Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS opinions?

I am curious as to what folks here think of the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …02_EF_24mm_f_2_​8L_IS.html

General thoughts and impressions would be greatly welcome. But in particular, how does it compare to the 24-105 f/4 at the wide end in terms of sharpness and contrast (center and corners). Primary use for me would be landscapes, so I will probably shooting stopped down. I would like to know if there is sufficient improvement over the 24-105 to get a separate lens for this.

I am, of course, also considering the 24 f/1.4 L II, and this looks like a clear winner ... at three times the price, though.

(Incidentally, I shoot full-frame).

Thanks.


** EDIT ** Found this thread. Looks impressive. But still interested in first-hand experience comparing with 24-105 (or even the 24 f/1.4 L II).

I have bought and sold the 24 IS twice. My purpose was intimate, low-light settings like restaurants and bars. I think the lens is excellent. At f/2.8 it is very sharp in the center, and fades to only really good in the corners. The bigger problem is vignetting. On full frame, wide-open, it is about 3 stops. If that is going to be an issue, you'll have to shoot raw and apply some correction. It still shows noticeable vignette at f/5.6. On crop it is mostly gone at f/4. The IS is great. I am not a very steady person and I could get lots of keepers at 1/15 to 1/10. Using burst mode, I could get some keepers at f/4. The problem at those shutter speeds is subject movement. As I am mostly shooting people with this lens, the IS wasn't very important.

I returned this lens because it just plain isn't fast enough. I want/need a bigger aperture. For me, DOF isn't much of an issue and I would shoot it wide open all the time. I took it back because the 24 f/1.4L II is more suited to what I do. If you are going to shoot 24mm, of full frame, at f/5.6 or smaller, this is your lens. I've never shot a 24 1.4L II, but I can't imagine it being worth 3 times the price of this lens, if you are always at f/5.6 or f/8. Save your money, get the 24 2.8 IS.

You get so much DOF at 24mm I'd shoot at f1.4 at all times. I already shoot wide open 95% of the time with my 35mm 1.4

I'd either get the 24 1.4 or if you're alright with a 24 2.8 you may as well get the 24-70ii unless money is an issue. Even doing video work with 24mm you don't need IS if you have an eye contact point and good technique.

draculr wrote in post #16467836
You get so much DOF at 24mm I'd shoot at f1.4 at all times. I already shoot wide open 95% of the time with my 35mm 1.4

I'd either get the 24 1.4 or if you're alright with a 24 2.8 you may as well get the 24-70ii unless money is an issue. Even doing video work with 24mm you don't need IS if you have an eye contact point and good technique.

The 24-70II is almost 4 times the price of the 24 IS, and it is HUGE comparatively. I wouldn't even consider that lens in the OP's position.

I agree about shooting the 24 II wide open. No point buying it if you're stopping down.

I have the 35 f2 IS and it's very sharp wide open. With that I'm going to give myself a BD present in January the 24 f2.8 IS.

for me, as in my opinion, I don't understand the point of these slow primes.

the 24 and 35 are over 500 each...for what?

a slow prime with IS?

Jerobean wrote in post #16467998
for me, as in my opinion, I don't understand the point of these slow primes.

the 24 and 35 are over 500 each...for what?

a slow prime with IS?

I am just guessing here, but perhaps the point is a sharp, low-distortion, fast-focusing, small, light, relatively inexpensive lens. NAH! That can't be it. Maybe it is because not everyone shoots everything at f/1.4. Nope. Nothing there, either. Yep, it is a pointless lens.

Jerobean wrote in post #16467998
for me, as in my opinion, I don't understand the point of these slow primes.

the 24 and 35 are over 500 each...for what?

a slow prime with IS?

I'm stepping on 69 and the IS is a big factor for me.

I Love Cats wrote in post #16468024
I am just guessing here, but perhaps the point is a sharp, low-distortion, fast-focusing, small, light, relatively inexpensive lens. NAH! That can't be it. Maybe it is because not everyone shoots everything at f/1.4. Nope. Nothing there, either. Yep, it is a pointless lens.

Wow dude, did I hurt your feelings or something. there's a way to respond to something you disagree with without being a complete ass.

So, lets wade through your unnecessarily aggressive reply.
- sharp : there are many sharp lenses, this isn't a unique characteristic. same for low distortion, fast focusing.
-small - if you need small, maybe you could use the many other options and systems to get small. same for light.
-relatively inexpensive: 550 each. that is not inexpensive.

2cruise wrote in post #16468042
I'm stepping on 69 and the IS is a big factor for me.

that's valid.

For me I just feel that if i'm bringing my dSLR, i'm already committed to carrying gear. Therefore, size, weight, etc are not really features I would spend money on.

I buy primes for speed.

Thanks, I Love Cats. The reviews show better performance all-around with the 1.4 L II (even at smaller apertures that would typically be used in landscapes, e.g. f/8-f/16). But don't know if that will translate to appreciable differences in practice. I am particularly interested in how the corners hold up.

Jerobean wrote in post #16468054
Wow dude, did I hurt your feelings or something. there's a way to respond to something you disagree with without being a complete ass.

So, lets wade through your unnecessarily aggressive reply.
- sharp : there are many sharp lenses, this isn't a unique characteristic. same for low distortion, fast focusing.
-small - if you need small, maybe you could use the many other options and systems to get small. same for light.
-relatively inexpensive: 550 each. that is not inexpensive.

Where did you get the idea that I disagree with you? Agree/disagree has nothing to do with anything. I was just making fun of your incredibly short-sighted statement. No hurt feelings. I was not trying to be aggressive. Really, I was trying to be funny. What I was doing was poking fun at the tunnel vision that led you to declare this lens pointless. I apologize if you were offended. That was not my intent.

To your points. You recommended the 24-70II in place of the 24 IS. Low distortion is not a characteristic of that lens at 24mm. Kind of a moot point as distortion is easily correctable. As for sharp and fast-focusing, I am sure the 24-70II wins both of those.

Again you recommended the 24-70II, which is neither small, nor light. Now you put up the possibility of switching systems. I posit that there exists some small possibility that someone just may need a 24mm lens for the camera they already own. Fair?

24-70II = $2300. 24 IS = $550. That qualifies it as RELATIVELY inexpensive, which is what I claimed. I never said it was inexpensive. Neither has anyone else.

Just for the record, I had the 24 IS. I returned it. If I could afford it, I'd buy the 24L II. As for the 24-70II, I'd love to have it, if I had unlimited funds. I don't. The Tamron 28-75 works for me. Please feel free to shoot what works for you. The fact that you don't understand the potential of the 24 IS does not mean everyone wants a 24-70II.

jeetsukumaran wrote in post #16468086
Thanks, I Love Cats. The reviews show better performance all-around with the 1.4 L II (even at smaller apertures that would typically be used in landscapes, e.g. f/8-f/16). But don't know if that will translate to appreciable differences in practice. I am particularly interested in how the corners hold up.

I know the 24 IS vignettes noticeable at f/5.6. You may want to check the 24 f/1.4 for that characteristic. I would bet it is negligible to non-existent by f/2 or so. You get what you pay for.

Jerobean, I think the wording of your original message might be read to imply that faster glass is the only reason to pay a premium for primes. If so, then I would have to disagree.

While there is a need for speed in many applications, there are many others in which speed is irrelevant. E.g., landscapes, where most of the shooting is done at the other end.

Bigger apertures means bigger price tag, and if you don't need those bigger apertures, it is nice to have quality glass that can be made cheaper at the expense of less light.

Sure, $550 is not inexpensive, but it is relatively inexpensive, as in relative to the 24 mm f/1.4 L II or the 24-70 f/2.8 L (a third and a quarter the price of the first and latter, respectively).

And if you are will to forgo speed, the lenses can be lighter as well. Lighter is good, for hiking, travel, and old bones. Sure, I can go lighter by moving to smaller systems, but this is, frankly, an absurd suggestion (sorry). No, I am not going to dump two decades of investment in a system to start fresh with another system just to go lighter, nor am I going to maintain an investment in two parallel systems just for this reason.

So yes, there definitely is a niche for relatively slower and thus less expensive primes, for the very reasons that I Like Cats points out. Half the weight and price at the cost of 1 stop that I rarely will use? Sounds good to me. It seems to me that Canon applies the same philosophy for zooms: 24-70 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 paralleling the 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8. And, given the popularity of, e.g. the 70-200 f/4, it also seems to me that this philosophy makes sense to a lot of other folk as well.

With respect to this lens in particular, yes, the IS does seem a little gimmicky for my main projected use of the lens, i.e. landscapes. But I am sure that there are many others who might appreciate this. One use-case, for example, that comes to mind: shooting in museums. Flashes are typically not allowed, and sometimes not even tripods. Not much action, but still objects in dim light. Extrapolate from that to general indoor low-light photography with no flashes and tripods. Rare to extremely contrived situations for some? Sure. But for others, it could easily be the bulk of their photography (I know many people who would find the idea of multiple vacations planned around museum/archaeological sites extremely appealing).

I Love Cats,

3 stops of vignetting is bad, but I used to shoot with the 16-35 f/2.8 II, and that was similar wide open as well. The apertures that I typically shot at though were much better behaved, and it was easily corrected in post. What I want in a wide-angle, though are sharp, contrasty corners, at least by f/5.6. The centers are usually good, even in lower-end lenses. But crispy corners are another issue, and it seems a difficult one for WA/UWA lenses to get right.