# www.photozone.de reviewed EF-S 24/2.8 STM



## Khalai (Nov 28, 2014)

Pretty good, apart from vignetting...

Click for review

Optical Quality: 4/5
Mechanical Quality: 4/5
Price/Performance: 5/5

Verdict: highly recommended


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 28, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Pretty good, apart from vignetting...
> ...
> Verdict: highly recommended


Thanks for sharing. 
Interesting and good to read that the expectations (coming from the 40/2.8 ) will be fulfilled.
It's on my wish list for a small travel kit, likely next year.


----------



## Khalai (Nov 28, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty good, apart from vignetting...
> ...



I am only a bit sad that the lens is not full-fledged EF mount (knowing it would be almost impossible in this focal length and dimensions combination), because that would be very nice combined with 40 waffle... erm, pancake lens as dual walk-around lenscaps


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 28, 2014)

Khalai said:


> I am only a bit sad that the lens is not full-fledged EF mount (knowing it would be almost impossible in this focal length and dimensions combination), because that would be very nice combined with 40 waffle... erm, pancake lens as dual walk-around lenscaps


Me too. It would have been a really nice and small FF combo. 
But it has been enough time since the announcement for me to arrange with that.

And maybe Canons main reason to keep it for APS-C only was that the FF vignetting was unacceptable for their IQ standards.


----------



## Khalai (Nov 28, 2014)

Maximilian said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > I am only a bit sad that the lens is not full-fledged EF mount (knowing it would be almost impossible in this focal length and dimensions combination), because that would be very nice combined with 40 waffle... erm, pancake lens as dual walk-around lenscaps
> ...



Or it would possibly cannibalize the sales of 24/2.8 IS USM (which is awesome walkaround wideangle FF lens anyway)...


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 28, 2014)

Khalai said:


> Or it would possibly cannibalize the sales of 24/2.8 IS USM (which is awesome walkaround wideangle FF lens anyway)...



The old "cannibalization" song. Canon should be more than happy, as long as people buy their products, rather than those from competitors. 

A EF 24/2.8 pancake could perfectly exist in parallel to the 24/2.8 IS. Some like it as small as possible, others want a "more solid lens with a proper focus ring and IS" ... some have more budget, others less. No problem, as long as a manufacturer can serve as many of these wishes as possible.

This 24/2.8 pancake should have definitely been EF, "full frame". It would also work on APS-C cameras, no problem.


----------



## andrei1989 (Nov 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > Or it would possibly cannibalize the sales of 24/2.8 IS USM (which is awesome walkaround wideangle FF lens anyway)...
> ...



it's been said many times already..it would hit the mirror of a FF camera. i have both the 40 and the 24 mm pancakes (got the 24 yesterday but didn't manage to go out and test it). i will post a photo with both side by side with the rear element all the way retracted, hopefully we can stop this debate...


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 28, 2014)

andrei1989 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Khalai said:
> ...



I am fully aware, that as an EF lens it would need to be designed differently from EF-S ... without rear lement protruding into mirror box. But it would still have been way more useful as an EF lens. Even if it were slightly larger.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > it's been said many times already..it would hit the mirror of a FF camera. i have both the 40 and the 24 mm pancakes (got the 24 yesterday but didn't manage to go out and test it). i will post a photo with both side by side with the rear element all the way retracted, hopefully we can stop this debate...
> ...



You may be fully aware that the lens would need to be designed differently, but it seems you're not aware of the consequences. It would not be 'slightly larger' as an EF lens, it would be _significantly_ larger. The rear protrusion and smaller image circle (a 27mm lens is 'normal' on APS-C) mean a standard design. As an EF lens, it would need to be a retrofocal design, more complex, more elements = much bigger.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > andrei1989 said:
> ...



Thanks, I am aware of this. I still expect a design quite a bit more compact than (even the not very large) EF 24/2.8 IS could be done. 

Any way, the EF-S 24 has a limited market. Basically it really only makes sense on SL1/100D, if one wants really compact size ... and lowest possible price - for an optically very decent lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Any way, the EF-S 24 has a limited market. Basically it really only makes sense on SL1/100D, if one wants really compact size ... and lowest possible price - for an optically very decent lens.



I think that a 'normal' lens that fits easily in one's pocket makes a lot of sense. I certainly find the 40/2.8 useful for just that reason – when I'm primarily shooting with a telephoto lens, I don't have to carry another lens in a bag/case.


----------



## e17paul (Nov 28, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



A 24/2.8 with a large enough image circle for full frame would be no more compact than the 24/2.8 IS. Geometry is driven more by angle of view than absolute focal length - study the cross sections of other 24mm lenses for crop and full frame lenses.


----------



## dhr90 (Nov 28, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Any way, the EF-S 24 has a limited market. Basically it really only makes sense on SL1/100D, if one wants really compact size ... and lowest possible price - for an optically very decent lens.
> ...



I echo this. For me as a crop shooter the 40 is just a focal length I don't really tend to use. The 24 however will be a perfect pocket lens (if image quality is good and I can get it for a reasonable price here in the UK) to take to airshows and motorsport events if I don't want to take a general zoom or will mainly have a telephoto equipped.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 28, 2014)

Haven't people been whinging out Canon not making dedicated prime lenses for APS-c ? Now one has been produced they are claiming it should have been FF ? :

If I was a crop shooter I'd be very pleased with this offering. 38 -40 mm FF equivalent is a great all purpose focal length.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 28, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Haven't people been whinging out Canon not making dedicated prime lenses for APS-c ? Now one has been produced they are claiming it should have been FF ? :


I am one of those who lived whining by the lack of primes EF-S. 

One detail prevented me from bursting champagne, full of joy... :
The F2.8 aperture at 24mm, could already be covered by a zoom. :-\
Maybe I'll buy an EF-S 24mm, but I'd be singing praises for Canon, if this was an EF-S with maximum aperture F2 or F1.8, though it have double the size, weight and price of the pancake.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 28, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Haven't people been whinging out Canon not making dedicated prime lenses for APS-c ? Now one has been produced they are claiming it should have been FF ? :
> ...



My understanding of the pancake design is that they are pretty much an unmodified planar, and therefore (relatively) slow. But on the subject of 2.8 being accessible with a zoom, I do find that what makes even a relatively large dslr like the 5D 'big' and 'heavy' is the unsatisfactory balance that larger zoom lenses give the body when carrying around. So for me these 2.8 prime lenses do have a use. Maybe not this new 24/2.8 because I shoot FF. Pitty it wasn't in an EF mount


----------



## zlatko (Nov 28, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Haven't people been whinging out Canon not making dedicated prime lenses for APS-c ? Now one has been produced they are claiming it should have been FF ? :
> 
> If I was a crop shooter I'd be very pleased with this offering. 38 -40 mm FF equivalent is a great all purpose focal length.



I'm happy about this new lens too. It's the APS-C equivalent of the 40mm pancake on FF. Sweet!

But Canon gets bashed no matter what they do. Every product they release "should" have been some other product. And the old cannibalization song is sung about every product. Meanwhile, if you look at the product line, it is full of products that cannibalize each other in some way. There are currently four 24mm primes, and about 15 zooms that cover the 24mm focal length.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 29, 2014)

e17paul said:


> A 24/2.8 with a large enough image circle for full frame would be no more compact than the 24/2.8 IS. Geometry is driven more by angle of view than absolute focal length - study the cross sections of other 24mm lenses for crop and full frame lenses.



My Olympus/Zuiko 24mm 2.8 is quite a bit more compact than the 24mm IS, and not much thicker than my Canon 40mm pancake. Is that because it's MF only? 

(It's nice, by the way, to see that despite the complaints we often read about Canon pricing, this new Canon EF-S pancake, like the recent 10-18mm, is a remarkable bargain.)


----------



## rrcphoto (Nov 29, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> I am fully aware, that as an EF lens it would need to be designed differently from EF-S ... without rear lement protruding into mirror box. But it would still have been way more useful as an EF lens. Even if it were slightly larger.



apparently you're not fully aware. because a pancake design usually is around the registration distance. Canon cheats in this case by giving up the corners and the outer extremities as being unimportant - scrubbing the bad parts of the equivalent image circle, because it only has to be good on APS-C.

a 24mm on a full frame would still have to be a full retro focal lens covering the full frame image circle, it also can't sit as low - it would be wow.. almost the same bloody size as the current EF 24mm 2.8?

but complain .. my god - you're complaining about canon releasing an EF-S pancake - is there any limit to what you complain about?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 29, 2014)

my statement regarding 24/2.8 being EF-S rather than EF was meant not so much as a complaint, but rather as "an observation". Maybe my wording was too strong. 

After reading the posts here ... I take the point, that for some/many people the 24 pancake may have value as really small, light, tiny, chap and optically decent "general use lens" to take along when you're out birding or to an airshow or to motorsport events etc. with an APS-C DSLR plus long tele lens as your main rig. 

While it may serve very well for that purpose, I still believe, the lens has only very limited appeal beyond that scenario. After all it is only "only" f/2.8 - and many serious Canon APS-C shooters already got a 17-55/2.8 and many of those who wish(ed) for EF-S primes are mainly interested in getting primes that are at least 1 stop faster than zooms coverng the same focal length. A still very compact, optically decent and sensibly priced EF-S 24mm/1.8 would have been more interesting. 

I am still convinced an EF 24/2.8 could be built quite a bit shorter and smaller than the EF 24/2.8 IS. Using the right lens design and 2014 glass [ED], algorithms, and computing power I think it could be a bit smaller yet optically much better than e.g. the age-old, full frame Pentax FA 20mm (!) /2.8 -> http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-fa-20mm-f28/review.html?src=lrdb#specs

Anyways, it is a "theoretical" discussion. Personally, I am not interested in any 24mm f/2.8 lens, as I already have a faster, extremely compact, optically excellent, very "price-worthy" WA prime for APS-C. Made by Canon, called EF-M 22/2.0 8) 
All I want now, is a better camera body to put it on. However, that's a different topic and probably considered "complaining" and "whining" around here.  ;D


----------



## mb66energy (Nov 30, 2014)

I am always glad if companies give us OPTIONS to choose from.

For ME: The EF 40mm lens is the holy gral of pancakes because I like the 64mm equivalent on my APS-C cameras. Just for the EOS M it will make a compact lens. If I need 24mm the old and trusty 2.8/24mm will be fine. 

For ME: The EF-M 22mm 2.0 is the most interesting choice because it makes a COMPACT EOS M camera but ... as said before: A COMPACT EF-M with 2.0 55mm (lens elements in tele configuration) would be much more attractive for ME, especially if combined with IS.

An EF 24mm pancake is not possible for FF SLRs because of the - mentioned by others - necessity to do some tricks with a negative front element far from the positive groups to keep the mirror area free of stuff ...

Just my 2ct - Michael


----------



## dee_gee (Dec 26, 2014)

Hi I just bought the 24mm for my 100d. I love it but I'm confused when they say it's the FF equivalent to 38mm. So does this mean I'm actually seeing 38mm field of view in my images with this lens/body combo? I'm used to having to convert due to using EF lenses so it's probably why I'm not sure now. This lens is supposed to be mid-wide angle but the images don't seem particularly wide to me. I'm sure even at 24mm images would come out a bit wider than you'd see at 38...

Unfortunately I don't have any examples to show you as I'm away for the holidays and nowhere near my laptop yet. But anyway, will be grateful for any insights into this please. Ta.


----------



## dcm (Dec 26, 2014)

dee_gee said:


> Hi I just bought the 24mm for my 100d. I love it but I'm confused when they say it's the FF equivalent to 38mm. So does this mean I'm actually seeing 38mm field of view in my images with this lens/body combo? I'm used to having to convert due to using EF lenses so it's probably why I'm not sure now. This lens is supposed to be mid-wide angle but the images don't seem particularly wide to me. I'm sure even at 24mm images would come out a bit wider than you'd see at 38...
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have any examples to show you as I'm away for the holidays and nowhere near my laptop yet. But anyway, will be grateful for any insights into this please. Ta.



EF and EF-S lens focal lengths are the same. The EF-S 24mm has the same field of view as either of the EF 24mm lenses (2.8 or 1.4) on your 100D.


----------



## preppyak (Dec 27, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Haven't people been whinging out Canon not making dedicated prime lenses for APS-c ? Now one has been produced they are claiming it should have been FF ? :
> 
> If I was a crop shooter I'd be very pleased with this offering. 38 -40 mm FF equivalent is a great all purpose focal length.


Im ecstatic. Means I can ditch my 17-50 zoom and just stick with 11-16/24/55-20 when I want a light but fully functional travel kit. I wont really be missing 24-55 at f/2.8 or f/4, as those can easily be covered by moving my feet.

And for when im on long trips, just taking the 24 means I can have a really light combo with my 60D


----------



## martti (Dec 27, 2014)

CAnon should have launched the 24mm pancake a while ago. I sold my crop sensor camera already. The 100D is nice and slim and would have been the thing to carry around with the pancace 24mm. The 40mm is too long for general use, especially inside. Probably I'll take the Lumix LX100 to replace the EOS100.


----------

