# First L Lens... OH MY #^(*^!& GOD



## LostArk (Aug 9, 2012)

So my 24 1.4L II arrived from B&H this afternoon. Having rented the lens last week and been blown away with its performance, I knew what it was capable of in "real world" shooting situations:




Untitled by Nοah Fence, on Flickr

Though, being my first L lens and all, I decided to conduct an impromptu "formal" test just to see the differences between it and my 28mm 1.8 under relatively controlled conditions. Suffice it to say, my jaw hit the floor and I had to mop up the drool. Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a pixel peeper, gearhead, or test chart shooter. The following results are 100% crops from the original images, representing about 50% of the frame (this means the edges of the test shots are actually mid-frame). Shot on a 5D Mark II, center AF point. No processing other than crop and jpeg compression. The 28 1.8 image was 1/3 stop underexposed, since I was geeking out so much over my new 24mm that I forgot 1.8 is actually 2/3 stop slower. 

Canon 28 1.8 @ f/1.8:
ISO 100 1/50




Canon 24 1.4 II @ f/1.4:
ISO 100 1/60




My only regret is that I didn't spring for one of these babies sooner!


----------



## 1255 (Aug 9, 2012)

enjoy!!!!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 9, 2012)

Haha, yea, the 24L is an awesome lens. I've rented it in the past, still need to buy it.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Aug 9, 2012)

.......and that is how the *L* addiction starts.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 9, 2012)

I found that after I purchased the 24L, I hardly ever use the 16-35L zoom lens anymore.


----------



## helpful (Aug 9, 2012)

You are so right about the 24mm f/1.4 L II. It's one of those treasures in the Canon lens lineup. I barely ever use my 16-35mm L II now, and it's because of the 24mm. My lens has been dusty, taped with duct tape in conditions where the hood might drop into an abyss, and through a lot. And it's still so sharp and beautiful all over the images that it takes that I love it even more.


----------



## pwp (Aug 9, 2012)

If this is your first L lens, you've gone straight to the top shelf with this one. The 24 f/1.4II is a totally awesome piece of glass. Right now I'm doing PP on a job I shot at a large, new supermarket for an advert, and I shot most of the job available light with the 24 f/1.4II on a 5D3. Quality, fast lenses can change the way we shoot, especially with the high iso performance of cameras like the 5D3. 1000iso is the new 200iso!

Trouble is, now that you have tasted the best, it's hard to work with the rest...

PW


----------



## caoko (Aug 9, 2012)

is it just me, or do I see two test charts?


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 9, 2012)

caoko said:


> is it just me, or do I see two test charts?



You do. One is his 28mm, the other his new 24L


----------



## KurtStevens (Aug 9, 2012)

Been wondering if its worth trading 16-35 up for 24L but I can't pull the trigger on it. 16 is super nice, especially for those epic photos. I like the 24 though, hope you enjoy the lens!


----------



## c3hammer (Aug 9, 2012)

The 24L II is an incredible lens. I think you still need 16mm in the lineup though if you are on a crop cam. The Tokina 11-16 is a good complement to the 24L II if you are on the 1.6x sensor.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 9, 2012)

c3hammer said:


> The 24L II is an incredible lens. I think you still need 16mm in the lineup though if you are on a crop cam. The Tokina 11-16 is a good complement to the 24L II if you are on the 1.6x sensor.
> 
> Cheers,
> Pete



According to his Flikr groups, he has a 5d2 or 5d3 based on one of the groups he added the image to. I do agree, UWA at 16/17mm is awesome on a FF.


----------



## unadog (Aug 9, 2012)

pwp said:


> high iso performance of cameras like the 5D3. 1000iso is the new 200iso!



For truth on the High ISO? 

I have a 5D3 coming on Friday. I am shooting a musical group 2x per week. On my T4i I was shooting tonight at 1600 ISO, 1/50 sec. I need 1-2 stops more, to 3200, 6400, or more on the 5D3. That is the one reson I bought it.

Can you compare to the T3i/7D? Will 6400 on the 5D3 be better than 1600 on T3i/T2i/7D? 

On the "L" lenses: I had 7 L's, plus 6 other lenses. I decided to downsize to only 3+- lenses. It didn't work - I am right back up there, with the 24-70, 70-200 2.8, 70-200 4.0, 24-105, 45 TS-E, 90 TS-E, and need to add some prime L's. 

Once you use good glass, everything else sucks! The 40mm pancake is right in there though, very nice. 

Looking forward to the 24-70 II! If I had to choose 1 lens for life, it would be the 24-70.

But good Canon glass holds it's value very well. As prices go up over 5-8 years, you might even break even on it.

Good luck!
Michael


----------



## M.ST (Aug 9, 2012)

The 24 1.4L II is a gret lens. Forget the zooms


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 9, 2012)

unadog said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > high iso performance of cameras like the 5D3. 1000iso is the new 200iso!
> ...



ISO 6400 on the 5d3 is quite usable for web, especially live music where people are very forgiving of grainy or much less than perfect images. Not ever owning the T3i/T2i/7D, I'd say it's likely that ISO 6400 is probably as good, or better (in terms of look & feel of the noise) as ISO 1600 on those bodies. This shot is taking at ISO 10,000 on [email protected]/2.0, 1/100. Definitely not an ideal situation, and lots of noise in the dark spaces on the water. But overall, pretty usable for what it is.


----------



## unadog (Aug 9, 2012)

[quote author=Drizzt321] I'd say it's likely that ISO 6400 is probably as good, or better (in terms of look & feel of the noise) as ISO 1600 on those bodies. [/quote]

Thanks Aaron!

I spent about 10 years doing medium format & then digital studio and location strobe work. Highest quality, big prints, never never never above ISO 100.

Time to explore some new terrain I guess. Amazing tools we have today!

I did a lot of blurry, grainy, challenging images when I was a Photograpy undergraduate, and in B&W. When I went to almost all color in 1998, I kept going to more refined, pure, beautiful color, smooth tonalities, big prints on my 7600 & 9600. 

Time to mix the two I guess. 

Dang, I ordered the 5D3 2nd day from adorama and paid $51 to get it here Friday. A Canon 9500 II printer, with free ground, ordered and shipped the same day is also getting here Friday. You think they might have said hey, free will get there .... (Free said 7-10 days.)

Oh well ... Back to our regularly scheduled L glass fest! 

Thanks for helping. And nice web site too, nice images. Have fun!

Best,
Michael


----------



## Drizzt321 (Aug 9, 2012)

unadog said:


> [quote author=Drizzt321] I'd say it's likely that ISO 6400 is probably as good, or better (in terms of look & feel of the noise) as ISO 1600 on those bodies.



Thanks Aaron!

I spent about 10 years doing medium format & then digital studio and location strobe work. Highest quality, big prints, never never never above ISO 100.

Time to explore some new terrain I guess. Amazing tools we have today!

I did a lot of blurry, grainy, challenging images when I was a Photograpy undergraduate, and in B&W. When I went to almost all color in 1998, I kept going to more refined, pure, beautiful color, smooth tonalities, big prints on my 7600 & 9600. 

Time to mix the two I guess. 

Dang, I ordered the 5D3 2nd day from adorama and paid $51 to get it here Friday. A Canon 9500 II printer, with free ground, ordered and shipped the same day is also getting here Friday. You think they might have said hey, free will get there .... (Free said 7-10 days.)

Oh well ... Back to our regularly scheduled L glass fest! 

Thanks for helping. And nice web site too, nice images. Have fun!

Best,
Michael
[/quote]

Your welcome, glad to help you see some of the possibilities with the current 35mm format cameras these days.

Thanks for the compliment, although personally I think I need to re-do some of my website UX, but damnit Jim, I'm a software engineer, not a designer!


----------



## Bruce Photography (Aug 9, 2012)

The 24mm 1.4 L mark 2 is a great lens. I'm a landscape guy and the only lens that I like better is the tilt-shift 24mm II lens but it is only 3.5. But it is sharp everywhere in the frame and no CA. It even takes a filter that the 17mm tse does not. Dual axis is wonderful. Nikon is only single axis.

Enjoy your 24 and welcome to L land.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Aug 9, 2012)

After getting the 5D3, I was finding my 16-35 II a bit on the wide side. I already had the 50 L, and decided to try the 24 1.4 II. I used it for one weekend, was amazed and sold the 16-35 the following week. 
No regrets.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 9, 2012)

24L II > 35L


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 9, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> 24L II > 35L



True that.


----------



## theobdt (Aug 9, 2012)

L glass is the truth! Once you start shooting with that it's very hard to go back to anything standard or point and shoot. I have the 70-200 2.8L II, 24-70 2.8L I, 16-35mm 2.8L, and 35mm 1.4L. I love them all!


----------



## akiskev (Aug 9, 2012)

unadog said:


> Can you compare to the T3i/7D? Will 6400 on the 5D3 be better than 1600 on T3i/T2i/7D?


From my own experience 5d 6400 looks a lot like 7d's 1600. So I think you 'll be happy with what you ll get!


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 9, 2012)

akiskev said:


> unadog said:
> 
> 
> > Can you compare to the T3i/7D? Will 6400 on the 5D3 be better than 1600 on T3i/T2i/7D?
> ...



+1. Im almost willing to say that ISO 6400 on the 5D3 when processed and downscaled, looks like ISO 800 on the 7D.


----------



## EOBeav (Aug 9, 2012)

You know what they say, once you go L, you never go back. Or something like that.


----------



## Richard Lane (Aug 9, 2012)

Noah,
I love the mood of that shot!

See you at the CLub! 

Rich


----------



## caoko (Aug 9, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> caoko said:
> 
> 
> > is it just me, or do I see two test charts?
> ...



interesting. why does the op own a test chart?


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 9, 2012)

M.ST said:


> The 24 1.4L II is a gret lens. Forget the zooms



Zooms have their place too. For instance the 70-200 2.8II is arguably the best zoom Canon has made so far. Probably rivals some good primes.


----------



## mws (Aug 9, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> M.ST said:
> 
> 
> > The 24 1.4L II is a gret lens. Forget the zooms
> ...



+1

70-200 2.8 II is amazing.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 9, 2012)

Forget the zooms? Yeah, ok............


----------



## Tcapp (Aug 9, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Forget the zooms? Yeah, ok............



prime is the way to go. My only zoom lens is the 70-200 2.8 is II.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Aug 9, 2012)

pwp said:


> Trouble is, now that you have tasted the best, it's hard to work with the rest...
> 
> PW



The OP can still buy the 200/2 to beat the 24/1.4


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 9, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Forget the zooms? Yeah, ok............
> ...



Well I shoot college sports and weddings, so that would be quite restrictive for me at least.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 9, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Forget the zooms? Yeah, ok............
> ...



New 24-70 mrk II could be THE LENS too


----------



## Tcapp (Aug 9, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I shoot almost only weddings. Works great for me. I have very little experience with sports.


----------



## Tcapp (Aug 9, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



No, at that focal length, i need the thin DoF of a 1.4 lens. The zoom could be as sharp as the 24 1.4 stopped down to 5.6, and it wouldn't matter for me.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 9, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



Oh no, I agree. I know many photographers who shoot only primes at weddings. I just happen to shoot my weddings with a photojournalistic aspect, because of my sports background, and I am not able to do that with only primes. I'm constantly running around and zooming in and out 

My favorite prime is the 24L, but my second favorite is 200L. My most used prime is the 50L.


----------



## Tcapp (Aug 9, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I love my 85 more than life itself.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 9, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



That baby is gunna rock. The only thing is the 16-35 will need to be replaced with a 14-24L.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 9, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...




+1....that will cover from 14-200 f2.8 , add 1 prime for super low light, maybe CRs 35L II then am set for awhile. ;D


----------



## sandymandy (Aug 9, 2012)

For anything else besides shooting sports, animals and perhaps documentary u can go fine with primes only.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 9, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...




Seriously though, if the 24-70II is anywhere near those specs, the 16-35 just won't cut it anymore. A killer 14-24L though will take care of the 14-200 range very nicely. ;D


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 9, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> For anything else besides shooting sports, animals and perhaps documentary u can go fine with primes only.



For anything else besides shooting landscapes, portraits and stills, you can go fine with zooms only.


----------



## nitelife2 (Aug 9, 2012)

caoko said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > caoko said:
> ...



What do you mean by "own"? There are printers to make a ISO 12233 chart. Not surprising imho...


----------



## Tcapp (Aug 9, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > For anything else besides shooting sports, animals and perhaps documentary u can go fine with primes only.
> ...



News flash. You can do anything with primes OR zooms. Its just a matter of quality and DoF vs convenience. :


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 10, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > sandymandy said:
> ...



Lol no news there, was just ribbing him. I'd say it's a matter of quality and DOF vs not missing a shot.


----------



## Tcapp (Aug 10, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > Razor2012 said:
> ...



Make sure you are in the right place at the right time and you won't miss a shot with any lens.


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 10, 2012)

Razor2012 said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > For anything else besides shooting sports, animals and perhaps documentary u can go fine with primes only.
> ...



For shooting anything you're fine with zooms or primes, as long as you know your kit and how to use it


----------



## jrista (Aug 10, 2012)

@LostArk: Your now on LSD: *L-Series (ad)'Diction*    

Enjoy your new lens, and a life without cash!



Out of curiosity, I'm not sure how to interpret your test chart shots. Neither of them look particularly great, they are different white balances, and they are different sizes so a direct comparison is pretty tough. I can't really tell if, wide open, the 24/1.4 is really better or not...kind of seems like the 28/1.8 is a tad sharper...but can't really say.


----------



## Razor2012 (Aug 10, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> Razor2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



The thing is you can't always be at the right place at the right time. Make sure you have the right lens at the right time and you won't miss a shot.


----------



## caoko (Aug 10, 2012)

nitelife2 said:


> caoko said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



I'm just curious as to why he has a test chart before he has a L lens. test charts seem like a low priority item in a photographer's arsenal. heck I'm pretty sure most photographers don't have test charts.


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 10, 2012)

caoko said:


> I'm just curious as to why he has a test chart before he has a L lens. test charts seem like a low priority item in a photographer's arsenal. heck I'm pretty sure most photographers don't have test charts.



No, but when you're on canonrumours.com/forum/, then i'm sure a lot of us *do* have test charts. (Don't call me a photographer, I'm a gear-head. There is a difference, and you can be both.)
Of course, I just printed one from here on A3, but I know of at least one person around here who's spent the full few hundred dollars on a real one.


----------



## unadog (Aug 11, 2012)

akiskev said:


> unadog said:
> 
> 
> > Can you compare to the T3i/7D? Will 6400 on the 5D3 be better than 1600 on T3i/T2i/7D?
> ...



Thanks so much! And RLPhoto too.

Good luck guys. 

I also agree on the 24-70 II. 

The existing 24-70 is the one lens I would pick if I could only have 1 lens for life. If I had to sell every other lens to get the 24-70 II, I think I would! Gonna be awesome. 

That and the 70-200 and you are covered for 90% of pro work, then fill in with your specialty: 24L, 200L, Tilt Shift, etc. 

Cheers! Michael

Best,
Michael


----------

