![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Italy: Milan
Posts: 57
|
Anyone using the prime 24mm L series on a body like 20D, 350D or 300D?
I think it's going to be my next purchase; any comments or demo pics? Thanks in advance for any comment. Ciao!
__________________
Max •EOS 5D •16-35/2.8IIL •24-105/4L •85/1.8 •70-200/4L •Tripod Manfrotto 190PROB + head 141RC |
|
|
|
| sponsored links |
|
|
#2 |
|
El General Moderator
|
I don't have any demo pics, but hopefully in future will because that lens is very high on my wanted list.
__________________
This signature signifies my significance significantly Photo Gallery ---------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 547
|
__________________
Chris |
|
|
|
| sponsored links |
|
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Italy: Milan
Posts: 57
|
Thanks guys.
I'm trying to understand if it could be my valuable "walk-around" lens for visiting cities and photographing landscapes; wondering if it could have better sharpness than 16-35L. 16-35L is a bit more expensive and more versatile of course, but if overall quality of the prime is much better ... I think I would go for the prime. Any straight comparison on the net between these two lenses .. or anyone here? The reason of my choice is because I mostly shot around 24mm; if for any reason I'll need a wider focal lenght I could use my 18-55. What do you think about that? Thanks!
__________________
Max •EOS 5D •16-35/2.8IIL •24-105/4L •85/1.8 •70-200/4L •Tripod Manfrotto 190PROB + head 141RC Last edited by massi.ra : 12th of July 2005 (Tue) at 01:20. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 7,333
|
Unless you need the low light ability of the f/1.4 maximum aperture, you're better off optically with something like the 17-40L or 16-35L. Of course, if you need to shoot in low light then the 24mm f/1.4L is very, very handy.
I use the 24mm for pit garage and motorshow work using available light. I prefer the 17-40L for outside paddock work. That lot http://gallery.ukmotorsportpics.com/c447900.html were all shot with the 24mm f/1.4L. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Italy: Milan
Posts: 57
|
Yes ... low light conditions is something I usually meet during my trips: the inside of chuches, woods and forests in the countryside next to northern lakes and I'm not sure if f4 of 17-40L is enough for that ... do not think so. Then 17-40 has too much similiar focal lenght as my 18-55; 16-35 would be something different (16mm).
But still not sure if is worth buying the prime 24mm rather then the expensive zoom ... Quote:
__________________
Max •EOS 5D •16-35/2.8IIL •24-105/4L •85/1.8 •70-200/4L •Tripod Manfrotto 190PROB + head 141RC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 7,333
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Italy: Milan
Posts: 57
|
Quote:
I'll wait for more comments. CA is a problem ... uhmm Here from PC office I have a "connection failed" for your link; I'll wait and check it at home tonight, thanks again.
__________________
Max •EOS 5D •16-35/2.8IIL •24-105/4L •85/1.8 •70-200/4L •Tripod Manfrotto 190PROB + head 141RC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Cream of the Crop
|
16-35 f/2.8 would be a pretty good walk around lens. About 25.6 mm with a 1.6 crop factor.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Should I get a ts-e 24mm L ? | baybud | Canon EF and EF-S Lenses | 3 | 3rd of October 2006 (Tue) 06:18 |
| 24mm 1.4 L - vs. - 16-35 2.8 L --> ? | roli_bark | Canon EF and EF-S Lenses | 36 | 11th of December 2005 (Sun) 10:42 |