-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
10D - 24mm f/1.4L as a walk around lens ?
- Thread starter Shabok
- Start date
tasty donuts
Senior Member
cool - i have 35/1.4L and 135/2L as well and love them. wanted something smaller/lighter (and cheaper!) so went with 85/1.8 instead of the 1.2L. would like a 24/1.4L, but too expensive and probably not wide enough for me... i'll probably end up getting either a UWA zoom or Sigma 15mm fish to take care fo the wide end.
tasty donuts
Senior Member
would would you ever want to take those sort of pictures at f/1.4? and ISO100 no less?
why not use f/4 1/60s ISO400... i think the results would be better. the shallow DOF focused at infinity in the 2nd shot is particularly strange...
that said i have started using my 35L wide open lately and have been very pleased with the results. i only use f/1.4 for nighttime/low-light photography though, otherwise i usually use f/2 - f/5.6.
why not use f/4 1/60s ISO400... i think the results would be better. the shallow DOF focused at infinity in the 2nd shot is particularly strange...
that said i have started using my 35L wide open lately and have been very pleased with the results. i only use f/1.4 for nighttime/low-light photography though, otherwise i usually use f/2 - f/5.6.
tasty donuts
Senior Member
i have a 35L and am a big fast prime fan, but honestly if i were to choose between the 24/1.4L and 24-70L i'd actually pick the zoom. the 24/1.4L is probably one of the softest L primes and has more CA than both the 35L and 24-70L. at f/2.8 i'm not even sure it's sharper than the zoom. unless you really want a prime and/or don't like the size/weight fo the zoom, i'd go for the zoom.
tasty donuts
Senior Member
here's a more common application of a fast prime (low light work). ISO800 1/60s f/1.4:
A french magazine (Chasseur d'Images) tested both the 24/1.4L and the 28-70L. The 24L was sharper at f/2.8 than the 28-70L at f/4... Assuming that the 24-70L has optical performance close to the 28-70L's, it seems that even a "soft" fast prime can be sharper than the best zoom ;-)
Here are the tests results :
24/1.4L : http://www.techphoto.org/photo/equipment/canon/cdi24-14canon.txt
28-70/2.8L : http://www.techphoto.org/photo/equipment/canon/cdi28-70-28canon.txt
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography
Here are the tests results :
24/1.4L : http://www.techphoto.org/photo/equipment/canon/cdi24-14canon.txt
28-70/2.8L : http://www.techphoto.org/photo/equipment/canon/cdi28-70-28canon.txt
--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography
FretNoMore
Veteran Member
I have not done any testing, I bought these lenses for very different purposes and I have not yet used them for the same occasion.
Sharpness: I think the 24 may be a bit sharper than the 24-70 at f/2.8, but not all that much. Stop the lenses down a bit more and I don't think you'll see a difference.
Handling: Both feel very good, L quality, but the 24-70 is obviously much bulkier. See the picture below for a comparison...
Focusing: I'd say they are quite similar, the 24 is possibly a bit faster and more accurate in low light, but they are both good.
Speed: For me it's the low-light capability that does it for the 24, even if the pics are slightly soft at near wide open it's nice to be able to keep shooting even if it's really dark.
My summary: For walking around with decent light I'd take the 24-70 any time, it's so much more useful. Only niggle is size and weight, but I can live with that. For indoor and low-light shooting the 24/1.4 is my choice, I don't really like using a flash. The ultra-shallow DOF is an interesting possibility as well.
This is really an apples and oranges comparison - I'm glad I don't have to choose!
-Anders
Thanks Anders for your time and effort ! I know it's an apples to oranges comparison but as I own the 28-70L and briefly tested the 24-70L (which I found has an even faster AF), if the 24/1.4 is as good or better than the 24-70L at 24mm in terms of sharpness, build quality, handling and AF then it must be really nice ;-) In my case, the 28-70L (or 24-70L) is much too bulky and heavy to be used as a walk-around lens.
--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography
--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography
I think I know exactly why I spent $1200 for a lens! Really, come on!
Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/500
Av( Aperture Value )
1.4
Metering Mode
Center-weighted averaging
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
800
Lens
35.0 mm
--
Good, bad and mostly glad!
FretNoMore
Veteran Member
Only glad to help, just giving some back for all the things I've learned here!
The 24/1.4 is regarded as a relatively "soft" prime compared to the best ones (35/1.4 for instance). That may be true, but to me it's still useful. It's primarily soft below f/2 or so, it gets better quickly after that. The temptation is to use it wide open in lower and lower light, and then you also add camera shake to the softness as the shutter speeds get longer, and ISO noise because you push that as well. All this may add to the reputation that it is not a good lens, but people should remind themselves what extreme demands they put on the system in that scenario. A slightly soft available-light shot is much better than none at all.
For the price it could perhaps be a bit better, but on the other hand there is really no competitor at 24mm/f1.4, so if you need the angle and speed there is simply no choice. It is a bit of a specialty lens though. If you don't need the 24mm angle the 35/1.4 is a better buy. Indoors it's not wide enough for me though.
-Anders
Mitch Conner
Leading Member
A 16- or 17-35mm 2.8 would be another option. Depends on how much you value the extra stops. Worst case scenario is that you sell it at a small loss if you hate it. Wouldn't want this to be my only lens for walking around outdoors in the daytime, however.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=20&sort=7&thecat=2
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=28&sort=7&thecat=2
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=20&sort=7&thecat=2
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=28&sort=7&thecat=2
The 24/1.4 is regarded as a relatively "soft" prime compared to the
best ones (35/1.4 for instance). That may be true, but to me it's
still useful. It's primarily soft below f/2 or so, it gets better
quickly after that. The temptation is to use it wide open in lower
and lower light, and then you also add camera shake to the softness
as the shutter speeds get longer, and ISO noise because you push
that as well. All this may add to the reputation that it is not a
good lens, but people should remind themselves what extreme demands
they put on the system in that scenario. A slightly soft
available-light shot is much better than none at all.
For the price it could perhaps be a bit better, but on the other
hand there is really no competitor at 24mm/f1.4, so if you need the
angle and speed there is simply no choice. It is a bit of a
specialty lens though. If you don't need the 24mm angle the 35/1.4
is a better buy. Indoors it's not wide enough for me though.
tasty donuts
Senior Member
you should have just shown that in the first place. 
I think I know exactly why I spent $1200 for a lens! Really, come on!
Shooting Mode
Aperture-Priority AE
Tv( Shutter Speed )
1/500
Av( Aperture Value )
1.4
Metering Mode
Center-weighted averaging
Exposure Compensation
0
ISO Speed
800
Lens
35.0 mm
--
Good, bad and mostly glad!
I agree 100%The 24/1.4 is regarded as a relatively "soft" prime compared to the
best ones (35/1.4 for instance). That may be true, but to me it's
still useful. It's primarily soft below f/2 or so, it gets better
quickly after that. The temptation is to use it wide open in lower
and lower light, and then you also add camera shake to the softness
as the shutter speeds get longer, and ISO noise because you push
that as well. All this may add to the reputation that it is not a
good lens, but people should remind themselves what extreme demands
they put on the system in that scenario. A slightly soft
available-light shot is much better than none at all.
Ditto, the 35/1.4 is not wide enough on a 10D. I think it's time to order the 24/1.4 ;-)
--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography
I gave some thought to the 16-35/2.8L but came to the conclusion that the 20/2.8 is as fast and cheaper (as well as smaller and lighter). For the price of the 16-35/2.8L, I would rather have a faster lens like the 24/1.4L. Eventually I'll get both of them (the 20/2.8 for sports and the 24/1.4L for walking around and available light shooting)
--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography
tasty donuts
Senior Member
tests like those are somewhat suspect and cannot be taken as authoritative; after all some magazines are claiming the Sigma and Tamron zooms to be better performers than the 24-70L. with this lens i've heard it both ways and am not sure how to take it... a few 24L owners say the prime is sharper; others (owners, those in the know) say the prime tends to be rather soft and has more CA vs. the zoom. could just be sample-to-sample variation in both lenses, but i think it's safe to say the 24L is not as clear a choice over the zoom as, say, the 35L which gets unanimously rave reviews (to my knowledge at least). i personally would love to own a 24L but considering its limited usefuless to me (too close to 35mm, not really wide enough on 10D) and high cost i don't foresee getting one any time soon; but if i didn't have the 35L and wanted something on the wide side for general shooting (like the original poster of this thread) it would be a good option. as with any lens i recommend trying before buying to see if it's what really suitable for the individual.
cheers,
TD
cheers,
TD
Hiromu Kurosaki
Active member
Thank you for your comments, tasty donuts,
But I meant 35/1.4L but 24/1.4L. I checked my last post and found I typed 25/1.4L.... Which should have been 35!!
So, I would like to hear your comment of 35/1.4L over 24-70L. I have been thinking of getting either one. Personally I like the zoom, but there are several post who has problem with their 24-70. So I started thinking of getting 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 instead of 24-80. In this range, i can zoom with my feet. I appreciate your comments.
Thanks.
Hiromu
But I meant 35/1.4L but 24/1.4L. I checked my last post and found I typed 25/1.4L.... Which should have been 35!!
So, I would like to hear your comment of 35/1.4L over 24-70L. I have been thinking of getting either one. Personally I like the zoom, but there are several post who has problem with their 24-70. So I started thinking of getting 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 instead of 24-80. In this range, i can zoom with my feet. I appreciate your comments.
Thanks.
Hiromu
tasty donuts
Senior Member
fully agree with everything you said Fret. specifically, 35/1.4L is optically superior to the 24/1.4L, but indoors it is a little too tight on a 10D (56mm equivalent). i also agree that the comments about the 24L being soft may come party from unreasonable expectations, particularly in a ultra-fast wideangle lens.
even though i am a prime freak (35L, 85/1.8, 135L) i do agree that super-expensive, super-fast primes like the 24L and 35L are rather "specialty" lenses; not that they can't be used for general purpose shooting, but what they provide isn't necessary for everyone, and in terms of utility vs. cost they are rather poor values. that said i think the 35L is an easier choice since it performs so well throughout its entire aperture range, but again it is a little tight on a 1.6x crop. i certainly don't recommend these lenses to everyone as a replacement for the "general purpose" zoom, but if you know they're what you want they are fine lenses.
Shabok i have the exact same complaint about the 24-70L and 28-70L, they are just too large and heavy to use as walk-abouts. after getting my 85/1.8 i am even starting to find my 35L a bit bulky... but i can't get myself to go back to the 35/2, the 35L is just so lovely.
even though i am a prime freak (35L, 85/1.8, 135L) i do agree that super-expensive, super-fast primes like the 24L and 35L are rather "specialty" lenses; not that they can't be used for general purpose shooting, but what they provide isn't necessary for everyone, and in terms of utility vs. cost they are rather poor values. that said i think the 35L is an easier choice since it performs so well throughout its entire aperture range, but again it is a little tight on a 1.6x crop. i certainly don't recommend these lenses to everyone as a replacement for the "general purpose" zoom, but if you know they're what you want they are fine lenses.
Shabok i have the exact same complaint about the 24-70L and 28-70L, they are just too large and heavy to use as walk-abouts. after getting my 85/1.8 i am even starting to find my 35L a bit bulky... but i can't get myself to go back to the 35/2, the 35L is just so lovely.
The 24/1.4 is regarded as a relatively "soft" prime compared to the
best ones (35/1.4 for instance). That may be true, but to me it's
still useful. It's primarily soft below f/2 or so, it gets better
quickly after that. The temptation is to use it wide open in lower
and lower light, and then you also add camera shake to the softness
as the shutter speeds get longer, and ISO noise because you push
that as well. All this may add to the reputation that it is not a
good lens, but people should remind themselves what extreme demands
they put on the system in that scenario. A slightly soft
available-light shot is much better than none at all.
For the price it could perhaps be a bit better, but on the other
hand there is really no competitor at 24mm/f1.4, so if you need the
angle and speed there is simply no choice. It is a bit of a
specialty lens though. If you don't need the 24mm angle the 35/1.4
is a better buy. Indoors it's not wide enough for me though.
-Anders
Steven Brangers
Well-known member
the original question also mentioned the 20/2.8 USM:
What about the qualities of this little beauty (?)
and hey, not everyone has a fortune to spend on glass ;-)
I very interested in:
Thanks a lot !
What about the qualities of this little beauty (?)
and hey, not everyone has a fortune to spend on glass ;-)
I very interested in:
- sharpness
- color rendition
- bokeh
- build quality
- flare
- ca
Thanks a lot !
tasty donuts
Senior Member
hi Hiromu,
i had some extensive posts from a few months ago about the merits of 35L vs 24-70L, but unfortunately i cannot find them anymore. i'll try my best to summarize my experience.
if you want zoom, you should get the zoom. no matter what someone says about optical quality, speed, etc. the first consideration should ALWAYS be focal length. very little is more infuriating than having the wrong focal length lens on your camera and not being able to do anything about it.
in my case, i decided i didn't need or want zoom, and the pluses of the prime (smaller/lighter, faster) outweighed the focal length limitation. but if you need the zoom range and don't really need the f/1.4 speed (which to be honest i rarely use), you should go for the L zoom.
i would put aside the negatives you've heard about the 24-70L, yes there are some problems here and there but it should not be impossible to get one that doesn't work well on your 10D. just be sure to test before you buy, or buy from a place with a liberal return/refund policy in case it doesn't work out.
i'm all for zooming with your feet - i think prime lenses force many of us to improve our composition and technique - but it can only go so far. it depends on what your'e shooting... if you're a snapshot person like me, primes are great. if you're doing event photography, landscapes, etc, it can be a pain not having framing flexibility.
i went to a party last night and was able to get some good shots with just my 35L, but it would have been much easier to frame things with a zoom. on the other hand, i was able to hold the camera one-handed all night without much trouble; the 24-70L is a lot heavier and would have been more fatiguing as well as less "manueverable." in general i find that party/family photography is where i feel the lack of zoom is the most annoying, but i get by ok with a single prime.
if you do go primes, the 35-50-85 spread should keep you covered. i actually have a 50/1.8 but am selling it now that i have an 85... just don't find myself using it much. but i will add that the jump from 35 to 85 is sort of extreme, and having a 50 is handy... i just don't like changing lenses all the time, it gets very cumbersome. i try to stick to one lens as long as i can, and when i decide i want to take a different approach (e.g. at the party last night, i wanted tight headshots with the 85) i switch lenses. for me changing focal lengths is not so much about changing field of view or reach as it is about changing perspective.
that all said... i have to ask, what type of photography do you do mostly? i think your shooting needs should determine your focal length needs, which in turn should determine your lens needs.
cheers,
TD
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum