Canon 24 mm for 7D

[alexacatalin]

<p>Has anybody used a 24 mm with a 7D?<br>

I would like to buy my first prime lens, but I'll keep my non full frame cameras. <br>

Thanks for your tips! </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The 24mm focal length is a modest wide angle lens on the APS-C sensor. I think there's no doubt it is a fine lens, but whether such an expensive lens is a good <em>first</em> choice for a prime is another matter.<br>

Way back in rangefinder days, many cameras used something like this equivalent focal length ("full-frame" 35-40mm) for the standard lens, but more often 35mm cameras came to standardize on focal lengths that translate into the 28-35mm focal lengths on the small sensor cameras.<br>

There are two relatively inexpensive, but high-image-quality lenses that you might want to consider: the EF 28mm f/2.8 (or a more expensive faster version) and the 35mm f/2. Either of these will be a so-called "normal" lens for you.</p>

<p>The cheapest prime of all, of course, is the cheap looking EF 50mm f/1.8. It is a short telephoto for you, and many people really like that range for portrait and street work.<br>

As with the earlier lenses I mentioned, there are faster aperture and more expensive alternatives, but a 2X to 3X increase in price will not necessarily produce a corresponding 2X to 3X improvement in optical quality.</p>

[alexacatalin]

<p>Thanks for your answer. I could really use a "better" lens. As a wedding photographer, I want to use most of the time only the available light. It was the case last Saturday, when my Canon 50 mm 1.4 failed a couple of times and I missed the shots. This is why I thought about buying the 24 with 1.4 or the 35 with 1.4. I'm really looking for a very fast lens that will focus without problem is the most difficult situations. <br>

I'll keep read and look for the best solutions. Thanks again!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Both the 24 f1.4 and the 35 f1.4 focus considerably faster than the 50 f1.4, but they are much more expensive and considerably better made. Both are superlative lenses, though the 35 has a higher reputation it is a comparatively old design lens, the 24 is on its MkII iteration.</p>

<p>There is quite a difference in field of view and if you are trying to make a choice between the two I would urge you to look through your EXIF data from your zoom lenses to see which focal length you tend to take your favourite images. That is the best way of choosing between the two.</p>

[alexacatalin]

Thx, Scott!

 

I know for sure that I must go for the wider one. I was just wondering if the 24 mm is ok for a non full

frame camera.

[scott_ferris]

<p>Catalin,</p>

<p>I don't have any experience of using the 24 on a crop camera, but I know one user here on PhotoNet, <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2223148">William W</a> that uses one on his dual format kit. Knowing him he'll be along in a day or two :-) If not I'll email him, I seriously respect his views and input.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Catalin, I have used my 24/1.4 L II a bit on my 50D (but more on my 5DII), and have found it to be an outstanding performer. It may not be quite as good as the TS-E 24/3.5 L II, but since I like to use pretty wide apertures most of the time, I wouldn't find the latter to be as useful as I do the former, anyway.</p>

[alexacatalin]

Thanks, Scott! :)

 

Mark, that's all I needed to know. Thanks!

[tdigi]

<p>I use the 24LII a lot on a 60D and its a great combo, very sharp even wide open with great color ( trying to get comfortable using it on a 5D2 but its so wide ) I hear the Sigma 30 1.4 is a great affordable alternative.</p>

<p>Here is a sample - 60D + 24L II wide open<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49877689@N04/6071624713/in/photostream/lightbox/</p>

<p> </p>

[tdigi]

<p>+ 1 on William, he is the one that helped talk me into the 24L :-}</p>

[alexacatalin]

<p>Very convincing, Tommy! Thanks! </p>

[tdigi]

<p>Not really trying to convince, but real world samples ( at least for me ) go a long way so just trying to give my opinion and provide some insight. Its a great lens but it should be for such a price so I would give some thought to your use and how much you like to shoot at 24 etc. There are more affordable options if your only using APS-C but I cannot think of anything I don't like about it on either format. </p>

[massimo_foti]

<blockquote>

<p>There are more affordable options if your only using APS-C but I cannot think of anything I don't like about it on either format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only f/1.4 alternative I know around the same FL is Sigma 30mm. Then we have 35L, but it's not as wide. Other Sigma's primes are f/1.8 and their reputation isn't great. Is there anything more with AF? I am asking because I am considering a 24L for my 7D and, before spending that amount of money, I am trying to consider all the options.</p>

[alexacatalin]

<p>I have the same dilema, Massimo. I could try Sigma 30mm. It's like almost 500 euro. I can buy a 24mm from Canon, second hand, with something like 1000 euro. The question is: is Sigma 1.4 fast enough and will focus without problem in very difficult conditions? I just missed some photos using my 50 mm 1.4 and I don't want to repeat the ugly experience from the latest wedding. </p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Right now Canon 24L is at the top of my list for a few reasons:</p>

<ol>

<li>I really want something wide</li>

<li>I see a FF in my future. If 5DIII, or whatever is going to be called, will have a decent AF I will buy it (then I will consider a 35mm too)</li>

<li>I am concerned about having inconsistent AF with Sigma</li>

</ol>

<p>As I said, I am still considering all the options. In the meantime I keep saving the money :-)</p>

[alexacatalin]

<p>We are on the same road. :)<br>

Good luck! </p>

[tdigi]

<p>Ok I should have said more affordable similar options. Still I too am not a big fan of Sigma so if a wide prime is what you want I highly recommend the 24L II. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>These are the points I can add to what has already been mentioned.<br />I use my 24L about equally on APS-C and also my “FF” cameras.</p>

<p>Perhaps the main elements I read in your question is that you already have a 50mm lens and you are considering (decided) on buying a 5DMkII (or similar) and you will keep your 7D . . . that means a dual format kit: and you mention Weddings.<br />My Dual Format DSLR Kit was designed mainly for Wedding & Portrait work. I initially bought two DSLSR’s (dual format) and I bought the 24L before I bought the 35L, because I also had the 50/1.4. This is the first point of logic – a 24 and a 50 is a better “pair” than a 35 and a 50.<br />The second point of logic is the 24 is wider than the 35 – obvious I know – but consider how you will be using it (you mentioned inside, sans flash), the point is inside there are those horrible things like WALLS and FURNITURE and . . . People . . . which keep getting behind you as you take that little lean backwards, so there is leverage for Events Work to have a bit wider and to shoot looser and crop tighter – also there is the advantage of having various crop/print sizes, if you sell prints or albums, if you can shoot a bit wider.</p>

<p>The next element is the “standard fast prime”: used on an APS-C camera the 24 relates to about a 38 on a film SLR – which is around the “journalistic standard fast prime” – and it is wide enough for Hip Shooting and Hail Mary shooting. My 24 is my main “working prime” on APS-C for Available Light work and my most used Prime, indoors.</p>

<p>Another consideration is close focussing and usefulness application of same – you can shoot the Rings . . . etc, with it – if you are in a pinch. To that end, a 12mm tube will be a wonderful investment for you especially considering that you have a 50/1.4 already.<br />On a 7D the lens hood will vignette the PuF (Pop up Flash) so if you need to use the PuF in an emergency, remember to ditch the lens hood.</p>

<p>I have the original 24L and I have used the MkII version: I would buy the MkII if I were buying now, but it is a “professional” decision for me not to “upgrade” as my 24L works just fine, day in day out.<br />The 24LMkII has considerably less CA – that’s the main thing I noticed, but the CA doesn’t worry me all that much. Both versions are absolutely wonderful in regard to Flare (resistance) considering they are 24mm wide and have a chunk of glass to provide F/1.4 – so if you are “sans flash” motivated I am sure you will be happy.<br />There’s considerable optical vignette (on FF) at F/1.4 and that is still present at F/2.2 – but such just enhances those moody low light shots – and saves on post processing time.</p>

<p>Beware though, even though when using the 24 on a 7D you are using the centre of the Image Circle, there is still the possibility to skew the verticals and the horizontals – so keep a tight eye through the viewfinder – and I shoot a little loose for this reason also: it is easy to be concentrating on the anticipation and thus sometimes forget the accurate alignment.<br /><br />For me it was a no-brainer to buy the 24 before the 35, but as mentioned you should look at what FL you tend to use as we are each different. The type (style and method) of shooting is important and I have always tended to use Primes a lot more than zooms anyway, so the 24 was even more important in my kit than my wide zoom, though I bought both at the same time.<br />But what you might find: is that if you do buy a 24LMkII, you will tend to use it more anyway and thus your methodology might change because of the purchase – and you will want that 5DMkII more quickly – it often happens that way for some using fast wide primes once bought - andthen havuing them available to be used on jobs and just played with, for a little time.<br>

<br />The WA and UWA zooms are nice but two or three more stops is “just magic” if you are “in to” Available Light, even with cameras making ISO6400 comfortably: F/1.4 is a very yummy number. <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=958772">Here</a>: and <a href="../photo/9199113">Here:</a> <br />There are other examples of the 24mm in my portfolio - I aslso use the 24 as my <a href="../photo/9568026&size=md">WA 6x6 Lens for my 5D</a><br>

Good luck with your choice.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Thanks for the note Dr Scott, best to you.</p>

[davidfarquhar]

<p>Regarding the Sigma 30mm and its autofocus, I find in tricky / low light conditions it can be quite hard work. I ran some tests on it and it was noticeably worse than my 17-55 2.8 in moderate / low indoor light. It missed focus far more often than the Canon zoom. It is a nice lens to have if you are prepared to accept this, but I would think if you are using it for paid gigs you might want a higher success rate from autofocus, especially at f1.4 where there is very little margin for error.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>I am concerned about having inconsistent AF with Sigma</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was bitten by this issue with the Sigma 50/1.4 and eventually sold it just because of that (calibration didn't work). Shame because it has great BQ and IQ (especially bokeh).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was just wondering if the 24 mm is ok for a non full frame camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It can, but it can not. FL choices are <strong><em>extremely</em></strong> personal choices. If you have a zoom in this range you can find out easily. Remember that a zoom is just a bag of primes?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[alexacatalin]

<p>Guys, William ... what can I say! Thanks a lot for your time and precious advices. :)<br>

I hope I'll enjoy the new lens soon! <br>

Take care! </p>

[William Michael]

<p>"Remember that a zoom is just a (slower) bag of primes?"<br>

Very happy shooting to you too . . .<br>

Enjoy your new lens, Catalin.<br>

WW</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Well, it's not always slower. My 100/2.8 IS and 85/2.8 PC are not faster than my 70-200/2.8 IS and my 24/3.5 II is actually slower than my 17-55/2.8 IS. Of course, they can do other things... :-)</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[William Michael]

<p> . . .(I had thought of the pair of 100/2.8 macros when I wrote) but you got me with the TS-E . . . I didn't think of those lenses . . .</p>