Any love for the 24 f/2.8 IS?

I haven't heard much chatter about this lens. There is no thread for it in the sample-images area.

Do we love it? Hate it? Or are we just ignoring it?

Most folks are ignoring it. I think the issue with these new slow primes is that they are as slow as zooms and quite expensive. The probably are attracting video shooters.

Word is that they are very sharp even wide open and the IS is handy, but I bet most people looking at those kinds of prices would prefer a single 24-70 over a handful of $800+ primes that are no faster.

I don't consider 2.8 as slow. I was trying to find out more on this lens to before I went to the camera shop this morning but couldn't find much so I ended up not buying one I really wanted a prime wide angle with IS but I bought a 24-70 2.8LII instead I wish it had IS.

Here is a link to a good review. http://www.photography​blog.com …_24mm_f2_8_is_u​sm_review/

shadowcat wrote in post #15644753
I don't consider 2.8 as slow. I was trying to find out more on this lens to before I went to the camera shop this morning but couldn't find much so I ended up not buying one I really wanted a prime wide angle with IS but I bought a 24-70 2.8LII instead I wish it had IS.

It isn't slow per se, but it is as slow as many zooms.

I think as a matter of course the number one reason that most people put up with the inconvenience of primes is to gain the use of apertures much faster that what is available in zooms within the same range. These new primes are 'slow' inasmuch as they are no faster than a 24-70.

There might be other reasons to select these primes over a zoom like the 24-70 (optical performance, IS, size and weight for a single focal length), but speed will not be one of them. I think this dramatically cuts down the number of people who would go for one of these primes, especially at the price.

How many stops from 1 to 2.8? so yes, it is slow.

I have the 24 2.8 is. That is my main landscape land. I sold the Zeiss 21 after a direct comparison with the 24 is.

If you have a 24-70 variant, you wont't need this lens, but i choose an alternative route not using mid-range room but a combination of 24 2.8 is and the pancake.

The IS is the main draw on these new wides by Canon. If you take photos in low light situations... churches, museums, etc, then they are good choices. They'll be better choices when the prices come down and they will.

vaflower wrote in post #15644889
I have the 24 2.8 is. That is my main landscape land. I sold the Zeiss 21 after a direct comparison with the 24 is.

Hmmm, the Zeiss is usually considered the best ~20 lens out there. Sharp in the corners, great contrast. Did the Canon 24 really hold up that well against the Zeiss or was it "good enough"?

n1as wrote in post #15647072
Hmmm, the Zeiss is usually considered the best ~20 lens out there. Sharp in the corners, great contrast. Did the Canon 24 really hold up that well against the Zeiss or was it "good enough"?

On the contrary, the Canon is better in almost every way, except that Zeiss is wider focal length.

1. Canon F/2.8 is true F/2.8, meanwhile the Zeiss is not really f/ 2.8 but more like f/ 3.2
2. Canon is sharper wide open, in the corner, in the center, sharper everywhere.
3. At f/8 they are about the same, but the Canon is still transferring more light given the same aperture and shutter speed.
4. Zeiss rendition is a bit warmer but I can make the two rendition pretty similar with a change in color temperature .
5. Of course, Zeiss is all metal glass so for some it looks better, but I pretty much prefer the small size and weight of the Canon.

I just had one copy of each lens to test so these are my personal experiences. I also did not test anything over f/8.

I assume the Canon does not give elusive Zeiss 3D look. At less than 1/2 the cost, the Canon sounds like a Great lens. Makes me wonder why it is being ignored.

I assume it is much like the 200 f/2.8 prime. Why go that way when you can have a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom with IS.