# 24mm 1.4L vs 24mm 1.4L II - just curious



## Gatorsv80 (Mar 31, 2012)

I'm just curious to know if anyone has upgraded from the 24mm F/1.4L mark I to mark II. I bought the mark I used shortly before the mark II came out. Any thoughts on the improvements? Worth upgrading? Would it be hard to find a buyer for the first version? I would assume so...but maybe not.


----------



## takoman46 (Mar 31, 2012)

I have the version 2 and I never tried the version 1. From what I read on the reviews and comparisons on thedigitalpicture.com, I don't know if it's necessary to upgrade. You can peruse through the review here and see if the differences are worthwhile: http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx 

It seems that the improvement for chromatic aberration is the most significant and the version 2 is supposed to be sharper wide open. Anyway, I just love the version 2. It's one of my favorite lenses for wide angle at weddings and I often use it when I travel as a walk around lens.


----------



## kbmelb (Mar 31, 2012)

I owned the mkI for about a year. I shot it on a 40D primarily until I got the 5DII then I found it too wide for my liking. So I sold it.

I bought the mkII a couple years later thinking I needed a fast wide again, but found it still too wide. So I returned it after a week or two.

Now to answer the question, the mkI, I found to be soft wide open but reasonably sharp by f/1.8 and higher it was fairly sharp. The mkII in the short time I had it, I thought was nice lens. The colors were definitely better than the mkI. I found the AF to be slightly faster and more accurate. It definitely didn't search as much. It was definitely sharper and more contrasty wide open. The corners were also notably sharper. I'd almost liken the mkI IQ to that of the 50 1.4 where as the mkII is almost in the ballpark with 50 1.2, 85 1.2II.

If you shoot wide open a lot or need the weather sealing I'd say go with mkII. If you'll be shooting stopped down a bit and don't need weather sealed the mkI is still a decent lens and you could save a couple bucks.


----------



## pwp (Mar 31, 2012)

If the Mk1 is doing what you want then just keep shooting with it. I have a Mk2 and it really is a stellar lens. It doesn't get a huge amount of use in day to day work as I usually require the flexibility offered by zooms. 

24mm on my 24-70 f/2.8 and my 17-40 f/4 are perfectly fine; your Mk1 would outperform these zooms at 24mm. 

At launch and in subsequent reviews the 24 f/1.4 Mk2 was perceived as a tangible improvement over the Mk1, but keep in perspective that the Mk1 was and still is an extremely respectable lens. 

Unless your livelihood depends on getting pin sharp images at 24mm wide open, then take it easy and enjoy your current lens. Sink the money into something that will broaden your kit, or even better, take a holiday!

Paul Wright


----------



## prestonpalmer (Mar 31, 2012)

The II is quite a bit sharper. If you are using a 5D2, 5D3, or greater, the resolving power of the 2nd version is much better than the first. I would recommend spending the extra money, unless you plan on using it on a cropped body, then you won't notice the difference at the edges.


----------



## Gatorsv80 (Mar 31, 2012)

Thanks for the replies. I've used the mark I for two years now. It mainly stays on my 7d shot at f2, the point where I think sharpness meets my liking. Occasionally I'll mount it on my 5d, but it is a bit wide at times. Any idea what people are paying for the mark I used?


----------



## Bosman (Apr 4, 2012)

Just ordered a 24 II yesterday, I have been scanning everywhere for info on it. I would use it for wedding work. I am just a bit concerned ill have buyers remorse because my 24-70 at 24 renders everything very sharp so I feel like its an indulgence for $1800. I was going to put toward another 5dm3 and want to but that's another $4000 i don't want to cough up unless i can make up some cash to justify it. This lens purchase is being justified by my desire to create a unique look that stands out. If i can pull off shooting 24 1.4II on one body and 50 1.2 on another I may be able to sell off the 24-70 but again, the lens is friggen perfect so that will be like selling a child. 
By the way I will use my 70-200 during portions of a wedding but i want to see if i can shoot this way. Ill keep the 70-200 on either my regular 5D or my 1dm3 not sure but for the 50 F1.2 beast i prob want to use the 5DM3 since it seems to tame the beast.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 4, 2012)

The 24mm 1.4L II is a powerhouse of a lens. It's fast, it's sharp, it's AF is quick, it's weather sealed, and it's heavy & expensive. also it has monstrous vignetteing at 1.4 but looks great to me. 

A phenomenal upgrade from the 24 1.4L In wide open performance and worth every penny for a unique look not available with zooms.


----------

