10D - 24mm f/1.4L as a walk around lens ?

FretNoMore · Jan 26, 2004

Thanks! I really (and I mean really ) wanted to buy the 35/1.4, ran around the house with the zoom at 35mm for a while, but just couldn't live with the 56mm equivalent. Even 24mm (38 equiv.) is on the narrow end of what I want. But as it stands I'll accept the lower quality of the 24mm to get the wider angle.

I initially bought a Sigma 20/1.8 and would have kept it if it had only focused correctly. I'm sort of happy I had to return it though, it was very noisy and weird handling, and I just totally prefer the feel and handling of the L lenses.

If I won the lottery I'd buy a 35/1.4 just the same because of all the rave reviews - and while I'm at it I'll negotiate a package deal including a 135mm

-Anders

tasty donuts said:
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.

Shabok · Jan 26, 2004

Some reports say that it it sharper than the 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4 zooms while others say the opposite. A forum search might provide some info about this. In my case I had ruled out the 16-35 because of its cost and the 17-40 because of its maximum aperture.

Steven Brangers said:
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

(you get the picture ...)

Thanks a lot !

--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography

Shabok · Jan 26, 2004

FretNoMore said:
I initially bought a Sigma 20/1.8 and would have kept it if it had
only focused correctly. I'm sort of happy I had to return it
though, it was very noisy and weird handling, and I just totally
prefer the feel and handling of the L lenses.

Did you consider the Canon 20/2.8 or is it simply not fast enough ?

FretNoMore said:
If I won the lottery I'd buy a 35/1.4 just the same because of all
the rave reviews - and while I'm at it I'll negotiate a package
deal including a 135mm

The famous 135/2L is also on my wish list ;-) But it ain't cheap either... I would use it for indoor sports (badminton), but I'm wondering what other 10D owners use it for, as with the 1.6 crop factor it becomes a bit long for shooting people, doesn't it ?

--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography

Joe · Jan 26, 2004

Do you have a bad 28mm f1.8? Mine is pretty good...

Shabok said:
OK I've been a little bit disappointed by the 28/1.8 so I'm looking
for something a little bit wider and sharper. It will be either the
20/2.8 or the 24/1.4L (f/2.8 is a minimum and I'd like to avoid
Sigma lenses because of their color rendition and lack of USM/FTM).
Are there 10D users that use the 24/1.4L as an available light
"standard" lens ? Are you happy with this combo ?

--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking shots

Shabok · Jan 26, 2004

Joe said:
Do you have a bad 28mm f1.8? Mine is pretty good...

Yes it is softer than my 28-70L at all apertures, and very soft below f/2.8. I don't know if I have a bad one but the MTF scores on photodo.com indicate that this lens is indeed quite soft for a prime lens. Additionally, I don't find it wide enough so I'm thinking of replacing it by a 24mm prime.

--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography

FretNoMore · Jan 26, 2004

Shabok said:
Did you consider the Canon 20/2.8 or is it simply not fast enough ?

Only reason for me to get the prime is speed, I have zooms that I'm happy with apart from this. I want the bigger aperture for really low light, like concerts in small pubs. I have tried using the zooms but f/2.8 is not fast enough.

brian304A · Jan 29, 2004

More thoughts on the 24 1.4:

I have kept it stuck on my 10d for the last few days. The FOV is great for taking pictures inside your house of kids and what nots. I know in this world of lo noise digital some folks are getting away from buying faster lenses, BUT it is great to shoot at f2.0 ISO 100-200 indoors instead of the 400-800. After a bit of sharpening the 800 is grainy whereas the 100-200 takes a sharpening and keeps staying clean. My lens strategy is to buy fast primes for most shooting and take some coke bottle zoom or my little s400 for lazy shooting. So this may not apply to folks trying to buy a smaller number of lenses.

The downside only is that the 24 is a bit heavy. I have also found at 1.4 a small amount of USM isolates the subject and gives that really nice OOF area in the background.
just thoughts.....

Shabok said:
Joe said:

Do you have a bad 28mm f1.8? Mine is pretty good...

Click to expand...

Yes it is softer than my 28-70L at all apertures, and very soft
below f/2.8. I don't know if I have a bad one but the MTF scores on
photodo.com indicate that this lens is indeed quite soft for a
prime lens. Additionally, I don't find it wide enough so I'm
thinking of replacing it by a 24mm prime.

--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography

Shabok · Jan 29, 2004

brian,

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll very likely get the 24/1.4 very soon, my decision process has been a little bit disturbed by the 1D MkII as I'll have to get one this year for shooting sports. But in my case the 24/1.4 seems to be a very versatile lens, more than the 135/2L which was also on my shopping list but that I would have used only a couple of times per year for indoor sports. So the 135/2 will have to wait ;-)

brian304A said:
More thoughts on the 24 1.4:
I have kept it stuck on my 10d for the last few days. The FOV is
great for taking pictures inside your house of kids and what nots.
I know in this world of lo noise digital some folks are getting
away from buying faster lenses, BUT it is great to shoot at f2.0
ISO 100-200 indoors instead of the 400-800. After a bit of
sharpening the 800 is grainy whereas the 100-200 takes a sharpening
and keeps staying clean. My lens strategy is to buy fast primes
for most shooting and take some coke bottle zoom or my little s400
for lazy shooting. So this may not apply to folks trying to buy a
smaller number of lenses.
The downside only is that the 24 is a bit heavy. I have also found
at 1.4 a small amount of USM isolates the subject and gives that
really nice OOF area in the background.
just thoughts.....

--
Shabok
http://www.nobrakes.ch - mountain biking photography

bbcp · Jan 29, 2004

i read this entire thread and i'm with shabok on the reasoning. i would pick the 24L. i looked at the 16-35 and 24-70 and decided that they're too bulky, and i can also "zoom with my feet". the 35 is too long and 20 isn't as fast. the speed and size of the 24 is attractive for street photography at night and clubs/pubs. i'll get a zoom later when i'm ready.

--
http://www.bbcp.nu

FretNoMore · Feb 13, 2004

Took the camera with me when I walked to the grocery store tonight, just to practice some in low light. The f/1.4 with ISO 400/800 makes it possible to shoot in near darkness

People look at you as if you're stupid... "It's too dark, you'll not get a good picture!"

Anyway, these are not particularily interesting subjects, as I said I was just practicing some for the day I see something worth shooting.

Local library: ISO 800, 1/30s, f/2.0

A hole in the wall: ISO 400, 1/60s, f/2.0

Disgusting sight: ISO 400, 1/25s, f/1.4

Corner windows: ISO 400, 1/60s, f/2.0

(Apologies if you have already seen these pics on dphoto.us)

Search

10D - 24mm f/1.4L as a walk around lens ?

FretNoMore

Veteran Member

Shabok

Senior Member

Shabok

Senior Member

Joe

Guest

Shabok

Senior Member

FretNoMore

Veteran Member

brian304A

Well-known member

Shabok

Senior Member

bbcp

Forum Enthusiast

FretNoMore

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts