# Unboxing of the the Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM



## edy4eva (Jun 28, 2012)

Just received it few minutes ago!
First Unboxing of Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM Lens

I will upload a couple of photos shortly.


----------



## Synomis192 (Jun 28, 2012)

Do you think that the heavy price tag on this lens makes it worthy?


----------



## edy4eva (Jun 28, 2012)

Taken with 5DII @ 1/160 f5.6 iso50, resized to half with DXO.


----------



## edy4eva (Jun 28, 2012)

Synomis192 said:


> Do you think that the heavy price tag on this lens makes it worthy?



The price tag as originally advertised was steep. But I managed to get it for 788AUD (793USD, 637EUR, 510GBP, 6150HKD at today's exchange rate) delivered, which after claiming the tax back (as I am heading overseas) will only cost 716AUD (or 720USD, 579EUR, 463GBP, 5595HKD). 

On a crop body it would make an excellent walk around lens. Almost like some mirrorless cameras out there.

First impressions:
Though heavier than the 40mm pancake and the 28mm f2.8 lenses, on the 5DII it feels extremely well balanced. Its focus is fast and silent, just like any other USM lens. I haven't tested (nor will I have the time to) its image stabilization.

On the 550D, it becomes front heavy. But makes a compact kit almost like the cheapo 18-55mm kit lens. Attached is another photo taken with the 550D for the same scene in the previous image (as well as a photo of how the lens looks like on the 550D).

I am going overseas and will be leaving behind the bulky 24-105mm behind. Only taking this 24mm and the pancake with the 550D. Let's see how they'll fare.


----------



## edy4eva (Jun 28, 2012)

Few more observations:
- Lens is made in Japan.
- The manual focus ring is butter smooth. It is smoother than that on the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM.
- Shooting handheld, I am getting 1/8 and 1/5 perfectly sharp exposures for a subject 3 metres away with IS enabled.

Not sure why Canon didn't release this as an L lens given it's price point. I think if they were to add more anti reflective coatings to the front element it could easily make it (though I don't think L versus non-L matters in any way).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 28, 2012)

I don't think there is as much of the L vs. non-L quality anymore. If you've ever shot with the 50 f/1.4 or the 85 f/1.8 or even the 100 f/2, you know what I mean.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 28, 2012)

I know that many people cannot see the point in this lens and I agree the price at present a bit steep for what it is but I am interested in getting this lens as a compact walkaround lens for my 7D. The 'equivalent' FOV on crop of approx 38mm will make it a good widish 'standard' lens- kind of like the 40mm pancake on FF. The pancake on crop is a bit too long for my taste. I like to do a bit of hiking/ mountain walking and the IS function should be quite useful as I like to take video panoramas, and carrying a tripod up a mountain is not always convenient, so the combination of focal length, IS and compact size could make this a winner for me if it is a good performer optically. If it stays at the same price I can see how people would pass it by in favour of the 17-55 EF-S but if it comes down after a while I can see me getting one.


----------



## DianeK (Jun 28, 2012)

Anyone else out there with one? Since my experience with the 40mm pancake was a bust (and it is a bit tight on a crop to boot), I am seriously considering one of these. Our local camera store just got them in today.
Diane


----------



## DianeK (Jun 29, 2012)

Picked one up this afternoon. Quite soft at 2.8 then sharpens up at 4.0-6.3. I think I will be returning it.
Diane


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2012)

Dianne whaty body are you shooting with you seem to be getting alot of soft faster aperture lenses, are you sure its not the body? 2 for 2 is highly unusual


----------



## DianeK (Jun 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> Dianne whaty body are you shooting with you seem to be getting alot of soft faster aperture lenses, are you sure its not the body? 2 for 2 is highly unusual



I have a 7D and a 60D. I would have thought body too but my 70-300L and my 15-85 are both very sharp wide open, although wide open with those two are 4.0 and 3.5 respectively.

Here at two images at 2.8 and 4.0 to show the difference, single focus on centre of flower.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2012)

yeah that does look soft, at least your 7D has AFMA


----------



## DianeK (Jun 29, 2012)

Indeed, but the softness at 2.8 is not something that can be fixed with AFMA otherwise wouldn't all apertures be soft? The f/4 looks good to me.
Diane


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2012)

no once you AFMA your lens it should be good, narrower apertures increase the depth of field and this may make f4 look sharper because its falling in the in focus area of the depth of field, you always do your AFMA on the lens wide open


----------



## DianeK (Jun 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> no once you AFMA your lens it should be good, narrower apertures increase the depth of field and this may make f4 look sharper because its falling in the in focus area of the depth of field, you always do your AFMA on the lens wide open



Failed to mention that FoCal gave me mixed results at f/2.8 (I did all my testing wide open). If I was in close (about 1 ft from subject), it recommended 0 adjustment. When I was further than 2 feet, it recommended +2 adjustment, at more than 3 ft it recommended +5 adjustment. Repeated, same results. Yet, when I compared their before and after images, I could see no improvement with any of the recommended adjustment values. It also recommended best apertures for sharpness between 4 and 6.3 at all distances, with 2.8 being behind even 7.1 and 8 for sharpness.


----------



## mememe (Jun 29, 2012)

Wow the f2.8 Image (and even the f4) of your copy looks bad... I hope its just calibration.

After the pancake being so sharp at 2.8 there is no excuse for that lens being that soft. I mean its f*ing expensive...

If you look at the 5.6 image out of the 5d you notice that the extreme edges are a bit soft. And thats not nice for that price if you look at what the shorty fourty does...


----------



## hyles (Jun 29, 2012)

while the f2.8 shot of the fower does seems a bit soft, I would not make decision based upon a close up shot test. It is not a macro lens, and it is not unusual that a non-macro lens behave sub-standard in closeup. The 17-55 2.8 IS USM is a good example of a very good lens that behave poorly in closeup photography.
Make some more test with more distant subject to see how the lens behave in its native use.
Diego


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 29, 2012)

2.8 isn't pretty. My 40mm Pancake blows it away.

Take a few more shots to rule out focus error.


----------



## DianeK (Jun 29, 2012)

hyles said:


> while the f2.8 shot of the fower does seems a bit soft, I would not make decision based upon a close up shot test. It is not a macro lens, and it is not unusual that a non-macro lens behave sub-standard in closeup. The 17-55 2.8 IS USM is a good example of a very good lens that behave poorly in closeup photography.
> Make some more test with more distant subject to see how the lens behave in its native use.
> Diego



I only posted the flower images because they showed the poor IQ at 2.8 compared to 4 so clearly. I did lots of shooting at various distances.
Diane


----------



## DianeK (Jun 29, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> 2.8 isn't pretty. My 40mm Pancake blows it away.
> 
> Take a few more shots to rule out focus error.



No this wasn't just focus error. This is representative of what I was seeing with all the images I was taking. My 15-85mm at 24mm and f/4 is even a tad sharper, so this new lens gives me nothing I don't already have in my bag. Back it goes.
Diane


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 29, 2012)

This lens is good and all, but I just dont see a solid purpose besides video.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2012)

edy4eva said:


> Taken with 5DII @ 1/160 f5.6 iso50, resized to half with DXO.



can you post a full, non-resized image like that at f/8?

that looks quite promising edge to edge, but with half-resize you can't really tell much, it could be blurring 2 pixels into 1 for all we know


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2012)

DianeK said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > 2.8 isn't pretty. My 40mm Pancake blows it away.
> ...



Your 15-85 at 24mm f/4 is sharper than the 24 IS at f/4? Or do you mean the 15-85 at f/4 is sharper than the 24 IS at f/2.8?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 2, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> This lens is good and all, but I just dont see a solid purpose besides video.



Sharp corner to corner (or so one would hope ;D) landscape lens for FF at less cost than 24 1.4 II or 24-70 II (or 24 T&S II while also being a bit more quick and ready than that one) that also has IS so, for the times, when you don't want constant tripod work slowing you down and becoming a bother you can still get some nice snaps along the way?

Anyway that is what I'd look to it for.


----------



## DianeK (Jul 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> DianeK said:
> 
> 
> > wockawocka said:
> ...


I meant the former, but also the latter is true obviously.
The lens did get returned and I tried the new 28mm with disappointing results. In fact my results were the opposite of LensRentals quick review. The 24mm sharpened up from f/2.8 to f/4 but didn't sharpen all that much after that. The 28mm, on the other hand, was softer at f/2.8 than the 24mm, sharpened up at f/4 and sharpened even more noticeably at f/5.6.
I would like to try different copies of the new 24mm and 28mm, but I'm not so sure the camera store will let me back in 
Diane


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 2, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This lens is good and all, but I just dont see a solid purpose besides video.
> ...



17-40L is more of a landscape lens that this prime for about the same $$$.


----------

