Discuss the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens Review - tell us what you think about the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM Lens.
Excellent review, Bryan, as usual. The mouseover comparison shots are really great for showing the difference.
My experience with the 24mm f/1.4 II on a 5D2 for the last month echos everything in your review. This lens is on my camera a lot. love getting wide angle shots with thin DOF, and the Bokeh is really beautiful. Environmental portraits in ultra low light are fun, too.
My idea of a "walkaround" lens is the 24mm f/1.4 II. Except I usually fill my pockets with a 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200 f/4 L IS (big pockets). :)
would you people please stop making me want stuff? Really, this is a sickness :)
The mouseover differences with real world material for sharpness were very useful. What I found interesting, that'd never have thought to do, was the flare comparisons. The lack of flare on that lens is really impressive. What was interesting, too, were the differences in the flare patterns between lenses.
Anyway, good job, as usual!
I'm delighted to hear it wasn't the lens. I have had my eye on this for a long, long time and the mkII version makes it only more appealing. Question is, do I sell the 35L?
Dan Pinder: I'm delighted to hear it wasn't the lens. I have had my eye on this for a long, long time and the mkII version makes it only more appealing. Question is, do I sell the 35L?
Hey, Dan. I have never had the pleasure of the 35L, but did have the 35/2. Given the field of view and optical quality I have seen, my two cents worth would be not to sell the 35. However, if you were to feel like selling it to me for $200, maybe you should . . . . Just kidding.
:-)
Great review Bryan, but I have one question: everyone keeps saying that the 24L II now has 8 rounded aperture blades; this is true, but I have a late 24L I (date code UW06) and it has 8 blades. Does that mean the later 24Ls are different from the originals or did they all actually have 8 blades?
One more question: on a 1.6x body, do you find the performance improvement at f/1.4-2.8 worth the upgrade or is this mostly with FF? I`m slightly tempted to upgrade, but I just got my mkI 3 weeks before the mkII was announced, so it`s pretty new.
Thanks again,
-Scott
Scott - We all value our money differently, but ... I think the 24 L II is going to show you the same benefits on a 1.6x body - making the upgrade worthwhile. The real-world mouseover samples are taken within 1.6x framing.
The blade count in the original 24 L is a good question. I was taking the spec from Canon as being correct, but I didn't test for that.
I was actually excited to hear that my 24I might be just as good if not better than the II even though it didn't seem right.
Now to see the real results is real bummer because now I want the 24II. I hope the price comes down a little in the coming months.
Bryan, I am also interested to know the performance @ 24mm of 16-35 vs the 24L II. The results might be more representative for the zoom-prime comparison than using 24-70 and 24-105. What do you think?
I was all ready to buy this, deposited money in the bank to cover it, and while waiting the day for the funds to clear, it's backordered again. Sigh, soon enough, just have to check daily I think.
Bryan, thanks for adding the sample photos. They are a really great showcase of what this lens is capable of. I particularly like the ones with thin DOF: