# Review - EF 24 f/1.4L II



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 22, 2013)

Discuss our review of the Canon EF 24 f/1.4L II here,


----------



## distant.star (Mar 22, 2013)

.
I find nothing to fault in the lens. Well, maybe some CA, but nothing worth griping about.

My conclusion is this is the 24mm version of the 135mm f/2.0L, my favorite lens. It gives me virtually the same look.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 22, 2013)

I love my 24LII. I prefer it over the 35L.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 22, 2013)

Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.

Most of the time that I'm looking for 24mm, I'm almost instinctively reaching for the TS-E 24. And I'm not looking for speed at those times.

I think most people would be very happy with either the 24 f/1.4 or the TS-E 24, but I don't think very many would get a lot of use out of both. They're both 24mm L lenses, yes, but they're not at all interchangeable and have no overlap except focal length. One might think that therefore there'd be room in the kit for both...but, as I see it, if you're happy with the one the other isn't going to interest you much except as a very expensive novelty.

And I couldn't be more thrilled with the TS-E 24....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 22, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.
> 
> Most of the time that I'm looking for 24mm, I'm almost instinctively reaching for the TS-E 24. And I'm not looking for speed at those times.
> 
> ...



I think the 24L II's utility depends on whether one shoots primes or zooms. I see it as competition with a 24-70 or a 24-105 (zoom vs. prime).


----------



## anthonyd (Mar 22, 2013)

How would you compare the 24 against the new Sigma 35 for portraiture?
I'm currently using the Canon 50 f/1.4 on a APS-C body, and while it's great, it is a little too long for indoor work, unless you are doing tight crops.
So, if you wanted a wider lens to complement your 50 (x1.6 = 80) for portrait work, would you go with the Canon 24L (x1.6 = 38.4) or the Sigma 35 (x1.6 = 56)?


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 22, 2013)

Love the review. As for the focal length itself, Ive never been a big fan...fits better in a line up that includes 50mm rather than 35mm as a standard.


----------



## JVLphoto (Mar 22, 2013)

anthonyd said:


> How would you compare the 24 against the new Sigma 35 for portraiture?
> I'm currently using the Canon 50 f/1.4 on a APS-C body, and while it's great, it is a little too long for indoor work, unless you are doing tight crops.
> So, if you wanted a wider lens to complement your 50 (x1.6 = 80) for portrait work, would you go with the Canon 24L (x1.6 = 38.4) or the Sigma 35 (x1.6 = 56)?



If you're sticking with APS-C you might also want to consider Sigma's 30mm f/1.4, it's a solid performer, maybe not "pro" quality, but I owned it for a while and got really good use of it. Or maybe even the 40m f/2.8 (it's sharp and low cost). The Sigma 35 f/1.4 is pretty remarkable, look for my review very soon.

24mm isn't particularly flattering for portraiture, environmental work, like weddings of photojournalism, where you want to isolate a subject within an "area" are definitely great uses for this lens, and yes, also very good on a crop body, even avoiding a lot of the lens "flaws" like vignetting.


----------



## charlesa (Mar 22, 2013)

Nice lens, but no match for the TS-E II when in need of that focal length (landscapes and architecture)


----------



## JVLphoto (Mar 22, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > Justin's reasons for selling his 24 match up well with why I never got one.
> ...



In this I disagree. I have a multi zoom/prime kit, and the only zoom that I've seen produce a "look" like the 24mm prime is the new 24-70 ƒ/2.8 L II, wide open. It would, I think, complement someone with a 24-105, since that lens isn't particularly sharp at 24mm and starts at f/4... you're missing a lot of bokeh at that aperture. One of the reasons behind my original purchase of the 24 .14 was that I thought I could use it's shallow depth of field to isolate subjects in busy environments that I couldn't control.

My only fault there was that I didn't account for my own inability to properly focus the damn thing.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 22, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> 24mm isn't particularly flattering for portraiture



If your definition of "portrait" is "head-and-shoulders passport-style photograph," then, yes, that's true.

But your review has one portrait after another, and they're all really good! Indeed, I'd say that the 24 f/1.4 is one of the best portrait lenses there is -- provided you're not trying to use it for headshots.

Cheers

b&


----------



## JVLphoto (Mar 22, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> JVLphoto said:
> 
> 
> > 24mm isn't particularly flattering for portraiture
> ...



lol, okay true, I guess I was just interpreting the comment one way. It's *great* for the kind of portraiture I did with it


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 22, 2013)

It seems like 7D users complain about AF with this lens more than anyone else.
My copy focused very well at f/1.4 on my 5D3 and pretty well on my 5D2 and not badly on my 7D. I do see lots of 7D users complaining that it focuses terribly on their body though.

Anyway I sold mine for the 24-70 II though. I mostly used it stopped down and the 24-70 II is the one prime that can match the 24mm 1.4 II when both are stopped down. The 24 1.4 II had been among my most used lenses before though. I used the 760-200 f/4 IS and later 70-300L even more though.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 22, 2013)

Thanks a for another nice review, Justin. I particularly like the last portrait (couple shot). Great color - very cinematic, and the angle is great.

One additional benefit of shooting primes (and why I think everyone should spend at least some time with a few primes) is how the lack of zoom range makes you think more creatively about framing, angle of view, and DOF. Primes helps build creativity. My personal kit is a mix of primes and zooms, and I like them both for different reasons.

I bring that up to say that your last shot to me is the kind of shot that one learns to take primarily be shooting primes and boosting creativity.


----------



## dswatson83 (Mar 22, 2013)

I find few uses for f/1.4 at 24mm. I much prefer the 35mm focal length personally and there are some great options for the 35mm f/1.4 lenses too. Personally, I'm a new fan of the Sigma because of the sharpness but it is hard to argue with the Canon version either. Maybe Canon will replace it this year.
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 vs Canon 35mm f/1.4 - Fight!


----------



## wayno (Mar 22, 2013)

I love this lens however I reach for the 35L more often as I do find that length somewhat more practical. However portraits from the 24 - particularly childrens', can be stunning.

I've recently compared the 24-70ii at 24 with this and whilst the zoom is as sharp, I actually like the 'look' of the prime marginally more - something almost 'film-like' about it. A tired or vague description perhaps but the 24L is really unique.


----------



## padmasana (Mar 22, 2013)

It's my favorite lens, too. Great results on both 5DIII and 7D. If I had to look for quibbles, it would be that the lens hood on mine isn't secure enough in busy environments unless I use a bit of gaffers tape to keep it from rotating.


----------



## frozengogo (Mar 22, 2013)

I'm looking to rent a lens for a backpacking trip this summer in the Sierras and was looking at the Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8 would you go with the Zeiss 21 or Canon 24. Manual focus isn't an issue.


----------



## extremeinstability (Mar 22, 2013)

frozengogo said:


> I'm looking to rent a lens for a backpacking trip this summer in the Sierras and was looking at the Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8 would you go with the Zeiss 21 or Canon 24. Manual focus isn't an issue.



I had the 24 first on a 5D II but quickly wound up swapping it out for the 21 Zeiss. I'd hoped to use the fastness of the 24 for night sky stuff but the coma is so extreme it rendered it useless for that and needed stopped to at least F2.8 anyway. The Zeiss is dope.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 22, 2013)

Nice review ...would like to own it but I don't shoot prime much, also not as skilled as some of you prime shooters.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 22, 2013)

padmasana said:


> It's my favorite lens, too. Great results on both 5DIII and 7D. If I had to look for quibbles, it would be that the lens hood on mine isn't secure enough in busy environments unless I use a bit of gaffers tape to keep it from rotating.



Same with my hood. I use two very small pieces of plastic pushed into the slot where the locking-"bumps" are from inside the hood to push them further out and lock harder, it works, but I can't tell you how many times I have taken a quick shot of something and have top and bottom corner all black from the slightly twisted hood, REALLY annoying.

I love my 24 and agree with the review completely. 1.4 at 24 is unique when used with a close'ish subject. I am on my third copy, the first two had the same focusing error, tested it in one shot with a LensCal target on a tripod, defocused between shots, and 18 out of 20 were completely off and the last two where far from useable, seems just random when it tried to focus. MY current copy works like it should, but the precision of AF is not even kind of close to the 35.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 22, 2013)

wayno said:


> I love this lens however I reach for the 35L more often as I do find that length somewhat more practical. However portraits from the 24 - particularly childrens', can be stunning.
> 
> I've recently compared the 24-70ii at 24 with this and whilst the zoom is as sharp, I actually like the 'look' of the prime marginally more - something almost 'film-like' about it. A tired or vague description perhaps but the 24L is really unique.



The 24-70 II zoom actually has less purple fringing though so if you shoot branches against clouds they stay normal with the zoom and go a bit purple and green fringed with the prime so I almost feel the 24-70 II has the purer look at 24mm! (once you start getting above 35mm the zoom does start getting a bit weak in the corners and eventually even far edges even at f/8 when compared to primes or even the 70-200/300s though- although it's f/2.8 performance in the center remains insanely good right up to 70mm! and it's PF free too!) Although the prime still does that a lot better than say the 24-105L zoom.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 22, 2013)

frozengogo said:


> I'm looking to rent a lens for a backpacking trip this summer in the Sierras and was looking at the Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8 would you go with the Zeiss 21 or Canon 24. Manual focus isn't an issue.



def zeiss 21mm IF it's not too wide for you and you don't mind loss of AF or f/1.4

24mm does more (AF,f/1.4, not crazy wide) but the zeiss has some insane beyond insane micro-contrast, people go much to much on about zeiss 3D magic and all that (my canon 50mm 1.4 looked no different to me than the zeiss 50 1.4 i tried and and so on) BUT for a very few of their lenses they do seem to have something special and this 21mm of theirs is one

depending waht you shoot the canon 24 T&S II might be even better, but only if you will make use of the tilts and shifts


----------



## ezdariz (Mar 23, 2013)

hi, I found this statement from fredmiranda.com, though I haven't tried it myself...

"Had some AF issues with 7D at first. I went through 3 copies of the lens. I was about to give up on it, when I tried a 7D "hard boot." Pull both batteries and leave it with power switch "on" for several hours. That fixed it."


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 23, 2013)

This is a lens on my wish list, but I could not justify it because I take very few images at 24mm.

I did borrow one and slip it on my 5D MK II, and snapped off some casual low light shots indoors. They all came out sharp and impressed me.

If 24mm is something you use a lot on a FF body, Its great.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 23, 2013)

I own both the 24L II and the 24-70L II. Although the zoom is a tad sharper f/2.8 and wider, I'll never sell the 24 prime because you can do some really cool things at wider apertures with this lens if you just try it. Go out at dusk downtown and do some street photography at say, f/1.6 and you'll love it!


----------



## dswtan (Mar 23, 2013)

extremeinstability said:


> I'd hoped to use the fastness of the 24 for night sky stuff but the coma is so extreme it rendered it useless for that and needed stopped to at least F2.8 anyway.


This needs emphasizing. This lens is *terrible* for starfield astronomy due to coma. Justin's review is actually very misleading on this -- and I'm fine with the rest of the review. He admits "...I haven’t explored this type of work myself...".

I try to get the best equipment and am keen on astrophotography. I thought "the coma can't be that bad; people must be pixel-peeping; it's an L lens!". I was very wrong. 

Please see:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50949062
http://www.lenstip.com/245.7-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM_Coma_and_astigmatism.html 
http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.com/2013/02/overcoming-coma-aberration-part-2.html


----------



## Rowbear (Mar 23, 2013)

I like your first shot. I visit that spot often in the summer and have talked to this artist many times. He's very interesting.


----------



## infared (Mar 23, 2013)

Real review, no BS. Great images, all around!...I do not own this lens but have considered it...although to be honest what has put me off on it is the focus issues that I have read about online. I know that any lens is difficult to focus at f/1.4..but I am thinking that Justin's repeated comments about how he has difficulty focusing this lens but that it is all him, not the lens, leads me also to believe that it may not be all Justin's fault!?  Clearly he is a VERY competent photographer.
I just took delivery of a Sigma 35mm f.1.4 yesterday and am leaving for the weekend to give it a run thru...hopefully it is as good as promised. If Sigma stays true to their word about producing more Art lenses at this caliber, the Canon 24mm f/1.4 could become a footnote for this photographer, if Sigma can make us one as good and reasonably-priced as the 35mm???..oh..and the lens hood on the Sigma is IMPRESSIVELY secure. (the only thing that Sigma did wrong so far, was they included a zippered toaster cozy for the lens instead of cool, simple lens pouch...????? LOL..that thing is staying in the box!). I hope they can deliver more lenses like this.


----------



## swldstn (Mar 23, 2013)

So it's unclear from the review if the reviewer really likes his focal length on the cropped frame 7D used for all the shots shown in the review or for full frame body. Certainly there are lots of people who love the 35L on a full frame body so I old suspect users of the 24L II will love it on 7D. I have the 24L II, 35L, and 24-70L II, and the TS-E 24L II and find the 24L II doesn't get on my camera. 24-70L II for general use and in events with and without a flash. 35L for low light down to F/1.4, TSE for architecture mostly with a tripod. Steve


----------



## JVLphoto (Mar 23, 2013)

swldstn said:


> So it's unclear from the review if the reviewer really likes his focal length on the cropped frame 7D used for all the shots shown in the review or for full frame body. Certainly there are lots of people who love the 35L on a full frame body so I old suspect users of the 24L II will love it on 7D. I have the 24L II, 35L, and 24-70L II, and the TS-E 24L II and find the 24L II doesn't get on my camera. 24-70L II for general use and in events with and without a flash. 35L for low light down to F/1.4, TSE for architecture mostly with a tripod. Steve



I did like it on the 7D, I had actually forgot how much until I looked back at the images I shot with it. In fact, I might have liked the tighter framing a crop sensor buys me. On full frame, I'm partial to 35mm lenses, and this makes sense in this context. As CRguy mentioned in his intro, it's a great lens on all camera formats. Obviously you take full advantage of it on a FF camera, but I was able to get some great results on crop too.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 23, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> On full frame, I'm partial to 35mm lenses, and this makes sense in this context.



Yup, 35mm is a lot more versatile on Full Frame...as the 24mm becomes a ~38mm FOV on the crop sensor it finds more use on the crop. 

But on a FF, 24mm is a tad more of a specialized lens...it works best for outdoor portraits and groups etc IMHO...for indoors low light I prefer the 35mm as it provides better control of the framing...when the 24mm is used for typical indoor shots, you get unwanted items on the borders of the frame... furniture, window sills, ceilings. 

Yes, you can always crop, then why not just use a straight 35mm or a 50mm instead? 



JVLphoto said:


> As CRguy mentioned in his intro, it's a great lens on all camera formats. Obviously you take full advantage of it on a FF camera, but I was able to get some great results on crop too.



Now JVL, you are just trying to get in a few nice things to say to be PC in the review. ;D

I dont' dislike the 24mm actually, I just think it is really a niche lens for "most" users. If it is landscape, I will rather use a TSE or even the UWA zoom.


----------



## hammar (Mar 23, 2013)

I use my 24/1.4 II as my primary lens on my 5D3, and before that on my 5D2.

I use the 40/2.8 when I want something more narrow and the 70-200 f/4L IS for tele. Next purchase will definitively be 135/2.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 24, 2013)

Good discussion all. I appreciate your comments!

Regarding usage of this lens, I find it odd that the 24L seems relegated to environmental portraiture, full body portraits, etc. Would one not use this for landscape work? I appreciate that the tilt-shift is preferred for some things (architecture comes to mind) but is the 24L II an underperformer when you stop it down for landscape work? Is there another lens that is preferred to this (on FF) for landscape work? Surely not the 16-35... (-10 if you say the Nikon 14-24.)

I would never think to ask this for _another_ ultra-wide aperture lens, like the 50L or 85L. I honestly see those lenses as some form of troublesome prima donnas; they seem to be used principally for what they can do that other lenses cant -- shooting between F/1.2 and perhaps F/2.

But a 24mm prime strikes me as (a) sharper than zooms (the impressive new 24-70 II notwithstanding) and (b) an ideal FOV for landscape work.

So talk me down -- if you're at a great natural vista, why _wouldn't_ you use this lens?

I ask because I am considering a move away from zooms and selling my 24-70 F/2.8L Mk I for this 24 prime and likely the 50 F/2 IS that should come out this year. Understand that I would use the 24 prime for the reasons discussed on this thread, but if it's not excellent for landscape work, I might switch to the 35L and the new 50 instead. 

Thoughts?

- A


----------



## Stickman (Mar 24, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I love my 24LII. I prefer it over the 35L.



That single picture said more to me than the actual review, thank you.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 24, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> So talk me down -- if you're at a great natural vista, why _wouldn't_ you use this lens?



If it's what you've got in your bag, sure, of course, use it. And it'll just just fine.

But if you're looking to get a 24mm lens to shoot landscapes, the TS-E 24 outperforms the 24 f/1.4 by such a significant margin at that sort of thing that you'd be silly to get the 24 f/1.4.

And, similarly, if you're looking to do environmental portraiture...well, yes, the TS-E 24 can do that as well as the 24 f/1.4 can do landscapes, but the 24 f/1.4 is so much better than the TS-E 24 at environmental portraiture that you'd again be silly to get the TS-E 24 for environmental portraiture.

I'd even go so far as to suggest that, if you do a lot of both, you should have both lenses....

It's like choosing between a minivan and a pickup truck. Can you haul a bunch of stuff in a minivan? Sure, but would you really want to? And can you ferry a bunch of people in a pickup truck? Again, yes, but why?

Horses for courses and all that....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Canon-F1 (Mar 24, 2013)

personally, for landscapes, i would love slower but tack sharp and well corrected wideangle lenses.

why should i pay for f1.4 when i use it only at f5.6 and higher anyway.

a 14mm f4 as widest would be fine for me.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 24, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> Good discussion all. I appreciate your comments!
> 
> Regarding usage of this lens, I find it odd that the 24L seems relegated to environmental portraiture, full body portraits, etc. Would one not use this for landscape work? I appreciate that the tilt-shift is preferred for some things (architecture comes to mind) but is the 24L II an underperformer when you stop it down for landscape work? Is there another lens that is preferred to this (on FF) for landscape work? Surely not the 16-35... (-10 if you say the Nikon 14-24.)
> 
> ...



The 24L is not sharper than the new 24-70L II lens. The zoom is sharper. Only advantage is the prime can go wider, nothing else.


----------



## Standard (Mar 24, 2013)

> The 24L is not sharper than the new 24-70L II lens. The zoom is sharper. Only advantage is the prime can go wider, nothing else.



Really? What are you basing this off? Your own experience or other reviews and tests you have read? Just curious.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 24, 2013)

Standard said:


> > The 24L is not sharper than the new 24-70L II lens. The zoom is sharper. Only advantage is the prime can go wider, nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What are you basing this off? Your own experience or other reviews and tests you have read? Just curious.



Yes I own both. It's not so dramatic with the 24L as it is with the 35L and 50L. Sharpness only, the new zoom whips the 35L and 50L stopped down by enough that I sold both of them, but kept the 24L. I still like the 24L for unique shooting wider than f/2.8 on a wide lens. Love it.

Even though I hate charts, they do support my observations as well.


----------



## pefi (Mar 25, 2013)

Hey there,

are there any new on the Sigma version of the 1.4/24? Their 1.4/35 really convinced me.

-Peter


----------



## vlad (Mar 26, 2013)

Love my 24. I actually tend to use the 16-35 II for shots like this due to flexibility, but when 24 is right, it's so right.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 27, 2013)

Canon-F1 said:


> personally, for landscapes, i would love slower but tack sharp and well corrected wideangle lenses.
> 
> why should i pay for f1.4 when i use it only at f5.6 and higher anyway.
> 
> a 14mm f4 as widest would be fine for me.



True.


----------



## messus (Mar 30, 2013)

Justin "You are wrong about how good this lens is" - The 24 1.4 II is in desperate need for an upgrade!! This is not a lens you buy to stop down, this is a lens you buy to be able to use wide open in low lit conditions. 

The vignetting I guess is something you to a certain degree must accept. But the level of Chromatic Aberration (purple fringe) this lens produces wide open is absolutely unacceptable.

The worst negative of this lens however is not the CA, but the coma distortion. 

I work a lot in night/low light photography, and stars in the edges of this lens get distorted to the level that they look like "bananas". If you shoot wide open in contrasting light sources, eg. night photos of a city, the coma distortion in the edges is so bad that it is ridiculous!

A slight positive is that the 24mm 1.4 from Nikon is not any better. But that still does not mean that this lens from Canon is optically a good lens. 

The Samyang 24mm 1.4 which I also own 2 samples of, may not be as sharp in the center as the Canon/Nikon 24, but it is virtually free of CA and coma distortion in the edges, and the Samyang even has more glass/lens elements!! Hence I more often tend to use my Samyang 24 than my Canon 24. 

The Canon 24mm 1.4 II, as well as all other of Canons L wide angle primes (14mm 2.8 II/35mm 1.4/50mm 1.4/1.8/1.2) are in desperate need of upgrades! I wish Canon would start to prioritize the wide angle department, and not only focus on tele-lenses.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Mar 30, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Canon-F1 said:
> 
> 
> > personally, for landscapes, i would love slower but tack sharp and well corrected wideangle lenses.
> ...



If you don't mind manual focus, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is capable of stunning results at a bargain price. This guy is using it VERY effectively!

http://500px.com/photo/29615393


----------



## JVLphoto (Apr 3, 2013)

messus said:


> Justin "You are wrong about how good this lens is" - The 24 1.4 II is in desperate need for an upgrade!! This is not a lens you buy to stop down, this is a lens you buy to be able to use wide open in low lit conditions.
> 
> The vignetting I guess is something you to a certain degree must accept. But the level of Chromatic Aberration (purple fringe) this lens produces wide open is absolutely unacceptable.
> 
> ...



You're right about the Chroma, it's an issue but not one I've seen drastically reduced in any lens of this focal length. The Sigma 35 may be the best I've seen at equivalent apertures (but that's a different story).

The Canon 24 ƒ/1.4 L II was introduced in 2008, if we can assume a lens nowadays has about a 10-year shelf life I'm not sure you'll see an update from them until 2018.

However, good news is that Sigma is stepping up the competition with their "Art" series - it'd be interesting to see if they tackle 24mm next.

And my bad on the night-time photography, you have more experience in this than I, but I do recall seeing some incredible examples of night-scape photography taken with this lens, which is why I mentioned it.

Thanks!


----------

