# 24mm f/2.8 IS - is it worth it?



## adhocphotographer (May 27, 2013)

I'm thinking of buying my wife either a 100D with the 40 mm... a small, light and portable option for her.

However, I think she might find the 40 alone a little narrow, and was looking for a descent wider angle addition (it's just a shame there isn't a AF 20mm pancake). 

I have read a fair few reviews of the 24 IS, and despite it obviously being a great 'near L' lens, I am on the fence as if it is worth it. It is smaller than the kit lens (that was my criteria), and i could use it on my 5D too (always a bonus). Do any of you guys have one/tried it? Any opinion or alternative suggestion? What do people think of the non-IS version?

Just an FYI I have a 17-55 f/2.8 that she can use if she wants a standard zoom, but i'm trying to make a smallest lightest kit possible. She prefers the 100D over the M because of the autofocus (she has tried both).


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 27, 2013)

no-one got or used this lens? how about the non-is version?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2013)

Based on reviews, I'd skip the old non-IS. The new IS version looks like a great lens for APS-C - the 38mm equivalent FL straddles normal and wide, and 18 MP gives a fair amount of freedom to crop further. You might also consider the 35/2 IS as a true 'normal' lens instead of thr other two - it offers an extra stop over the other lenses plus IS.


----------



## Koll (May 27, 2013)

I had the lens on my 60D and was quite happy with the results (near to no distortion) and the IS was great in lower light where I thought the picture would have been blurred due to the low shutter speed, but it wasn't. But it depends... What I missed in the lens was a zoom for what I used it for, so when being places I found myself swapping from that lens to a 50mm f/1.4 back and forth. So I digged deep and bought the 24-70mm f/2.8 II and a 6D instead 

I also agree that a 35mm f/2 might be worth considdering also! I'd rather have the new 35mm f/2 IS than the 24mm f/2.8 IS, just my 2 cents though the currency is "kr." in my country


----------



## adhocphotographer (May 27, 2013)

Thanks for the info guys! I'll mull it over!


----------



## x-vision (May 27, 2013)

I use the 24/2.8 IS on a crop camera and I highly recommend it.
The lens is very sharp and has an 'L'-like color rendition. 

Agree, though, that a prime lens is somewhat limiting for all purpose photography.
Why don't you get the 100D + 18-55 STM kit and add the 24/2.8 IS to it.
That would be a lightweight and versatile combo.


----------



## Haydn1971 (May 28, 2013)

I have the 22mm lens on my EOS-M - not something you can use on the 100D, but my point is that the 22mm focal length works really well as a wider(ish) standard prime for general use, I've had great landscapes and portraits at that focal length, so 24mm should suit your wife's needs just fine - IMHO, 40mm would just be too tight for wider landscape work - I can't offer an opinion specifically on the 24mm IS unfortunately


----------



## RLPhoto (May 28, 2013)

There isn't a whole lot of options for wide angle primes that are inexpensive. I've used the 28mm 1.8 with decent results but how much benefit would be gained over the 17-55mm you already own?


----------



## luciolepri (May 28, 2013)

I had the chance to use the Canon 24/2,8 IS for a few days and it's a very good lens. I tested it with the other two new wide IS lenses (35/2 and 28/2,8) and I really liked it. On a FF camera it has a noticeable distortion at short focusing distances, but on APS-C it shouldn't be an issue. Sharpness is good even wide open and the build quality is more than decent. Since you're looking for and APS-C "all-around" lens, I think it would be a much better option than the 40/2.8, which would risult in an odd very short tele. The 24/2,8 would be instead something like a 38mm, very close to the "do-it-all" 35mm classic reportage lens.
The 24/2,8 non IS version, on APS-C, I guess it would work just fine. It was not a bad lens, though distorsion and vignetting on full frame were quite an issue. The IS version is obviously much better in every aspect.
The 35mm f/2 IS is one of my favorite Canon lenses ever (I have to say I love this focal lenght...) but I think it's not as useful as a 24mm on an APSC camera. It would be, again, a weird 56mm...


----------



## noisejammer (May 29, 2013)

In all seriousness, if your better half wants a compact camera that produces excellent images, get her to look at the Fuji X100S. The cost will be little different from a 100 and 24/2.8IS.

I think she'll be well pleased with the image quality too.


----------



## bereninga (May 30, 2013)

I'd wait for the price to go down on this lens. $700 is a lot to drop on it. $650 is still a lot, but that's the lowest I've seen the price. It's a lot for a non-L and the hood is not even included. It's $50!

I've had it for a couple of months now on my T3i and the image quality is really good. The IS is also great when you want to shoot video. It was mostly a toss-up between using the 24mm and 40mm, but the 24mm was more usable in more situations because if its wider angle. It's also pretty compact, which is a huge bonus.


----------



## Zlatko (May 30, 2013)

I use the 24/2.8 IS and like it very much. It works very well on full-frame and on a crop body. I would not buy the old non-IS version as it has the noisy autofocus motor and lacks IS, which comes in handy sometimes. Yes, the 40mm pancake would be narrow on the 100D. The 28/2.8 IS is also a very good "standard" lens on a crop body.


----------



## verysimplejason (May 31, 2013)

Why not try the 18-55 IS STM first? I've used it and it's a lot better than the IS II version both in IQ and build department. It's also lightweight and fast enough. If she don't like it, it's easy to sell because it's clearly an upgrade for those 18-55 users. The 40mm 2.8 (or better yet, a 50mm 1.4) can be her portrait lens. 24mm is a little bit short for portrait and too tight for landscapes when using an APS-C though it's excellent as a normal lens.


----------



## mwh1964 (May 31, 2013)

Fuji X100s for sure if you want a feather weight camera for your wife. Only downside is you might one too.


----------



## procentje20 (May 31, 2013)

I havent tested the 18-55 stm yet, but i guess it will be as good or better then the 18-55 is II. I love that lens. I have a bag full of L lenses, but often use this when hiking. Its light, good 4 stops stabilised, and makes decent images.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 1, 2013)

This lens is on my to buy list- good optically, light and compact walkaround lens with IS which will make an excellent c. 40mm (ie, slightly wider than standard) equivalent on a crop camera. I live in hope the price will drop a little more in the next 12 months or so!


----------

