Canon EF 24mm lens
|
||||||
| Nice Prime/ Fixed focus Lens 13/07/2010 Good area coverage. I brought the 50mm 1.8f and whilst doing a wedding reception I decided I sometimes needed a bit more play. This gives a good area in which you can get a group photo of people and also great detail on closer ups. If something/ someone is in the foreground the background can be set to have a slightly blurred look. The lower F rating should mean as the Wedding disco starts and there is lower levels of light then this should handle some of this to a point. By Mr. W. P. Maxwell Peterborough | ||||||
| Mr Watson, come here, I need to see you 16/06/2010 I was on the lookout for a good-quality autofocus wide angle lens for my Canon 5D MkII, and this seemed to be the best option. Canon's telephoto lenses are generally superb and they make some good zooms, but the company has traditionally had trouble with the wider focal lengths. I can't justify the expense of a 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24mm f/1.4, and the 17-40mm and 16-35mm seem either underwhelming or too specialised for what they are. The 28-135mm didn't appeal to me, ditto the 20-35mm f/3.4-4.5, the 24-85mm didn't impress me when I owned a copy. The non-L wide primes include the 20mm f/2.8, which no-one seems to like; the 35mm f/2, which lots of people like but doesn't seem great in the full-frame corners; the 28mm f/2.8, which I have tried and hated, and the 28mm f/1.8, which doesn't appeal to me at all. The 24mm f/2.8 seemed to be the dark horse, based on the tests I have seen, and so I found one cheap and snapped it up. It is surprisingly good. Not excellent, but sufficient. I already have a very good 24mm, an old Olympus 24mm f/2.8 that I use with an adapter, and although Canon's lens isn't quite as sharp it's more practical to use, on account of it having autofocus and an automatic aperture. I don't have to keep checking live view when I focus closer than infinity. I like the 24mm focal length, and with a 5D MkII I can always crop down to something approximating 35mm without too much loss of resolution. Physically it's a solid unit that doesn't rotate or extend. It doesn't feel weak and I have subsequently thrust it into bags and taken it out and about without breaking it. The autofocus is buzzy but the focus travel is very short, so it's not a problem. The manual focus ring is dire and I have only used it when shooting video. Canon gives you front and rear caps but no hood, the meanies. Optically it's close to very good. At f/8, f/11 it's sharp across the frame almost but not quite into the extreme corners, far better than the 28mm f/2.8 that I briefly owned. There is CA, but DPP will correct this. There is some barrel distortion, but it's not very noticeable and not offensive, and this is one thing the lens has over the 24-105mm f/4 (the other being that it's much smaller and lighter - in the end I went on holiday with this lens and a 50mm, and the combination was smaller and faster than the 24-105mm). Vignetting exists and is inescapable on a 5D MkII, this is the major optical weakness. At f/2.8 it remains sharp in the centre. The background blur is busy and it's not really a bokeh-licious lens. You, sir, are no 24mm f/1.4. Drawbacks? The very extreme outer corners are always mushy but, having said that, outside the world of Carl Zeiss every wide angle lens seems to have this problem. On an APS-C camera it would be sharp but redundant, because your kit lens is probably just as sharp and also wider and it has image stabilisation. The other problem is the price, which is too high. If Canon reworked the lens, added USM, sharpened it up a bit more, they could justify this price, but I suspect they will simply discontinue it in favour of the 24mm f/1.4. Which is a shame, because it is otherwise a bit of a hidden gem. By Mr. A. Pomeroy Wiltshire, England | ||||||
| Very happy with the lens 05/06/2010 So far I have gotten great results with this lens on my 20D. I have a 50mm 1.8, a Nikon manual 100mm 2.8 with an EOS adapter, and the older (non-IS) 18-55mm kit lens. The 24mm was the perfect complement to my setup, rounding out my prime lenses, and making up for the kit lens. I've gone back and forth about whether or not the 28mm would have been a better value (20-30% cheaper), but I think the wider angle, especially on a cropped sensor, was worth it. I just took ~200 pictures with it of my newborn nephew in the hospital with low indoor lighting (too low for the kit lens), and I was very happy with the speed and field of view of the lens. This lens is great for head shots with a ring light. Close enough to only have someones face in the frame (~1.5-2.5 ft), there is some distortion of features, but I find it not unpleasant, and sometimes I prefer it. Compared to the 50mm 1.8 Mk II, the build quality is great, with a metal mount, a much more solid feel, and a much better manual focus. The manual focus is not as smooth as my Nikon manual lens, or an L-series lens, but I am pleased with it. I can't remember what the minimum focus distance is, but it is much shorter than the 50mm, but not quite as short as the kit lens. It is just right for close-ups of a flower with a landscape in the background. I just recently "discovered" Canon's Digital Photo Professional software for RAW conversion, but sadly it does not have this lens included in the list of lenses that it can adjust distortion and CA for. I have not found that I need those adjustments, but I would have liked to see what they could have done. Overall, I would recommend the lens, but if you have a tight budget, the 28mm, although I have not used it, might not be a bad compromise. By William Hobbs Atlanta, GA USA | ||||||
| Great lens for the price 24/04/2010 I used this lens for indoor photography to capture head to toe details. Nice lens! never disappointed for the price I paid. By S S CO, USA | ||||||
| Great lens...but be wary of the current price. 11/01/2010 I did quite a bit of research on this lens before buying it. I must have read fifty reviews. In the end I came to the conclusion that hypercritical people who have enough money to fill their bag with L lenses can find something bad to say about any lens that doesn't have a red ring around it. This lens seems to have a great balance of features with minimal discrepancies for a great price. I own an L lens (70-200 IS F/2.8) and it's amazing, but I don't have the money to pony up for another one this time around. I think this lens fits my needs just fine for now. My only complaint? I usually buy my lenses from this site, but I found it at three other major spots for a hundred and a quarter less. I know it's been cheaper here before so why so expensive now? I wish I didn't have to take my business elsewhere, but that's a big difference and why pay more than you should? UPDATE: Jan 14, 2009: Well would you look at that! The price comes down a full hundred overnight! Finally the price on this thing is in the neighborhood of other major retailers again. It's hard to believe the price could flux this much this fast. Do some comparison shopping and make sure you're okay with what you are going to pay in case the price suddenly drops after you buy it. By Charles Tucson, AZ USA | ||||||
