achieved at such extremely fast apertures is outstanding! We have no reservations in recommending any of them to pros or critical amateurs who need a really fast wide-angle lens.

 

</blockquote> </b> </small><p><div></div>

[bueh]

Yeah, PopPhoto is really a great source of unbiased information. And that SigMa is not f/1.4 -- there are tons of f/2 or f/1.8 wide angles, but neither as fast or wide as the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM, which makes it a very unique lens. So while it is expensive, you pay for a high-end lens with superior features (USM and good built-quality). I have not and will not buy a SigMa lens -- I got my 24L for a really cool price used (with very noticeable usage marks), but its performance is simply amazing.

[._._z]

<small><i><blockquote>

 

Yeah, PopPhoto is really a great source of unbiased information.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

Yeah, snide insinuation beats the pants off tests.

[bueh]

.[., if you have the EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM feel free to share your experiences instead of quoting an irrelevant "test" of a lens that was not asked about. If you also have that SigMa lens, please post your opinion on how they compare and which one you prefer. As far as what I heard it not that usable wide open and shares the infamous SigMa built-quality and autofocus performance.

 

By the way, I mentioned the Nikkor because it too is an excellent, high-end f/1.4 wide angle lens, which is also surprisingly expensive (yes, despite being only available used). So while the Canon lens may not exactly be a "bargain", it is rather affordable for being such a unique lens.

[freelance]

Thank you very much for all of your opinions and excellent photos. This is the type of pictures I am looking for. No flash. The same I get with the 50 1.4 but wider. You have provided to me enough material to study a few days. And this is what I am going to do. I like this lens much more now. I have to see if my needs of it justify the price. The pleasure of having it would do!

[._._z]

More snideness from Bueh with a random grudge and nothing else going on.

[tdigi]

Antonio, please post back to say if you get the lens or not. I would be curious to see how

much you like it. I am also trying to justify spending this much money. I to have the 50 1.4 as

well and I love shooting it wide open. I feel this is what makes owning an SLR camera so

unique. We'll one of the things.

 

Good luck

-tommy

[james_taylor11]

I would give it a thumbs up! I have the 35L also and would agree with above poster that it is slightly sharper wide open. However, the 24L is VERY usable wide open as well. This lens was recommended to me several years ago but I did not get it at the time (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E3jv) Now that I?ve purchased it I wish I had added it to my kit back then - it is a great lens. I use it on a 20D/40D setup. I bet it?s even nicer on the 5D.

 

James

[tdigi]

Ian, in your examples are you shooting wide open? I really love your work, in fact the photos

you posted on photo.net inspired me to go the prime route.

thanks

[freelance]

Thanks to everybody again!. Tommy, I'll let you know if I buy the lens or not. I think it is a combination of the fastest, the sharper and the widest of Canon. 14mm is wider and probably sharper (and twice the expensive). The 15 mm I have is very sharp and the widest, but it is not for everyday. The 20 2.8 is beaten by many zooms according with the reviews. The Sigma 12-24 is to work alone, as I said before. My heart wants to buy the 24 1.4 but my head tells me to wait a little. I don't want to take decisions emotionally, but rationally. Anyway up to now I have not been very rational in photography. Consider I am not a professional.<div></div>

[freelance]

Last night I tried a picture at ISO 3200, 50mm 1.4 and 1/200. But the noise it huge. The lights in the picture are stronger that they really are seen.<div></div>

[freelance]

85 mm 1600 iso F8 1/200 no noise... I think<div></div>

[m_barbu1]

ISO 1600 definitely has noise, though not as noticeable as ISO 3200.

[Ian Taylor]

Thanks Tommy. I think only the kid at the top and the cat were kinda wide open. (The house was stopped down all the way.) But I shoot wide open all the time though.