CANON 24 1.4L & Extreme Close Ups

How are the extreme close up shots with the 24L, guys? I've been toying with the idea of picking one up but I would have to let my 100 2.8 Macro lens go to be able to do that. I'm not big on macro, I don't really like to shoot insects but I do love close up detail shots of things like leafs for example. I love low light photography so I know the 24L is really good for that. I haven't even looked at the MFD specs of it but I bet it is better than most lenses.

Is there something that the 24L doesn't do well?

The 24L does being a 24mm prime better than any other similar prime I've used.

Minimum focussing distance is fine to get very close to things.

I'm in love with mine ...

linarms wrote in post #6205993
The 24L does being a 24mm prime better than any other similar prime I've used.

Minimum focussing distance is fine to get very close to things.

I'm in love with mine ...

Can you post up some of your favourite shots with that lens for us to drool over?

I've not tried macro with that particular lens, but I have with 28mm and 21mm lenses I own. I have 3 macro lenses, the shortest being 50mm. Even with the 28mm the perspective gave me big problems and I just gave up after a while. I've seen macro with WA lenses, but I've not got the vision and/or talent to figure out how to make it work on my own. I tried flowers and leaves with all kinds of backgrounds (blue sky, backlit by the sun, etc) and the perspective looked so odd I didn't bother to keep any.

I'd love to see more examples of WA macro photography and maybe that will help me figure it out.

The close focusing abiltiy with the WA is great for landscapes, and that's the main use of my WA lenses.

Never used mine as a macro before, so you got me curious. Went out back and snapped a few. I agree with above, not the best choice. Not because of the sharpness/detail, its there, but controlling the background is difficult with such a wide-angle.

Here's a snap of a bee, at close to MFD, and it's 100% crop.
40d ISO 100, f/5.0, 1/200 A little LR2 sharpening, and -.21 EC.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Here's a couple more, also close to MFD. One is at f/1.6, the other at f/4.5. You do get decent DOF control, so it might work well for the right subjects.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

JC4 wrote in post #6208734
Here's a couple more, also close to MFD. One is at f/1.6, the other at f/4.5. You do get decent DOF control, so it might work well for the right subjects.

This is MFD?! Wow, that looks pretty far away. The 24L on my 40D would be a standard length though (38.4).

My mistake. I thought I was closer when I took the flower shot. Here's a fresh snap, very close to MFD. MFD on the dial is .8 feet, not very short for 24mm, but better than my previous shot.

Also on my 40d f/5.0 1/800

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I'm not sure why you would decide the 24L would be a good macro lens? The MFD is not that good. It is a great 24 and fantastic in low light but it is not for macros.

I have a Mir 10A, an old Russian manual focus lens for Pentax-K mount; 28mm f/3.5 and it is meant for close-focusing:

I didn't realise you meant macro

It isn't a macro lens by any means. But it does let you focus close enough to get a dominant foreground into a wide-angle shot.

I'm now thinking in full-fame terms (have just switched), but the same applies on crop ... it's just not as wide.

No, I didn't think it can replace a macro lens entirely. I was just curious how close you can get to a subject and get good results. I guess I wanted to see extreme close ups with it at MFD.

ahh.. my 24L has focus issues if I get too close to MFD so I don't bother. I'm not sure if it is missing focus or if it is reporting that it is in focus when in reality I'm too close, but I stopped messing with it.

I doubt you'll get many "extreme" closeups from it unless you attach an ext. tube.

I see. Thanks for your replies! And the 24L vs your 35L? Any major differences? I read that they are pretty much dead even. True?

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6209075
I see. Thanks for your replies! And the 24L vs your 35L? Any major differences? I read that they are pretty much dead even. True?

Yep. You just need to decide which length you'll use the most.

You have a 28/1.8 already, so can probably answer that question without too much difficulty

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6209075
I see. Thanks for your replies! And the 24L vs your 35L? Any major differences? I read that they are pretty much dead even. True?

Yup, my only choice between them is for focal length. I don't consider any IQ differences between them as they are quite similar. I'm sure I could pick out differences if I lined them both up on the same tripod and did the same shot, but what is the point as the perspectives and fields of view are the real deciding factors.