24 1.4 L lens, opinions? considering buying it

It looked real good with the few shots I did at Samys Camera, and the thing looks like and feels like it's built like a tank, more so than my 70-200 L. I'm looking for a fast lense that will give me a field of view wide enough to use in average sized rooms with available light handheld. I'm using a 20 D. I also tried the 24 M.M. 2.8 and images seemed ok but the lense itself just didn't appear to be built to last a long time. I realize 4 or 5 shots in a camera store doesnt really give you a clue as to how the lense does so I'm asking has anyone here used this one in low light, and whats your opinions? Thanks, Joe

24mm on a 20D just does not seem wide enough for your intended use. I have a 20D and use the 15mm as my wide lens.

id vote on the 20D for the 16-35 2.8L for indoors.

Are you really looking for a 24mm specifically, or would 35mm work as well? The latter is a better lens optically than the former...

Here is a great review for ya

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….4-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I agree that 24 is not really wide on the 20D.Why not 14L or 16-35L f2.8?

If you like fast primes, Sigma makes a 20/1.8.
But it most likely will not have the image quality wide open that the 24/1.4 has (but also not the price).

Best regards,
Andy

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2015217
id vote on the 20D for the 16-35 2.8L for indoors.

I agree: the 16-35 is just fantastic for indoors on APS-C bodies!
Besides, due to the crop, IQ is stellar from corner to corner.

The 16-35L is a great choice for a crop cam. However, if 2.8 won't cut it for speed, you may consider the 17-55 2.8 IS, or if you really want speed, that 24L is about as wide as you can get in a prime and still have great IQ.

In an absolute sense, taking into account compatibility with all EOS camera systems, I believe the 24L (and 16-35 for zooms) are the best WA lenses made by Canon. Some will probably tell you it's the 35L......however, most of those have not had extensive experience with both ......so that's a bit of a moot point in my mind.

However, once you factor in the costs, the 24 f/2.8 is a very good lens too which should be considered, if you are keen on a 24mm prime.

I'd agree, the 24L is a gem. Loads of people claim its not as good as the 35L but as the 35L is one of Canons very best and a less ambitious optic than the 24L, the criticism is ridiculous.
Beautiful colour rendition IMO, and a great general lens on the 20D. Pretty good value as it was released before Canons current company policy of screwing its users out of every penny they can and then some more, as witnessed by the prices of the 85Lmk2, 70-200/4IS and 50/1.2L. Who's for a $2K 24Lmk2 then?

i think thats true lensview, however i have had experiance with the 35L and i must agree with other posters, its a great lens, it pretty much reaches its peak @2.8 at which i have never seen anything sharper. The colour is also really great, the only let down is the CA levels which are higher than i would like, but having said that i find the other qualties of it more than enough to make up for that.

lensview wrote in post #2017138
In an absolute sense, taking into account compatibility with all EOS camera systems, I believe the 24L (and 16-35 for zooms) are the best WA lenses made by Canon. Some will probably tell you it's the 35L......however, most of those have not had extensive experience with both ......so that's a bit of a moot point in my mind.

However, once you factor in the costs, the 24 f/2.8 is a very good lens too which should be considered, if you are keen on a 24mm prime.

I owned a 24L first because I wanted "prime sharpness" instead of the 24-70L (this was about a year ago), but I found it to be about the same for sharpness most of the time as the 24-70. I didn't like the colors much either. I like richer, warmer colors, and they seemed rather cool from the 24. So, I went to the 35L, and was very pleased. Sharp at 1.4 (the 24 was too, though) and nice rich colors and contrast. It did the trick. However, if you need wider, you need wider. 35mm won't always cut it.

Sprout Crumble wrote in post #2017206
I'd agree, the 24L is a gem. Loads of people claim its not as good as the 35L but as the 35L is one of Canons very best and a less ambitious optic than the 24L, the criticism is ridiculous.
Beautiful colour rendition IMO, and a great general lens on the 20D. Pretty good value as it was released before Canons current company policy of screwing its users out of every penny they can and then some more, as witnessed by the prices of the 85Lmk2, 70-200/4IS and 50/1.2L. Who's for a $2K 24Lmk2 then?

I wanted to say that, but did not wanna sound too enthusiastic.
I really owe it to Anna Yu's photography for that lens acquisition......looki​ng at her low light photos as well as getting her opinion had finally made up my mind on it.
And you are right, Sprout, those L lenses are getting to be obscenely expensive.
That is why I try to advocate cost effective alternatives as well.

(Talking about Anna's photography, her work is the only tempting morsel known to me, when it comes to the 14L. But no way in hell am I gona pay $1800 for that!)

i'de love to see a 100% crop from a 14L just out of curiosity , to see if its as bad as alot of people make it out to be.

just for giggles the average new price for that lens in the UK works out as rougly $2650!