Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM

dolina wrote in post #13925982
Jake & Julian... Canon knows me.

If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you are or have already tested the 1DX, 5D (whatever) and all the new telephoto lenses. You're just not saying nothing cuz you're under NDA.

jwcdds wrote in post #13926037
If I didn't know any better, I'd guess you are or have already tested the 1DX, 5D (whatever) and all the new telephoto lenses. You're just not saying nothing cuz you're under NDA.

I really wish that were true. I had dinner with a Canon Brand Ambassador 12 hrs ago and he doesn't know any more than I do. In fact a friend of ours briefed all of us on what he read on CR on the rumored long lenses that will come out. Our friend favored a 100-400mm IS II while I preferred a 400/5.6 IS. I prefer primes.

I even gave my personal speculation on the weight and price of the 200-400mm 1.4x that has yet to receive a shipping date. These are all based on conjecture. Makes fun dinner conversation amongst bird-obsessed photogs.

hieu1004 great shots. I'm starting to warm up to the 24.

^thanks Dolina- the 24l is definitely a special lens.

I picked up one of these on ebay today.

I loved my ZE21 but needed AF so I got rid of that, but now I miss the quality of a prime. Maybe this will be a happy medium. I have a 7D and a 5D2 so Im hoping this can do double duty as a 24 and ~35 and that Ill be happy with 24mm as my widest lens so I can ditch the 17-40.

You've got some splendid landscape shots MNUplander!

Same reason I got this lens and IMO makes it very useful.

+1 on that. I am surprised you would consider selling the 17-40, 17 is much wider then 24

Tommydigi wrote in post #13929621
Same reason I got this lens and IMO makes it very useful.


+1 on that. I am surprised you would consider selling the 17-40, 17 is much wider then 24

joonrhee wrote in post #13929446
You've got some splendid landscape shots MNUplander!

Cool, Im glad it seems to work out as a 24 and ~35. Obviously having both the 24L and 35L would be better, but its not in the cards now. Im using the same 2-lens-for-one trick in a couple places. Its one benefit of having both formats I never really thought of - my 17-40 is a standard zoom/UWA, 24 = 24/35, 85 = 85/135. The only one that doesnt do double duty is the 100-400, if I want reach I likely want it on the 7D. No, not as good as having the "real thing" but it works for now.

I have a love/hate relationship with the 17-40. I love it for landscapes because its very sharp across the frame at f/11 (actually comparable to my ZE21 except in the extreme corners) but it drives me nuts if I use it for a normal zoom on my 7D or a general UWA on my 5DII off the tripod...the corner sharpness (or really anywhere for that matter) just isnt there.

I used 21mm for landscapes for a long time and loved it, 24mm shouldnt be THAT much different. Who knows, maybe Ill keep it - we'll see how I feel after playing with the 24L II for a couple weeks.

Thanks for the comments on my images - I only wish I had more time to shoot...time to do what I want is far and few between these days with my daughter, wife, work and friends in competition.

^Congrats on the 24 - I feel the same with the 17-40mm. I wish the corners were a bit sharper - but for what it is, it is definitely a good value.

hieu1004 wrote in post #13930118
^Congrats on the 24 - I feel the same with the 17-40mm. I wish the corners were a bit sharper - but for what it is, it is definitely a good value.

Yah, I agree - and like I said, its actually not very noticeable at landscape apertures so for the majority of my shooting its no problem.

Hongkong

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Just got me one of these today.

My 35L is history. The 24 is stunning and leaves it for dead IMO, and the 35 was a cracking lens. Will simply use 24 on a crop body as has been suggested if I want a 35 1.4. They're far too close together for me to bother using the 35 again. Will grab a 50L instead I think

Spacemunkie wrote in post #13949117
Just got me one of these today.

My 35L is history. The 24 is stunning and leaves it for dead IMO, and the 35 was a cracking lens. Will simply use 24 on a crop body as has been suggested if I want a 35 1.4. They're far too close together for me to bother using the 35 again. Will grab a 50L instead I think

This is exactly what I need to do. The 35L is a bit too close for my needs I think.

Frames by Celly & Ches wrote in post #13954288
Hey guys,


Thanks
Chester

Six. Sorry, just counting how many times I've seen this post in lens threads.

Here you go Chris =)

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'application/xml'