Possibly not the best choice for crop sensor users

Jonathan Brady wrote:

For me personally, I'd rate it 1 star because I just never used it. However, on it's own I'd say it's worthy of 4.5 stars.

You're doing a review of a lens you never used?

Jonathan Brady wrote:

For me personally, I'd rate it 1 star because I just never used it. However, on it's own I'd say it's worthy of 4.5 stars.

You're doing a review of a lens you never used?

Fair enough criticism. Worded improperly. I used it, just not often. Basically, enough to know it wasn't worth keeping around when I had other tools that performed similarly.
--
QUOTE: "Another conclusion: After having read a few hundred instances of “fanboy” references during research for this article, it’s clear to me that the word has lost whatever potency it might once have had as an insult. It’s too much of a cliché, too inappropriately dismissive, too likely to be tossed in as an ad hominem attack by someone who shows signs of extreme fanboyism himself."

In other words - takes one to know one. And you lack creativity.
http://gizmodo.com/5540818/the-fascinating-origin-of-the-word-fanboy

Jonathan Brady wrote:

Jonathan Brady wrote:

For me personally, I'd rate it 1 star because I just never used it. However, on it's own I'd say it's worthy of 4.5 stars.

You're doing a review of a lens you never used?

Fair enough criticism. Worded improperly. I used it, just not often. Basically, enough to know it wasn't worth keeping around when I had other tools that performed similarly.

Ok, that's better.

I find your comments about the 24mm interesting, as I'm considering it for use on the SL1 (neither that I own, yet). I'm looking for a small compact dslr for a walk-about camera. I believe the 24mm fov would work well for me and my type of shooting. Here's what I like about the 24mm IS over the 18-55 STM...

It's a little smaller (for me the extra size savings is a bonus)

It's a little faster (maybe better for indoor or low light photography?)

It's a bit sharper (I consider myself a sharpness freak )

But that's just me. As you pointed out there is not a huge difference in specs and performance between the two lenses. I think I'll buy the SL1 and 18-55 STM kit, then rent the 24 IS. That way I'll know if the 24 IS is really for me.

Jonathan Brady wrote:

Jonathan Brady wrote:

For me personally, I'd rate it 1 star because I just never used it. However, on it's own I'd say it's worthy of 4.5 stars.

You're doing a review of a lens you never used?

Fair enough criticism. Worded improperly. I used it, just not often. Basically, enough to know it wasn't worth keeping around when I had other tools that performed similarly.

Ok, that's better.

I find your comments about the 24mm interesting, as I'm considering it for use on the SL1 (neither that I own, yet). I'm looking for a small compact dslr for a walk-about camera. I believe the 24mm fov would work well for me and my type of shooting. Here's what I like about the 24mm IS over the 18-55 STM...

It's a little smaller (for me the extra size savings is a bonus)

It's a little faster (maybe better for indoor or low light photography?)

It's a bit sharper (I consider myself a sharpness freak )

But that's just me. As you pointed out there is not a huge difference in specs and performance between the two lenses. I think I'll buy the SL1 and 18-55 STM kit, then rent the 24 IS. That way I'll know if the 24 IS is really for me.

I'll say it's not a BAD setup for sure. Especially if you're okay with a fixed focal length! In fact if you're okay with a fixed focal length and you won't be taking video, it's a fantastic setup. Be aware that although it's smaller, it's noticeably heavier.

If the IS, super fast AF, and an optical viewfinder aren't super important to you, consider the EOS M with 22 f/2. It's smaller, lighter, and brighter! You could also snag the EF-M 18-55 STM as well. You could get all of those (EOS M and 2 lenses) for less than the 24mm f/2.8 IS USM.
--
QUOTE: "Another conclusion: After having read a few hundred instances of “fanboy” references during research for this article, it’s clear to me that the word has lost whatever potency it might once have had as an insult. It’s too much of a cliché, too inappropriately dismissive, too likely to be tossed in as an ad hominem attack by someone who shows signs of extreme fanboyism himself."

In other words - takes one to know one. And you lack creativity.
http://gizmodo.com/5540818/the-fascinating-origin-of-the-word-fanboy