DSLR Photography Forum

Full Version: Canon users: your thoughts on WA primes?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
At some stage this year I'm going to make the hyperspatial jump to full-frame(maybe hanging around till August-ish to see what happens, whereupon it may be the 5D). I mention this as I realise that there may well be comments on edge definition in any replies.
Do any of you have experience of any of these Canon EF lenses, please: 24mm f2.8; 24mm f1.4L; 20mm f2.8?
I'm immersed in many a review, but confess to finding MTF charts difficult to understand. I can find many a comment, yet not much on a direct head-to-head between the 3.
What I'm looking for in terms of comment is pretty much anything by way of your personal hands-on experience, particularly degree of edge fall-off through the apertures...I'm really interested in comments on quality of glass/definition/resolution of course: yes, I can anticipate depth of field as regards the "L" lens...but , say, does this really warrant 3 times the expense if we're looking at from f5.6 to f16, d'you think? Does the 20mm hold up better in terms of definition than either of the others at any aperture?
Rufus? Noisy Noodle? Irma? Chris? Jules?
I'd really value your thoughts.
Hehe I'm a Nikon user now... Big Grin

I've only got a 28mm f/2.8, and at the moment it's my favourite - it's nice for close range indoor shots of people and my favourite subject at the moment - baby Olivia. Big Grin
Zig, I've found the lens reviews over at Fred Miranda's forum to be fairly insightful:

Generally speaking, the "L" versions are going to give better image quality, but at a steep price. Also, much of that difference goes away when you stop down. If you don't intend to use the lenses wide open, then you may not need L.
Hi Zig,

The 24 1.4 is a legendary lens. But if you are shooting at 5.6 and above you simply don't need it. Between the 24 2.8 and the 20 2.8 a lot depends on how wide you want the prime. A 20mm lens is a lot wider than a 24mm lens. It maybe too wide for your purposes.

Have you considered the 17-40 f4 L lens. I know it is a zoom - but even at f4 she is going to be probably sharper than the 24 2.8 and the 20 2.8. Of course the 24 1.4 would be better again - but you don't really need it as you won't be shooting at below f4 very much by the sound of things and at 5.6 and above they are going to be pretty close anyway.

I have owned a 17-40 and loved it. I only upgraded to the 16-35 because I needed a 2.8. You will cover a much wider range with it than the prime and I think you will find it hard to get it off the camera Smile Very reasonably priced too.


Chris, thanks a lot; am particularly glad of your thoughts; yes, slej, ta: I've been wading through these: many an opinion!
Yes, Chris: I knew you'd probably chip in with the 17-40 there...and..mmm.... that 16-35(Mk2?): I do like around 20mm as I was used to the 45mm medium-format.
Jules...you dark horse you! Glad you can nip in between feeds! It's most odd you've just mentioned that you're now a Nikonite: I've just been having my head well in the clouds of fantasy by even considering(or rather, vainly woolgathering) a Nikon G-Canon converter along with the Nikkor 14-24mm...totally nutz of course..yet if I were considering L glass, the conversion price would be not too far off.....heck, I've just gone so bonkers that I'm wondering what a long-term shift from Canon back to Nikon would be like, as I have fond memories of Nikon...(and Jules, I bet you're drooling over that 14-24 Tongue , aintcha!)
Yes, Chris, I think that with my present style of shooting the extra stops with the 24L would be superfluous...yet I've noticed that an adjustment of style facilitated by a new lens can generate a whole new zing in one's photographic step.
Hmmm....really grateful for your thoughts...keeep 'em coming please!
If you're stopping down the 17-40 f/4L zoom that Chris mentions would be a very good choice, and it's economical compared to buying a couple of non-L primes. Personally I didn't like the 17-40 wide open, and the one I (briefly) owned suffered from hunt-and-miss AF in lower indoor light. But for outdoor use it's great.
OK, that's lovely, slej.
Well, having had a bit of a think, knowing darn well that I do like 20-24mm especially...AND given that I'm a-trying to go for optical quality BUT not needing that extra wide-open performance of f1.4, I'd thought of getting the 20mm....
...I've since thought about the apertures and focal lengths plus quality of image...
...and decided to get the 16-35 f2.8L Mk2(hopefully it'll arrive next week)...Rolleyes..
(and just when I'm saving to get married...Tongue
I don't have any of those lenses Zig. My only wide angle prime lens is the 24mm T/S. I wanted to post some images for you to see its performance but Luminous Landscape has a nice review about 24mm L lenses.

If Jules with his Nikon is a dark horse, I must be an antelope. My second-favourite lens is my 7-14 f/4, which has the same field of view as a 'full-frame' 14-28mm rectilinear lens. I've probably mentioned it elsewhere or posted a photo or two. Wink

Without being qualified to comment on image quality issues, I can second the suggestion of looking at the zoom lens options. At wide angles 'zooming with your feet' is very different from being able to change focal lengths. The effects of perspective distortion become a powerful compositional tool, as the difference between two focal lengths with the same overall framing can be quite significant.

I do realize that kit isn't all that relevant; unless Don's adapter has arrived I'm using the widest non-fisheye field of view on the forum, which makes my experience rather extreme. Quite frankly there's little else like it in the DSLR world. (The new Nikon 14-24 matches the field of view when it's on the D3, the Sigma 12-24 gets poor reviews for digital full-frame.) But I can swear by the fact that a wide lens can put a new zing in one's photography. When I look at the photos that I feel are the most "me", they're usually taken with this lens. You can't imagine how much I wish I could loan you my E-3+7-14 for the weekend.
Thank you Irma; yes, I've had a look at that thanks.
Hey matthew: I'm not going anywhere for a while!
Seriously, now the 16-35 is on order I'm looking forward to it; my 10-22 has been decent at f8 and I have enjoyed its seasickness-quotient:

[Image: 4_bazTowerWeb.jpg]
Zig Wrote:...and decided to get the 16-35 f2.8L

and just when I'm saving to get married...
Great decision! (Now you have to guess which one of your comments I'm referring to ... Big Grin )

Zig, I'm a very thoughtful typist. I started writing my message before you'd made your decision. So, a belated congratulations. Big Grin
Big Grin
ta slej: (I'm sure matthew means the lens too Wink ta matt
I have the Mk 2 version Zig - love it and you will too. It is my most expensive lens though Smile Even more than my 70-200 2.8 IS L.

Can't wait to see your shots.

By the way - when are you getting married? I will be in the UK in July Smile
I will be in the UK in July too Big Grin

Also looking forward to seeing your shots.
If the 24L is like the 35L, it should be very happy-making. I got the 35 a few months ago and it's now my favourite besides the 70-200 Big Grin
Hey chaps: come over a few weeks earlier: Big Grin getting married in Malmesbury, Wilts, on June 21st. We're privileged to have Rufus+Noodle coming along...now, this would be a snappathon and a half...Big Grin
I have a Santana gig to attend the night before, though: Karen says that as long as I can hear her say "I do", she won't be cross...
Hello, I am new here, and I suppose I am already hijacking a post, so please accept my apologies!
I saw the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 MK 2 mentioned in this thread, and it just got me thinking about it. I am curious what people think of it, and if it is worth upgrading from a MK 1. I believe it is supposed to be sharper in the corners and wide open, but is it a real increase over the mark 1?
Any insight would be appreciated.
That's too bad Zig - I am arriving on the 7th of July. It would have been so cool to help you out with some wedding photos.

I will be staying with my brother.

Hey Adam - when are you going to the UK?

Helimat - I have not tried the Mark 1 version. The Mark 2 seems to be very good. Although I did send mine off to Canon as I wasn't happy enough with it. It has come back much better now. It is however a very expensive lens and if you are happy with your Mark 1 I don't think you should bother changing.
Shucks Chris: too late for the honeymoon too :o
Wedding Shooter Wrote:Helimat - I have not tried the Mark 1 version. The Mark 2 seems to be very good. Although I did send mine off to Canon as I wasn't happy enough with it. It has come back much better now. It is however a very expensive lens and if you are happy with your Mark 1 I don't think you should bother changing.
I have the Mark 1, and for the most part I am happy with it, it just seems a little soft in the corners, and it is exaggerated when shooting FF. (Picked up a 5D a few months back...)
I was just wondering if the increase in sharpness was enough to spend the extra bit. Anyone out there have experience with both? And back to WA primes, how does the EF 14mm f/2.8 compare? (An even more expensive option!)
As for the price, I figure what's a few extra bucks if it makes a difference in the image? (Although my pregnant fiance doesn't see it this way!)
Forgive my bad manners Helimat: welcome.
I've had to apply my own "logic" as to worth: the price on the deal I've got(on the Mk2) is, including cashback(is that called a rebate over there?), 5 pounds sterling(10$?) less than if I'd have bought the cheapest UK deal on a 24mm f1.4L. Now, my wish has been for around a 20mm and possible 24mm in terms of "prime" IQ(whatever this means, which is all horses for courses).
My logic then said: righto, I'd be picking up in the 16-35 not only "prime" performance over the 20mm, but at many a landscape aperture something that rivalled the 24L...yet for slightly less cash.
Logic argued back and suggested that I save much cash with the 17-40L instead: true, but I'm swayed by my readings/researches which arguably suggest that at the lengths I want optimum performance in(18-24mm), the MK2 16-35 marginally excels. Now, whereas I don't absolutely HAVE to have f.2.8, I do like the lowlight freedom of around f4...and thus this is where the 16-35 is already gaining a couple of stops, yet is still optimised for "fast" aperture work. Plus, I already have an 82mm polariser "left over" from my medium format work and I do shoot with a polariser on all the time. And, hey, I can always learn to mess about wide open and do so in half the light available to the 17-40. Plus, 35mm has never been a focal length I've particularly experienced or needed...now I can, but it's another nice extra to my personal mind.
Now, the only remaining decision was whether to capitalise on the nice price of the Mk2: here I had to hold me nose and dive in really: I swanned about for ages on fanboy and trollsites, then read more measured responses at (sometimes) FM, then a couple of detailed reviews at 16.9 and elsewhere, had a swathe of pixel-peeps at pbase et al. I understood the performance for my needs, at the apertures I need the most, to be superior(though only marginally so?) to most experiences of the 17-40 and several experiences of the MK1.
Eventually, I turned full circle, saying to myself that I've the chance to get this lens at a lower price than the 24mm f1.4L, also gaining both the 20mm performance(and others) at the apertures...and types of outputs, that I might consider for both now and the future. My 10-20mm is fine(excellent at f.8) but I can't port it to FF when I get there.
"Should" I have messed about with adaptors for Nikkor wides/wide zooms? Or the same for a Leica 19mm or 21mm?
Maybe...but in the end I'd be driving myself nuts playing the What If Game rather than in getting the darn thing and getting cracking! Smile
I know it's no help...but: the horses and the courses: identify which ones you want to ride and where, then choose?
Every blessing!
Wedding Shooter Wrote:Hey Adam - when are you going to the UK?
I'm planning to be there in July Big Grin
Haven't booked flights yet, but will have just finished my course in June Big Grin
Helimat - just take your camera into a store and shoot a few frames with your Mk 1 and then throw a Mk 2 on and shoot the same stuff. Shoot wide open and it should give you a feel for whether it is worth it or not.
the only camera i have is in my mobile Sad
Wedding Shooter Wrote:Helimat - just take your camera into a store and shoot a few frames with your Mk 1 and then throw a Mk 2 on and shoot the same stuff. Shoot wide open and it should give you a feel for whether it is worth it or not.
Well, that is easier said than done. Although I live in a decent size city, (Area population>100,000) there is NO camera store in town, other than the mall places that have 40 P&S cameras and one Digital Rebel. So, in order to test drive a lens, it is either a hour and a half drive in each direction, or two hours by ferry to the mainland.
The majority of my gear has been bought online, and I have had reasonable success doing so. A lot of research is done on the internet before spending, and this is where I am at now with the 16-35 mark 2... Just hoping someone else had tried both and had seen the differences first hand.
Pages: 1 2