Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS opinions?

Sorry, I can't really speak to the corners for this lens. For my use, I had subject pretty close (3'-6') and wide open. The corners were OOF, anyway, the way I use 24mm. Can you rent the 24 IS and 24L II to see which one you prefer? Either is a lot of money to NOT get what you want.

I Love Cats wrote in post #16468120
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.

Umm, just to be clear, I never mentioned the 24-70 in this thread.

Also, having the opinion that a lens isn't something I fancy, doesn't mean i declare it useless.

I would never buy a superzoom. I think they are silly. but for some people they work, so for them it's a great lens. Same with this lens, I would never spend 550 on a slower prime, it's just not useful to me. I never declared it useless for everyone.

an opinion isn't an objective statement, stop reading into them like they are.

2cruise wrote in post #16467939
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.

2 cruise what do you think about having both the 50 mm focal lenght and the 35 mm (I am planning to buy the new 35 f2 IS). And did you notice an improvement from the 50 1.4 to the 35 f2 IS in terms of optical quality?

Thanks!

Nemofoto wrote in post #16468877
And did you notice an improvement from the 50 1.4 to the 35 f2 IS in terms of optical quality?

Thanks!

Yes even though my 50 1.4 is very sharp there is a difference and I have no regrets buying the 35. I'm going to sell my 50 1.4 to help offset the cost of buying the 24mm 2.8 IS.

I have the Canon 50F1.4 and the Canon 35F2 IS. Both are sharp, but the 35 may be a bit better at F2 than the 50. I am not sure how much of this is a consequence of the IS, and how much derives from the optics. I suspect that the IS helps.

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?

these are consumer lenses, and with canon's new idea of consumer prices

they are optically fantastic for consumer lenses and with the small size to match. 50mm F1.8 IS with these optics would be great, but the price not so great...... until a year or two down the line.

I have used the old non-IS versions of the EF 24mm f/2.8, EF 28mm f/2.8, and EF 35mm f/2.
Never fully happy with them (aprt from the EF 28) so I eventually sold all of them.

I now use the new EF 28 f/2.8 IS USM as my main lens on my 60D.
It hit focus every time (even in very low light), it's very sharp from wide open, and it has excellent IQ.
Having IS is a huge plus for video too.