Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: canon 24mm 1.4L 2 USM  (Read 11952 times)
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 15, 2009, 07:28:28 PM »
ReplyReply

DIGLLOYD has his paid review out on the 24mm f1.4 II. Seems to be a great lens in most respects. Better than I imagined.
Logged

Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 15, 2009, 07:40:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DaveDn
DIGLLOYD has his paid review out on the 24mm f1.4 II. Seems to be a great lens in most respects. Better than I imagined.

I've been saying it ever snce I took my first frames with it - its really really sharp glass!
Logged

DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 15, 2009, 08:00:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Josh-H
I've been saying it ever snce I took my first frames with it - its really really sharp glass!


Perhaps you should be a reviewer too Josh !

I must say it is very hard to get good lens reviews on the web. Most lens tests seem to be shot using a 'planar' test chart which is of limited use testing wide angle lens which have curvature of field issues. A few real world 3D shots are required. e.g. scenes stretching to infinity as well as near shots.

I must say that Canon appears to be back when it comes to wide angles.


Logged

Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 15, 2009, 08:04:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps you should be a reviewer too Josh !

*chuckle* no way... to many black helicopters out there for my liking. I prefer to leave the reviews to those with thicker hides than mine  
Logged

DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 15, 2009, 08:59:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Josh-H
*chuckle* no way... to many black helicopters out there for my liking. I prefer to leave the reviews to those with thicker hides than mine  


   likewise
Logged

Chris Pollock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2009, 07:11:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DaveDn
DIGLLOYD has his paid review out on the 24mm f1.4 II. Seems to be a great lens in most respects. Better than I imagined.
I've been using this lens since January. I read the review ealier this evening to see how it compared to my own experience. The only thing that surprised me is that the review said that it had very little chromatic aberation, but I've noticed a moderate amount, even at F8. This problem is easily corrected in Adobe Camera Raw, however. Perhaps the reviewer used Canon's software, and it corrected the chromatic aberration automatically.

I'm quite happy with the image quality of the lens, although considering the price I'd expect it to be good. If only Canon would make something as good at 14 and 20mm.
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2009, 04:23:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris Pollock
I'm quite happy with the image quality of the lens, although considering the price I'd expect it to be good. If only Canon would make something as good at 14 and 20mm.

Yes. I could agree more.

One other point that Lloyd Chambers advised was that the 24mm had more curvature of field at infinite than the Zeiss 21mm ZF. To keep the corners relatively sharp the 24mm needs to be stopped well down. I might wait for the Zeiss 21 mm ZE version.

I need a lens around this focal length primarily for landscapes so AF it's a killer for me.
Logged

ThomasPoeschmann
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2009, 09:48:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DaveDn
I might wait for the Zeiss 21 mm ZE version.

I need a lens around this focal length primarily for landscapes so AF it's a killer for me.
I use the ZF version on an EOS camera. The viewfinder (of todays modern DSLRs) at f/8 is bright enough to re-check the composition. LiveView helps to focus in critical situations and to check dof. I do not use the light meter but the historgram to check the exposure. The image quality is stunning.

The drawbacks are acceptable to me: the need for manually stoping down the lens, the absence of EXIF data, 82 mm filter attachment, LiveView comes up too dark, wave-formed distortions.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2009, 09:49:46 AM by ThomasPoeschmann » Logged
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062


« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2009, 02:34:05 PM »
ReplyReply

is the Zeiss 21 "mustache" distortion reasonably correctable?  this is the one aspect of the lens that put me off in Lloyd's review.
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2009, 04:12:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ThomasPoeschmann
I use the ZF version on an EOS camera. The viewfinder (of todays modern DSLRs) at f/8 is bright enough to re-check the composition. LiveView helps to focus in critical situations and to check dof. I do not use the light meter but the historgram to check the exposure. The image quality is stunning.

The drawbacks are acceptable to me: the need for manually stoping down the lens, the absence of EXIF data, 82 mm filter attachment, LiveView comes up too dark, wave-formed distortions.


Yes, the few quirks are acceptable to me to (wave-type distortion and uneven color rendition in the corners) Especially when considering the amazing micro contrast and "3D look".  Sometimes I think I should 'bite the bullet' and go for the ZF + adapter rather than wait for the ZE.
Logged

DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2009, 04:19:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stever
is the Zeiss 21 "mustache" distortion reasonably correctable?  this is the one aspect of the lens that put me off in Lloyd's review.

I think you need to match the lens to your subject matter. If you require a low distortion lens, don't buy this one.
Logged

ThomasPoeschmann
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 22, 2009, 03:40:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stever
is the Zeiss 21 "mustache" distortion reasonably correctable?

I do not care. But since the 17-40 has a compareable distortion I would say: why not.

Please notice:
  • I do not claim that these images are academically perfect. It may be that the tripod has shifted when unmounting the lens. I do not care. If you do I can shoot some other images where the tripod is 100% sturdy.
  • Files were processed in Canon DPP with equal WB set to 5200k. The Zeiss was stopped down to f/5,6.
  • The files show how each lens produces different colors using same WB.
  • The Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/21 ZF was mounted using a Novoflex Nikon-EOS adapter.
  • EXIF data is alive, for the Zeiss a 50 mm focal length is displayed.
  • No, the bokeh isn't that terrible, this is a permanent mosquito protection placed outside of the window. Not all europeans have a climate at home

As Dave said, if you cannot live with the distortion this one's not for you.

Edit: oh great, the file names gone away when uploading the files, but if you save them locally they are restored! 1st and 2nd are from 17-40, one is distortion corrected in DPP. The 3rd file is from the Zeiss.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2009, 03:46:37 PM by ThomasPoeschmann » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad