# EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM



## SPL (Jan 31, 2012)

Hello Everyone,

I’m new here and have very much enjoyed the forum. I have learned a lot…I was wondering on some input and comments though. In increasing my lens collection, I have been considering a EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM for my 7D. Hopefully upgrade to a 5DIII in years down the line. My question is, has anyone had any AF/auto focusing, front focusing, back focusing, issues with this lens?,…any ideas/suggestions? Thanks


----------



## JR (Feb 1, 2012)

Never had that issue with mine. It is one of the sharpest lens I have seen, even wide open. I use it with a 5DmkII but with a 7D you will get close to the 35mm view which is great for general purpose. Dont regret buying this lens...also great for video use...

Jacques


----------



## ejenner (Feb 1, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> I think the issue is that the lens is manufactured in conformance with its specs, but that it may be more susceptible than other lenses to require microadjustment. Any others want to chime in on this? I am merely speculating here.



Just from my personal, somewhat limited experience, I would not buy a 1.4 or faster lens without having microadjustment on my body, and would even think seriously about it for an f1.8 or f2 on a telephoto. Even for a 24mm lens, if you are going to want to nail focus at f1.4, either go into a store and find one that works with your body, have MFA, or send the lens and body in for calibration.


----------



## Sdiver2489 (Feb 1, 2012)

I would NOT get this lens for a 7D. I tried 5 or 6 of them. ALL were inconsistent. I even tried sending one to canon maybe 3-4 times, they could not fix the issue. Problem is not consistent in focusing and therefore cannot be fixed with MFA. Look at the reviews on Canon.com. Even there this glaring issue is obvious. I don't think I've seen this issue reported with the 5D Mark II surprisingly.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Feb 1, 2012)

My 24 f/1.4L II works fine on both the 7D as well as 1D4. Did not have to do any MA.


----------



## SPL (Feb 1, 2012)

Hey guys, thanks! I appreciate your time and comments, helps a lot!

Sean


----------



## Apebrains (Jul 21, 2013)

So hi everyone. I'm new here. Been grabbing useful info from here and entertaining myself with gear lust for a while, but I finally found a reason to post. So with that...

Warning: This is going to be a book. For those of you interested in the conclusion, just hop to where I wrote "conclusion". I'll try to be as brief as I can.... 

The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM. This is the newest lens I decided to add to my collection after finding myself in need of a good, fast, sharp, wide angle solution. So I picked one up for a relative steal on CL (rather than going for my other consideration, the venerable EF 16-35 f/2.8L II), and got to playing around. The first night, I tried it while with the seller, and decided that I'd take it home, despite that I wasn't 100% sure of the decision yet, or the image quality is was producing for me, but I figured that for the price at which I acquired it, I could probably make money if I resold it. That said, day 2 rolled around, and I decided to take it outside and start really seeing what it could do. I was impressed. Like, really impressed. It is an absolutely exquisite lens to shoot with, and produces some effects that I just haven't seen another lens capable of producing at this focal length, in part due to that beautiful f/1.4 aperture. It's remarkably sharp, even wide open (full disclosure, I'm on a 7D, so can't say that much about the full frame corner thing...yet, give me a few more days), and produces some wonderful blur outside of the DOF range.

So then day three rolled around and I started planning a shoot with it. While conceptualizing, I tried a few test shots of a setup indoors under some craptastic incandescent lighting, and noticed that my photo quality had kinda gone to poooo. I was suddenly a bit bothered, wondering how something so capable one day ago had produced this hideous shot that now sat upon my LCD. So I took a few more shots, trying to hold really still (yeah, I know it's 1.4 and all), and sadly, to no avail. About now, I became concerned. It appeared that the focus on the lens had grown very soft, and my images were looking downright terrible. Now I had read a thing or two about strange autofocus issues with this lens whilst perusing reviews of it prior to and after acquiring this one; hence the impetus for my concern. Had I acquired a bad copy? Is that why the guy sold it to me, and especially at such a decent deal? Well deuces...

Anyhew, after some reading, this got me to thinking that it was time for some good ol' scientific method. So I sat down at the table, pulled out some DVD cases, arranged them upright in progressively further distances, all perpendicular to my focal plane (so as to test for front and back focusing), pulled up the custom function for Micro Adjustments, and got to work. What I found was wild inconsistency. Sometimes it would be tack sharp, sometimes it was as sharp as a warm stick of butter. And all of this without moving the camera a single millimeter backward or forward, nor side to side. Needless to say, I was perplexed. How can I not move the camera a single iota, but still garner such maddeningly inconsistent results? Well, no scientific method is useful without controls and variables, so I set to discovering an applicable variable.

I tried adjusting the Micro Adjustment to +5, then took a series of three shots. Generally, one in the series would be sharp, with the other two displaying varying degrees of sharpness or softness. This would happen each time. I adjusted to -5. Pretty much the same results. I adjusted to +5 again. To 8. To 15. To 20. To 10. Though some were clearly worse than others, the problem seemed to persist despite the micro-adjustments. Clearly the problem was acting independent of this variable, so I had to try something different. With that, I moved to simply trying different apertures. One would think that to be intuitive, with 1.4 having such a narrow depth of field. Same results each time. Inconsistent, generally with one of three shots being sharper than its companions, though it was ever so slightly less of an issue at smaller apertures. What could be going on here? Was it really just a bad lens copy?

Enter light quality. Or perhaps quantity. Or both. I pulled out the old Fenix flashlight to shed some serious light on the matter and determine if it was simply an issue of there not being enough light for the auto focus system to function as well as it could/should. Admittedly, the kitchen lights at night can be a bit...insufficient, but with a 1.4 lens, I figured there would be no issue, especially since I was shooting on a table with a self timer to prevent any camera movement between shots in the sequence. Well, apparently I was dead wrong on that. Upon issuing that bright white light, I suddenly noticed that the variability between shots in the sequence had dramatically diminished. Interesting. So with that, I set the Micro Adjustments to zero, and began playing. I achieved relatively consistent results as long as that light was shining on the subjects. I moved through the aperture range. Even more consistent as I stopped down. Interesting. So I tried another light source, this one also a relatively pure white LED light, though more distant, and bounced off of the ceiling instead. Close to the same results, though not quite as accurate; minor deviations throughout, but negligible ones at worst. 

So at this point I had a hypothesis and decided to make my testing as accurate as I possibly could. I switched on mirror lockup, pulled out the wireless remote, and thus made sure that there was no influence at all from my touching the shutter button. I repeated the experiment with all three types of light, and each time, the strongest white light seemed to bring the camera to a relatively perfect focus each time. I tried getting a focus point with that light, then switching to manual focus and shooting a three series. ZERO variation. I tried getting auto focus with that light, turning the light off, turning AF off, THEN taking a three shot series under the incandescent. ZERO variation. Dead tack sharp every time. My hypothesis was beginning to pan out pretty much exactly as I expected. Finally, I started moving the camera back and forth in distance from the subject while repeating each different phase of the experiment. Each time, the variations were slightly greater when closer to the subject, and also, each time, the variations were slightly greater at the wider apertures, exactly as one would expect, but why the variation at all? What was causing this problem? 

I hooked up my EF 100mm f2.8L IS USM Macro lens to see if the issue was present in it. There was no variation at any point, in any light, whatsoever. That lens, I know for a fact is as solid as a rock. So how can I relatively succinctly explain the conclusion that I've come to on the issue with this lens? As follows:

Conclusion:

So I've heard that the 5D Mark III doesn't seem to display this anomaly. My conclusion is this: The EF 24 f/1.4 II obviously has a relatively razor thin aperture at f/1.4, as we all know. And the autofocus system on many slightly older dSLRs, (the 7D is beginning to age just a tad now) use slightly older and thus less accurate and proficient algorithms to acquire their focus each time that you half depress the shutter button to initiate said sequence. Depending on infinitesimal differences in focusing location, and especially their application to this algorithm as the processor processes them, there are going to be minor variations in the appropriated plane of focus as dictated by the autofocus system's acquisition of a given focus point. That said, when you're working on such a paper thin focal plane, as is associated with the f/1.4 aperture, you are more liable to experience a loss of focus due to tiny movements of your hands, or what have you. We all know and accept this. What I'm proposing, is that the slightly more antiquated, and thus relatively inferior (when compared with the 5D III) autofocus system found on the 7D (and lesser bodies), in cooperation with their lower light performance, is causing them to search a bit harder to find their focus point in LOWER LIGHT than a more advanced, more recent autofocus system, and therefore it is the addition of more, or higher quality light that allows the AF algorithm to repeatedly reproduce accurate results. When the system has to hunt a bit more because of lower levels of light, or lower quality of light, it is inherently less likely to lock focus on EXACTLY the same millimeter as it did in the frame that was shot immediately prior to this now most recent acquisition. When the light amount or quality is improved, it has a much easier time nailing the same point again and again, thus giving you consistent focus. This is why I believe that I experienced inferior results whilst purchasing the lens under those shoddy indoor lights at night, as well as in my kitchen under those same craptastic incandescents, as opposed to during the day when I took it outside in broad daylight and experienced such phenomenal results. It is a combination of the lens' inherently high level of sensitivity, and extremely narrow potential DOF, in combination with the AF system's tendency to be less accurate in low light situations, that produces the discussed variations. 

Now what of the EF 85mm f/1.2L USM? I'm afraid I can't discuss that point, since I don't own that piece of glass. I don't know if it experiences similar problems, and if not, then why that would be the case.

SO, what does this mean? Well, to me, it means that this lens may not be quite as stellar for low-light applications on a camera body that is not as good at low-light performance as I had initially hoped. This theory would hold consistent, given that the majority of complaints that I have seen with this lens have been on lesser bodies than the 5D II or the 5D III or the 1D or 1Ds series. The lens is capable of amazing things, there is no doubt about that, but I think that if not married to the right body, or if married to such a body under less than optimal conditions, one must simply expect less consistent, and most probably, inferior results. Unfortunate, its true, but I'm not sure that it's enough to make me sell this lens that can perform so fantastically under the right circumstances. 

Now I know that this post was extremely long winded, and I apologize for that. I actually tried to keep it as curt as I could, leaving out some minor details, but I'd love to hear discussion from anyone who owns this lens to see if this theory can be confirmed. 

Do you have the 24 II? 
Do you also have a 5D or higher body, or a 7D or lower body?
Do you shoot mostly in well lit situations, or do you shoot more in low light?
When shooting in low light, and if you own a 7D or lower body, do you discover that your lens' performance is less consistent, or gives consistently poor results?
If so, do you find that these AF issues resolve with the addition of more light, better light, or perhaps stopping down your aperture?

I'd really like to get some confirmation on this, because I know there are a lot of people out there concerned about this, and a lot of them are on forums asking these very questions. So if anyone's ready and willing, chime right in!


Thank you to everyone for all of the sound advice you've provided me so far on this forum, and thanks to those of you who stuck through this beast of a post; and especially, thanks in advance to those of you who participate in the discussion!

All my very best to all,

-The Brains of Ape


----------



## sarangiman (Jul 21, 2013)

Apebrains,

Sounds like you're doing a good job of some controlled testing. Apologies if I missed it, but, are you choosing the focus point? In order to eliminate yet another variable in your testing, you need to choose a focus point & stick with it. For simplicity, say, the center focus point (different AF points can show different performance &, actually, can require different AFMA values).

Low light definitely stresses AF systems, & can result in lower _precision_. This lower precision can, in turn, make it hard to choose an appropriate AFMA value. Since AFMA can also depend on subject distance (and, as I already mentioned, AF point), things can get complicated very fast.

In short, though, I'm not surprised with what you're seeing. My f/1.4 & f/1.2 lenses are extremely moody (the 85/1.2 is a beast in this sense), but in general I can find a somewhat optimal AFMA value per lens. 

I do wish someone would test AF precision of various lens/body combos, including at different EVs, though I realize it's rather difficult & potentially resource-intensive/prohibitive. I recently was surprised by the poor low-light AF precision of my Sony NEX-6 + Sony 10-18mm f/4 OSS lens (which otherwise performs great in daylight), and that's CDAF, not even PDAF! The Zeiss Touit 12mm, OTOH, focuses with near 100% precision (repeatability) at f/2.8. This is the sort of information that, I feel, could be very valuable to consumers investing in a lens/system (as long as the tests are performed carefully/appropriately).


----------



## alexturton (Jul 21, 2013)

i bought a new 241.4 ii and found it to be wildly inconsistent and AFMA didn't help. After some googling I discovered other people having similar problems of inconsistency so I took it back for another copy. My second copy is spot on.


----------



## Apebrains (Jul 21, 2013)

Saringiman, I utilized only the central focus point throughout the entirety of the testing process, but thanks for making sure it remained stringently scientific; that is of course of the utmost importance. I am glad to hear that you've experienced similar fickleness with this lens, as I know many others have as well, but I just really wonder how much of it is the result of the BODY's AF performance in low light, as opposed to simply a lens issue. This obviously can't be completely the case, because when I pair up the 7D with the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro, the issue is completely gone, but I find it interesting that in better lighting conditions, the 24L performs flawlessly. What design flaw in the lens would cause this? Is the 85 1.2L a beast in the good sense (performs well) or in the bad sense (is VERY moody), in the context of your comment about it...? That's certainly another lens I'm interested in, but I need a wide angle solution right now, and this lens is certainly the best horse for the job if it would only behave...

Alexturton, I'm interested to know more, since you are working with a 5D III body. When you had the copy that was performing strangely, was it under low light conditions, or was it simply all the time? When I'm using this lens with good lighting, she focuses beautifully. This wouldn't concern me a shred if it weren't for the fact that I work with strobes quite regularly. Because of that, if I don't use a supplementary light when getting my autofocus point, then I can't expect consistent and accurate focus for when the strobes fire. If I'm doing a compositing image, and wind up with a slightly off focal point on the FIRST shot, then when I switch it to manual focus for the rest of the shots, in accordance with my testing, then every one will likewise be equally off. So essentially, what I'm looking at having to do right now is utilize a strong flashlight in low light situations to acquire my AF point, then switch it off, switch to manual, and proceed about my business without moving the body. Not necessarily problematic, I just wondered if this was an individual copy issue, and if anyone else had discovered this PARTICULAR quirk about it, or if marrying it up to the 5D Mark III alleviated the problem altogether.

Does that make sense?



Incidentally Alex, pretty sure my better half follows your stream on Flickr. As I was sitting here writing this, she's like, "Oh, Alex Turton, I know him!" You can imagine my response as I was curious to know how...


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 21, 2013)

considering picking this up next week. some good info here, thanks guys! 

Apebrains : you do realise your "conclusion" was nearly the same size as your discussion right?  thanks for the obvious effort, appreciate it!


----------



## Apebrains (Jul 21, 2013)

adhocphotographer; Conclusions generally are just that! They're simply a summary for people who didn't want to follow the whole procedure. Suppose I simply wasn't what one may call....succinct.


----------



## Standard (Jul 21, 2013)

No problems whatsoever here. Never had to AF microadjust any of my lenses. I shoot with both the Mark III and Mark II. You can see shots taken with this lens here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dunghoang/tags/canonef24mmf14liiusm/

Awesome clarity when shooting landscape using manual settings with Live View. Just as good handheld using AF. Just remember that any fast lens when shooting at large apertures, ie. f/1.2, f/1.4 + requires proper shooting technique and framing. I use back button focusing (on Mark II, I use single point focus). I see too many people blaming problems, ie. soft or out-of-focus images, noise, focus hunting, etc. to the hardware rather than their own poor techniques.

Some examples below. These are handheld at f/1.4 and f/3.2 respectively:




City of Fireflies by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr




Electric Night by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

With tripod, manual settings, Live View, f/16:




Drop Off by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr




Under a Fleeting Sky by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr


----------



## Apebrains (Jul 21, 2013)

Standard; whereas I understand completely where you are coming from, are you implying that sitting it on a table with a single autofocus point, on a single subject, with mirror lockup, and a wireless remote shutter with no variation in the settings is poor technique? Then how is it that the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro under the exact same conditions produces FLAWLESS results every time? Whereas I understand that it's a bit of a chore, I'm not sure that you read my whole post... I love the 24, I really do, I'm simply confirming many people's suspicions that something is inherently odd about the lens. My question is whether it's isolated to the low light performance of sub 5D bodies. Seeing as you have two different 5D bodies, and yours performs perfectly, my theory remains thus far upheld. Now I understand that bad lens copies do exist, but this lens produces beautiful results for me. It just only seems to want to do it consistently under better lighting conditions, and this is the first time I've ever experienced that with any lens. I just think something is odd about that.


----------



## Standard (Jul 21, 2013)

Hi Apebrains. No. Not at all. I did not read your post(s) as it's quite lengthy. I don't spend much time here reading about test charts or technical tests on lenses, or even cameras for that matter and in no way I was implying you or any member here that they're using poor techniques, nor am I saying that I am the only one that know how to use good techniques. Far from it. I have lots to learn. I am simply saying that I have seen users having own certain lenses, both here and elsewhere, complain issues about their lenses, when it could also be a problem attributed to other factors, such as how they hold a camera, what settings the camera and lens are set at, stability of tripod and head, etc. I know this for a fact because when I take that exact same lens and put it on my camera and shoot images with it, I can't duplicate the same problems they have.

Sorry if you thought I'd implied anything negative about you. I used to post regularly here but when I see certain members misunderstand my comments, or are simply too sensitive about their gear, I deleted my account and now I rarely post anymore. While I dedicate time to learn how to use my gear well, I don't obsess with hardware data or testing techniques. I much prefer to be out shooting as much as I can. I haven't the time to defend, reply, or make clearer my comments. I like helping others but sometimes I get the feeling that people think I am here to simply criticize.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 21, 2013)

I had three copies, two of which I traded for new ones within a few days, they both had what I refer to as "random-focus". Simply put , you can set them on a tripod, shoot a clear and defined target with remote and One Shot focus and 18 out of 20 shots were more or less off and by a complete random amount, giving my infinity focus at 40 cm and lock and take the shot without it being even on the same planet as sharp focus. Canon knew about it and therefor traded them in right away. 

The third copy I kept for a long time, but found focus to be pretty poor in accuracy against the 35 L. It was also adjusted to +13 afma.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 21, 2013)

Apebrains said:


> Standard; whereas I understand completely where you are coming from, are you implying that sitting it on a table with a single autofocus point, on a single subject, with mirror lockup, and a wireless remote shutter with no variation in the settings is poor technique? Then how is it that the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro under the exact same conditions produces FLAWLESS results every time? Whereas I understand that it's a bit of a chore, I'm not sure that you read my whole post... I love the 24, I really do, I'm simply confirming many people's suspicions that something is inherently odd about the lens. My question is whether it's isolated to the low light performance of sub 5D bodies. Seeing as you have two different 5D bodies, and yours performs perfectly, my theory remains thus far upheld. Now I understand that bad lens copies do exist, but this lens produces beautiful results for me. It just only seems to want to do it consistently under better lighting conditions, and this is the first time I've ever experienced that with any lens. I just think something is odd about that.



I had one and used it on my 5DII. It focussed well under about 6 feet. However when focus distance was greater than 6 feet it was really unreliable, regardless of the light. I sent it back and never tried another one.


----------



## Apebrains (Jul 21, 2013)

Standard, I most certainly appreciate you input, and don't think you're a nasty wasty criticizer. I'm glad to have your input as a user of both full frames and the 24.

Viggo and Etienne, good to know that you two have both had similar experiences, and interesting to note that you, Etienne, noticed the problem on the 5D II.

I'm pretty frustrated with the whole experience really, because no other lens in the canon line (other than the TS 24, which isn't what I'm looking for) can do what this lens can do, and that just so happens to be what I WANT it to do. I'd like to get a 16-35, but the lack of the 1.4 aperture is what keeps me from doing so. I wonder if I should just try to acquire another copy, or if I should just abandon the idea of this wonderful lens altogether? What a sad thought that is... 

Does anyone know if I were to send this lens back to Canon if they could fix the problem or replace it? My date code seems to indicate that the lens was produced in September of 2010, so by that I would imagine it's out of warranty, though I still have the warranty card... How could Canon be aware of this problem and not do a recall, or issue a new version of the lens? Seems a little silly. Every single site I go on seems to have reviews that reflect this problem....


----------



## Etienne (Jul 21, 2013)

Apebrains said:


> Standard, I most certainly appreciate you input, and don't think you're a nasty wasty criticizer. I'm glad to have your input as a user of both full frames and the 24.
> 
> Viggo and Etienne, good to know that you two have both had similar experiences, and interesting to note that you, Etienne, noticed the problem on the 5D II.
> 
> ...



If that particular lens is really important to you, why not try another one?
I may try again now that I am using 5DIII, it's just that I'm a bit gun shy at the high price and the time it takes to evaluate and trade until you get what you want. I'm using the 16-35L 2.8 II now.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 21, 2013)

SPL said:


> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I’m new here and have very much enjoyed the forum. I have learned a lot…I was wondering on some input and comments though. In increasing my lens collection, I have been considering a EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM for my 7D. Hopefully upgrade to a 5DIII in years down the line. My question is, has anyone had any AF/auto focusing, front focusing, back focusing, issues with this lens?,…any ideas/suggestions? Thanks



I've seen some people say it had trouble with their 7D (mine didn't seem that bad with my 7D although it will miss at times as will basically any super fast lens with a 7D), but it seems to focus pretty well with the 5D3 for most people I think (it did quite well with my 5D3).

As for a consistent front and back focus that depends upon each lens and each body, you fix that with micro focus adjustment control.


----------



## Apebrains (Jul 21, 2013)

Etienne, that's exactly how I feel (the gun shy, time intensive bit, though I do love the lens that much). I know someone with a 5D III, so I may see if I can borrow theirs for a day to test it on that. If it's just the body/lens combo, then I don't have any problem with that. I've been meaning to upgrade to a 5DIII as soon as I can afford to anyway. Do you find the 16-35 can do the same beautiful things that this one can do when shooting people though? 

LetTheRightLensIn, I'm glad to get that feedback from you, because that's kind of what I'm thinking; that this is just a lens that doesn't marry all that well to the 7D. However, several people on here have said the same thing about the 5D II, although we all know about the AF on THAT body... Unfortunately, the issue in this case is that it is distinctly INconsistent front or back focus. It just doesn't hit where it's supposed to the same way each time, even if the conditions are completely perfect. So because of this, Micro Adjustments won't help at all. It's so bizarre.

What really throws me for a loop is that under the exact same testing conditions, the 100mm L Macro prime tested 100% perfect.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 21, 2013)

Apebrains said:


> Etienne, that's exactly how I feel (the gun shy, time intensive bit, though I do love the lens that much). I know someone with a 5D III, so I may see if I can borrow theirs for a day to test it on that. If it's just the body/lens combo, then I don't have any problem with that. I've been meaning to upgrade to a 5DIII as soon as I can afford to anyway. Do you find the 16-35 can do the same beautiful things that this one can do when shooting people though?
> 
> LetTheRightLensIn, I'm glad to get that feedback from you, because that's kind of what I'm thinking; that this is just a lens that doesn't marry all that well to the 7D. However, several people on here have said the same thing about the 5D II, although we all know about the AF on THAT body... Unfortunately, the issue in this case is that it is distinctly INconsistent front or back focus. It just doesn't hit where it's supposed to the same way each time, even if the conditions are completely perfect. So because of this, Micro Adjustments won't help at all. It's so bizarre.
> 
> What really throws me for a loop is that under the exact same testing conditions, the 100mm L Macro prime tested 100% perfect.



I'm interested in what you find with the 5DIII - 24 1.4 combo.
wrt 16-35L 2.8 II ... it's my most frequently used lens. Obviously you can't get to f/1.4 but you can get to 16 mm and 35 mm. It's a bit soft at 2.8 on the edges, but an extremely versatile lens. You'd be surprised at how many top photojournalism shots are made with this lens.
I have the 28 2.8 IS, and I'm thinking about the 24 2.8 IS. These are really nice light little lenses that are sharp at 2.8


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 21, 2013)

Apebrains said:


> Etienne, that's exactly how I feel (the gun shy, time intensive bit, though I do love the lens that much). I know someone with a 5D III, so I may see if I can borrow theirs for a day to test it on that. If it's just the body/lens combo, then I don't have any problem with that. I've been meaning to upgrade to a 5DIII as soon as I can afford to anyway. Do you find the 16-35 can do the same beautiful things that this one can do when shooting people though?
> 
> LetTheRightLensIn, I'm glad to get that feedback from you, because that's kind of what I'm thinking; that this is just a lens that doesn't marry all that well to the 7D. However, several people on here have said the same thing about the 5D II, although we all know about the AF on THAT body... Unfortunately, the issue in this case is that it is distinctly INconsistent front or back focus. It just doesn't hit where it's supposed to the same way each time, even if the conditions are completely perfect. So because of this, Micro Adjustments won't help at all. It's so bizarre.
> 
> What really throws me for a loop is that under the exact same testing conditions, the 100mm L Macro prime tested 100% perfect.



Maybe some copies of the 24 1.4 II have sloppier breaking on the AF and combine that with the older measuring device that didn't measure slop as precisely and then combine that with a less precise AF system (for all the talk about the advanced 7D AF, it's mostly it's speed and having so many points and so many cross points where it is advanced, the one shot AF precision of it is still basically a good deal less than the 1 series or 5D3 and not even quite a match for 5D/5D2 either for one shot precision) and maybe that explains it?

I don't know. I've felt almost all Canon bodies struggle a bit (although some 1 series and 5D3 help) once you start getting to f/1.4 and the 24 1.4 II didn't seem any worse to me than other f/1.4 lenses, but I have seen enough complaints, even from users who have never complained about anything before, to think there are probably some issues with some 24 1.4 II plus 7D combinations that go above the regular fast lens issues.

Talking about bodies only, I recall that under brutal dark lighting, like a single light bulb heavily shaded and then aiming at a darker part of the room, the 5D3 and 5D2 did about the same while the 7D did much worse. Under regular indoor lighting the 5D3 definitely did the best and then the 5D2 a ways back and then the 7D just a tiny bit back. Under good lighting outdoors the 5D3 did best again and then the 5D2 and then a tiny bit back the 7D.

Some new lenses such as the 24-70 II 2.8 have a high precision measuring device to track exactly how the AF breaking carried out and the newest bodies like the 5D3 and 1DX can access the extra precision (and thus you can sometimes get results like where I set the 24-70 II to f/2.8 and then shot 100 shots in a row, indoors, all in focus).


----------



## sarangiman (Jul 21, 2013)

Apebrains said:


> Saringiman, I utilized only the central focus point throughout the entirety of the testing process, but thanks for making sure it remained stringently scientific; that is of course of the utmost importance. I am glad to hear that you've experienced similar fickleness with this lens, as I know many others have as well, but I just really wonder how much of it is the result of the BODY's AF performance in low light, as opposed to simply a lens issue. This obviously can't be completely the case, because when I pair up the 7D with the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro, the issue is completely gone, but I find it interesting that in better lighting conditions, the 24L performs flawlessly. What design flaw in the lens would cause this? Is the 85 1.2L a beast in the good sense (performs well) or in the bad sense (is VERY moody), in the context of your comment about it...? That's certainly another lens I'm interested in, but I need a wide angle solution right now, and this lens is certainly the best horse for the job if it would only behave...



Interesting -- there really are quite a few people here talking about completely random, inconsistent focus. I wonder if the AF motor in the lens is very inaccurate on some copies (one hypothesis for why the nifty fifty is so poor at focus is just that: possible a very inaccurate motor/focus element placement). 

I forgot to mention that I'm shooting on a 5D III. I stopped even bothering with primes on my 5D II. You could only use the center AF point, properly microadjusted. And focus & recompose at f/1.4 with wide angle primes where you have to move the camera quite a bit to recompose (compared to, say, >85mm focal lengths) just doesn't work. So my higher levels of consistency may be due to the rather outstanding AF performance of the 5D III.

I should also add that in low light I've typically used the 24/1.4 with a 600EX-RT flash attached to my body; the pattern the flash fires most certainly helped the lens autofocus.

By 'beast' I meant it's very hard to tame the 85/1.2. The optimal AFMA even seemed to change on a day-to-day basis; however, it's hard to decouple variables like subject distance & AF point used, so take that comment with a grain of salt (remember: AFMA can change based on subject distance & AF point; Sigma's new USB dock addresses the former by allowing 4 different AFMA values per focal length). The 85/1.2's particular sensitivity to AFMA is not surprising: at f/1.2, the plane of focus is extremely shallow; furthermore, any uncorrected spherical aberration will have a large effect on focus/sharpness at such large apertures. OTOH, given how sharp the lens *can* be wide open, I would think Canon went a long way to correcting spherical aberration. On a good day, the 85/1.2 can focus tack sharp right at f/1.2. But given that often I don't want to gamble, I find myself shooting at f/1.8-f/2.8. Hence I just picked up the 85/1.8, & may be looking to get rid of the 85/1.2 once I do a controlled AF precision test comparing the two (also against a Sigma 85/1.4). 

On a related note, I hope Sigma comes out with a 85/1.4 'Art' lens where we can adjust AFMA for 4 different subject distances. OTOH, if Canon's 70D Dual-Pixel AF system makes AFMA irrelevant... that'd be revolutionary. It's an exciting time in photography (always is  )!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 21, 2013)

I never used my 24 1.4 II all that much below f/2.8 or even f/4 so I actually ended up selling it for the 24-70 II (which, remarkably, more or less matches it for 24mm quality, other than more distortion and bit worse corners near wide open, but with actually LESS purple fringing/LoCA, many shots stopped down were almost identical between the two other than more distortion and LESS LoCA from the zoom; when I compared the 24 1.4 II to 24-105 OTOH, the prime blew that zoom out of the water, yes even at f/8 or f/10, believe it is a fallacy that all lenses perform the same once well stopped down, not even close.) Here and there I miss the 1.4, but not much and love the 24-70 II.


----------



## sarangiman (Jul 21, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Maybe some copies of the 24 1.4 II have sloppier breaking on the AF and combine that with the older measuring device that didn't measure slop as precisely and then combine that with a less precise AF system (for all the talk about the advanced 7D AF, it's mostly it's speed and having so many points and so many cross points where it is advanced, the one shot AF precision of it is still basically a good deal less than the 1 series or 5D3 and not even quite a match for 5D/5D2 either for one shot precision) and maybe that explains it?



Very good point. Roger Cicala hypothesizes that the extra feedback from the AF motors (or sensors that can measure movement of the focus element) help the more advanced AF systems be more precise. This extra information is present with some of the newer lenses & work in conjunction with newer bodies, apparently. Not sure about the 24/1.4 II since that's a bit older. But who knows? The best you can do is treat the system like a black box & just test it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 21, 2013)

I had bought a used 24L II and it was the focus was off. It didn't come close to focusing accurately until f/5.6. Live View was a lot more accurate. Sent to Canon, and the problem was fixed. Used it on a 20D and it was fine using the center point. Used it on a 5DII, and the center point was fine. Use it on a 5D III and it is fine at a lot more focus points.

In general, the target should have high contrast. In low light, that is tougher and the focus accuracy falls. Focus beam helps.

If your not getting good center sharpness in good light (go outside on a bright day, ISO 100 with shutter speeds in the 1/1000s) at your AFMA CALIBRATED distance, then it would make sense to have it checked out.


----------



## sarangiman (Jul 21, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I never used my 24 1.4 II all that much below f/2.8 or even f/4 so I actually ended up selling it for the 24-70 II (which, remarkably, more or less matches it for 24mm quality, other than more distortion and bit worse corners near wide open, but with actually LESS purple fringing/LoCA, many shots stopped down were almost identical between the two other than more distortion and LESS LoCA from the zoom; when I compared the 24 1.4 II to 24-105 OTOH, the prime blew that zoom out of the water, yes even at f/8 or f/10, believe it is a fallacy that all lenses perform the same once well stopped down, not even close.) Here and there I miss the 1.4, but not much and love the 24-70 II.



Hmm. I actually shoot the 24/1.4 at f/1.4 on the 5DIII & center AF precision is quite good after AFMA. I do remember corner/side compositions being quite out of focus though at anything wider than f/2.8 or so during the last wedding shoot, so I had to switch to live view AF. Part of this was also just side/corner softness at wide apertures. Actually, it's quite appalling how bad some of these primes are on the sides once you go to a higher resolution sensor -- plop the 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 on a NEX-7 (no optics in between, just a Metabones Smart Adapter) & you'll see flaws of the lens you'd barely see on a 5D II/III or what-have-you FF body with larger pixels. And that's not even using the full image circle of the lens. Use a SpeedBooster to use the full image circle of the lens & some copies of these primes don't sharpen up on the sides until f/8-f/11 (whereas they're sharp by f/4 on my 5DIII). But of course, in the latter scenario I'm adding extra optics in the way... anyway, I'm getting OT now.


----------



## Apebrains (Jul 21, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Maybe some copies of the 24 1.4 II have sloppier breaking on the AF and combine that with the older measuring device that didn't measure slop as precisely and then combine that with a less precise AF system (for all the talk about the advanced 7D AF, it's mostly it's speed and having so many points and so many cross points where it is advanced, the one shot AF precision of it is still basically a good deal less than the 1 series or 5D3 and not even quite a match for 5D/5D2 either for one shot precision) and maybe that explains it?
> 
> I don't know. I've felt almost all Canon bodies struggle a bit (although some 1 series and 5D3 help) once you start getting to f/1.4 and the 24 1.4 II didn't seem any worse to me than other f/1.4 lenses, but I have seen enough complaints, even from users who have never complained about anything before, to think there are probably some issues with some 24 1.4 II plus 7D combinations that go above the regular fast lens issues.
> 
> ...



I think this is probably spot on. LetTheRightLensIn and Sarangiman, I think we're all on the right page with this. I've really been messing around with it, and it just seems to me that at the wider apertures, the 7Ds AF system just isn't quite up to handling finer subjects and details. I think that's why the 100L Macro was spanking it when I was testing it on the fine writing of the DVD cases, because at the same distance, the Macro 'sees' those details larger and much clearer and was able to focus on them far easier. I find that when I focus on a larger subject, like an eyeball at relatively close range (like within a meter or so), it seems to lock just fine. At that point, the standard drivel about proper technique causing you to lose your narrow DOF and yadda yadda yadda comes into play, but that's nothing I'm not already used to. I know that this copy of the lens can produce killer sharp detail, and it does with regularity. Just playing around I've taken some fun shots with it. It's just the consistency issue in low light. The only thing that really sucks about that was that I kinda bought the lens expecting it to be a superior low light performer when compared with the 16-35 II, ya know, being a faster lens and all. ???


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 22, 2013)

The 24L II is one of the best primes canon ever made. Sharp and contrasty straight from f1.4. But early batches the AF can be a problem.

I'm actually on my second copy of the 24L II.

First one has date number UX, the AF is a bit inconsistent. It just takes (very) OOF shot out of no where, yeah, and the hood ring has a thin layer of matte paint on it which wears off quickly and looks ugly as hell. The Manual focus ring also produces this scratchy sound when being rotated.

Second one has date number UY, the AF is very consistent and a bit faster and quieter than the first one. I am totally happy about it and will likely to keep it for the foreseeable future. And the hood ring has been upgraded to anodized matte finish, same with all my other lenses, which resists wear very well. MF ring is quiet and lighter to move.

So I'd say there is definitely batch differences and late ones (>= UY) seems to be better.

Borrowed an image to show what I was talking about, look at the hood ring, some UX batches suffer from this badly. Because it's a shinny metal finish with thin layer of matte paint. Maybe Canon's part provider goofed up and provided the parts with wrong finish and Canon tried to salvage them by good old can-o-paint. The UY I have is anodized and looks a lot better.


----------



## birtembuk (Jul 22, 2013)

Very interesting discussion and great photos here, guys. I've been procrastinating over this lens for quite a while now. Cannot decide for a 24-70/II as I'd definitely miss larger apertures and I've got other primes. If it was for sure that newer batches are clear from this erratic focusing behavior - and especially on 5D3 - it's time to give it a go.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 22, 2013)

birtembuk said:


> Very interesting discussion and great photos here, guys. I've been procrastinating over this lens for quite a while now. Cannot decide for a 24-70/II as I'd definitely miss larger apertures and I've got other primes. If it was for sure that newer batches are clear from this erratic focusing behavior - and especially on 5D3 - it's time to give it a go.



Same boat... hmmmm... really missed this weekend shooting in a low light temple....


----------



## Viggo (Jul 22, 2013)

My three copies were all 2011, fwiw.


----------



## Apebrains (Jul 23, 2013)

Quick update, for what it's worth:

Gave the 24 a reasonably wide range of subjects and finished a shoot on a 1Ds Mark II body, and the accuracy and performance were remarkably improved, even in pretty significant low light situations. I'm thinking this lens is just too sensitive for a lesser camera body's AF system. The 1Ds II's AF is even a little dated compared to, say, the 1DX, or what have you, but regardless, there was a CLEAR difference in performance. I haven't sat down and played with the DVD cases like I did before, to test the exactness of the accuracy, but I'll do that soon...

Haven't gotten a chance to give it a whirl on the 5DIII yet, but when I do, I'll let everyone know.


----------

