Canon 24mm 1.4 on 7D

[paulferesten]

<p>I'm thinking about getting the 24mm L lens for my 7D.<br>

Does anyone have experience with that combination? Any idea how it would compare to a 35L on a 5D(or 5DII)? Only interested in ISO 800 or lower.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I have not used the 24 but I hear its a great lens on a 7D that is even better then the 35L in some ways ( weather sealed etc ) </p>

[hakhtar]

You would have very good results even with ISO1600 - it is wonderful glass!

[William Michael]

<p>I have experience with the EF24/1.4L on APS-C cameras but not a 7D, specifically - other than the differences between cameras, I would expect the 24L would would "the same" on most cameras in Canon's APS-C range.</p>

<p>I used the 24L very much on my APS-C cameras, perhaps the most used prime, as it is a very suitable FoV, for me, generally walking around and especially inside for low light work – but I guess as you make a limit on ISO you are not likely doing much low light work?</p>

<p>Comparing the 24 on APS-C to using an EF35/1.4L on a 135 Format Camera, really needs some criteria applicable to YOUR uses: I generally prefer (and use) my 35 on 135 Format because:</p>

<ul>

<li>It is generally better when shooting into the light</li>

<li>The lens hood is more useful, generally</li>

<li>I can get smaller DoF for Portraiture for the same light / exposure combinations</li>

<li>Seems there is less CA, to my eye</li>

<li>I prefer the 8 (an even number) Diaphragm Blades</li>

<li>I have a greater range of 72mm filters, than 77mm filters</li>

</ul>

<p>So if you are asking what I use more often, it would be my 35 on my 5D rather than my 24 on my APS-C cameras. Even with a MkII I think my list of reasons would be the same - except for the Blades - but I would recommend you look at spending a bit more and buying the MkII version as I beleive the CA is better managed.</p>

<p>I think if you explain more the intended uses, other than the ISO stipulation, I could give more tailored answers.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>William, just for your information, the EF 24/1.4 L II has an eight-bladed aperture.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Mark, thank you I appreciate the info, but I knew that.</p>

<p>That is why I wrote: <em>"Even with a MkII I think my list of reasons would be the same - <strong>except for the Blades </strong>- but I would recommend you look at spending a bit more and buying the MkII version as I believe the CA is better managed." . . . </em><br>

(Perhaps I was not clear enough with my message - it is good that you have made it clearer.)</p>

<p>*** </p>

<p><br />I understand the EF24F/1.4L USM has only Seven Blades: even though I don't like that aspect - I cannot see myself getting the EF24L1.4LMkII USM to replace it, just at the moment</p>

<p>The OP asked <em>"I'm thinking about getting the 24mm L lens for my 7D."</em><br>

But the question did not specify the MkII version.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Paul I have a 24 f1.4L and the 7D. I think it's a terrific combination. I can't compare it to the 35mm f1.4L on the 5D as I don't have the 5D. I don't count diaphragm blades (what's up with THAT?) I shoot pictures and it's a great combination. Go for it. Good luck.</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<blockquote>

<p>John, the eighth blade is there to improve the bokeh over the seven-bladed Mk 1. It’s the only thing I’m not super enthusiastic about with my 24L II, as I have been spoiled with the 50L. Apparently WA lenses have a less pleasing bokeh than their not as wide counterparts.</p>

</blockquote>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I don't have the 24L but I do have the 5D mark II with the 35L 1.4 and it is one awesome combo. I can shoot at night with that lens. I also have the 7D and the 35L works great on it too. Go for it and don't look back. If you don't like after 6 months, it will sell quickly. v/r Buffdr</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't count diaphragm blades (what's up with THAT?) I shoot pictures and it's a great combination.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John,</p>

<p><br />There is nothing “UP” with NOT knowing or NOT counting the number of aperture blades.<br /><br />If the information is not relevant to the photographer or his product, then it would be a waste of time to count them or to be aware of these technicalities of his equipment, if the technicalities did not have an effect on his product.</p>

<p>I “shoot pictures”, also. Quite a few each year, many still as a source of income and I agree that the 24L (either version) makes a great Prime on and APS-C body – it is a typical “photojournalists dream lens”, for that format, IMO – but I think I have already given that impression with my previous comments.</p>

<p>However the Aperture Blades and the number of them and their design is something I seriously consider when buying a fast prime lens, in the wide to normal range.</p>

<p>Quite a lot of my pictures are captured at night, outside in lit cities, or inside under house lights. Many of these images are at close range and with a reasonably shallow DoF.</p>

<p>At times, a significant difference in the OoF background was noticed when I compared the 24L and the 24LMkII in the range of Av ≈ F/3.2 to F/5.6 when shooting in these conditions. I conclude that the main reason is the extra blade added to the MkII version: even though Canon Data indicates that both lenses have a circular aperture. But, having stated that, I am not all that hung up on BOKEH.</p>

<p>More importantly, for my purposes, an even number of blades creates fewer star burst rays, from the lights in the background, when I am shooting into the light.</p>

<p>This technicality might not be significant to many Photographers – but as the OP asked for comments from those experienced with the 24+APS-C and the 35 + 5D – <strong>and as I have and use both</strong> – <em>therefore noting and COMPARING the 7 blades on the 24L (and implicit the 8 blades on the 35L)</em> was, albeit a bit of the beaten track, still useful information for the OP as he specifically asked for that comparison, from people who use that specific gear.</p>

<p>If Paul questioned me why I brought this fact up - I could supply more info – BUT as you seem to have questioned it – I have answered you (and him) here.</p>

<p>The facts about CA (between the two versions of the 24L) are IMO more important and applicable to almost all shooting scenarios: in this regard I urge the OP to consider the MkII version.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[zigzag]

<p>I am not the OP but I just bought the 24mm f/1.4 MkII for use on the 5DMkII. I must say I find the info on blades useful - it's good to have experienced feedback that broadens the knowledge on what can be expected. My lens is arriving in a few days and I expect to use it a lot at night. Thanks.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>WW--thanks for the explanation. 'Most appreciated. Good shooting out there.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>My reading of the reviews is that the 24mm does not have as good bokeh as the 35mm. I also don't believe it is as sharp into the corners as the 35mm at wider apertures, although at f4 it is excellent. I have the 35mm on FF, but not the 24mm. I love the 35mm.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>You are both welcome.</p>

<p>Further:<br />. . . for example as seen here, using the 50/1.4 (and why I don't particularly like the 50/1.8 even though that lens has many benefits): <a href="../photo/9199193&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9199193&size=lg</a> (my commentary explains the point further)</p>

<p>But I also found this wonderful shot by K.S. :<a href="../photo/5445089">http://www.photo.net/photo/5445089</a> and if you look up that Mamyia lens, I will bet you a Mars Bar, that it has 5 Blades - which makes that 10 star ray - TEN is VERY nice.<br />But 14 is getting very squishy, IMO.<br />This is what 14 squashes up like - it almost looks like eight but, trust me it is 14 and the 14 are in a real mess: <a href="../photo/9193658&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/9193658&size=lg</a> . . . that particular type of street lamp has a covering which is a diffuser and makes the "single source" quite messy, in the first place.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Enjoy your new 24, Glen.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>“Apparently WA lenses have a less pleasing bokeh than their not as wide counterparts”</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Even though, as I mentioned, I am not all that hung up on BOKEH, I am inclined to agree with you Chris.<br>

I think that <em>there is a technical (optical/design) reason for it</em> – but my mind is a bit fuzzy on the explanation and details – because, although I recall I read about it all once – but I didn’t really have that much interest in that area of the theory – so it all went sailing past to the keeper.<br>

<br>

WW </p>