# A Brief Hands On: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 26, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/a-brief-hands-on-canon-ef-24-f2-8-is/"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/a-brief-hands-on-canon-ef-24-f2-8-is/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/05/a-brief-hands-on-canon-ef-24-f2-8-is/"></a></div>
<strong>The Little Prime


</strong>I was happy to see the new EF 24 f/2.8 IS available to play with. As I mentioned above, they didn’t have the new 28 f/2.8 IS around for me to mess around with.</p>
<p>I was part of the “what the?” crowd when this lens was announced. Though over time, I’ve warmed up to the idea a bit and hope this is the beginning of new small non-L primes being announced.</p>
<div id="attachment_10036" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/24is.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-10036" title="24is" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/24is-575x431.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="431" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS USM</p></div>
<p><strong>First impressions?


</strong>It’s small, light and feels well built. The AF was fast and it appeared as sharp as any other Canon non-L prime on the surface. This would be a great prime to walk around with on a small body. A mirrorless with an EF adaptor?</p>
<p>It’s Canon’s hope that the lens will become a favourite of the videographer crowd. The price tag is high, $850 or so, but based on appearance and a few test shots, it may not be overpriced.</p>
<div id="attachment_10032" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/lenspics/1G4C9958.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-10032" title="1G4C9958-2" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1G4C9958-2.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="383" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">5D Mark III & 24 f/2.8 IS | EXIF: 24mm f/2.8 1/320 ISO: 2500 | Click for full size</p></div>
<div id="attachment_10033" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width: 585px"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/lenspics/1G4C0010.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-10033" title="1G4C0010-2" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/1G4C0010-2.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="383" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">5D Mark III & 24 f/2.8 IS | EXIF: 24mm f/2.8 1/125 ISO: 1250 | Click for full size</p></div>
<p>I’m more interested in spending some time with this little prime than the new 24-70, I know I’m weird.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## hmmm (May 26, 2012)

*Purple fringing: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS*

Second shot: Purple fringing on the ceiling lights in the extremes of the frame. It wouldn't be so bad in a $500 lens, but for $850...? ???


----------



## Marsu42 (May 26, 2012)

*Re: Purple fringing: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS*



hmmm said:


> Second shot: Purple fringing on the ceiling lights in the extremes of the frame. It wouldn't be so bad in a $500 lens, but for $850...? ???



It's not that much and outside a 16:9 video frame, and I guess would hardly show up on video anyway. Furthermore I don't think that's a production version of the lens and probably has been thrown around a lot when ferried from a to be, so let's wait and see.


----------



## DianeK (May 26, 2012)

Hmm, there's actually both purple and green fringing. I was waiting for this as a video and indoor family gathering lens but looks like I may revisit my other plan of picking up a used EFS 17-55. CA is just one of those things that makes me crazy.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 27, 2012)

Purple and green fringing can be quicklly and easily removed in LR 4, starting with the RC2 version. Its now a thing of the past for me.


----------



## Etienne (May 27, 2012)

*Re: Purple fringing: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS*



hmmm said:


> Second shot: Purple fringing on the ceiling lights in the extremes of the frame. It wouldn't be so bad in a $500 lens, but for $850...? ???



Looks pretty minor. You have to compare this to other 24mm lenses.


----------



## mb66energy (May 27, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> I’m more interested in spending some time with this little prime than the new 24-70, I know I’m weird.



You are not weird or I am too ...

I found the old 24/2.8 in a shop five years ago - second hand for 150 EUR (or similar $) and I love that lens for APS-C due to its
- great focal length for natural views (I am happy that the 40mm comes if/when I go to FF)
- brilliant images
- compactness
- light weight
- good close focus range

Zooms are flexible but very LAAAARGE and have some disadvantages when it comes to contralight situations. So perhaps it is a matter of AND and not OR: Zoom for flexibility AND prime for compactness, maximum IQ, contralight situations.


----------



## mb66energy (May 27, 2012)

DianeK said:


> Hmm, there's actually both purple and green fringing. I was waiting for this as a video and indoor family gathering lens but looks like I may revisit my other plan of picking up a used EFS 17-55. CA is just one of those things that makes me crazy.



For video: Scale these images down from 5760 px width to 1920 px width and look if the fringing (which is most probably CA) is still strongly visible.
For photography: use some CA removement tool (DPP does it).

But I understand that these deviations from reality make you crazy - I hope that the function to remove CA on the fly during video (if I read the info correctly the 5D mark III has it) trickles down to APS-C bodies ... and CA is just a minor issue in the future for ALL our lenses.

Best - Michael


----------



## Etienne (May 27, 2012)

mb66energy said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I’m more interested in spending some time with this little prime than the new 24-70, I know I’m weird.
> ...



Me too.

I don't want any more zooms. I may pick up the new 24 or 28 for light weight walk around if it's a sharp and contrasty performer even at 2.8.


----------



## FunPhotons (May 27, 2012)

Etienne said:


> mb66energy said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Agreed - in candid photography the big setup is too intimidating. I have a Fuji X100 and the thing frustrates me much of the time with missed shots and I miss my Canon. Unfortunately Canon doesn't seem to have a small decent prime, I'm hoping the 24mm will fit the bill.


----------



## rcarbonell (May 28, 2012)

I don't see the point of buying standard lens with only 2.8 wide open (24mm, 28mm, 40mm).. Combine the price of 2 of those lenses and you can get urself a 24-70 or 17-55. I still think that canon should come up with an Ef-S 30mm 1.4IS this one lens I'll be willing to pay $850 for.


----------



## tankobear (May 28, 2012)

*Re: Purple fringing: Canon EF 24 f/2.8 IS*



hmmm said:


> Second shot: Purple fringing on the ceiling lights in the extremes of the frame. It wouldn't be so bad in a $500 lens, but for $850...? ???



Totally Agree with you. Though its funny how the scene looks weird but the guy's nipple totally focused LOL kinky lens! Jking.


----------



## EchoLocation (May 29, 2012)

rcarbonell said:


> I don't see the point of buying standard lens with only 2.8 wide open (24mm, 28mm, 40mm).. Combine the price of 2 of those lenses and you can get urself a 24-70 or 17-55. I still think that canon should come up with an Ef-S 30mm 1.4IS this one lens I'll be willing to pay $850 for.


This.
I own a Sigma 50 1.4 which is excellent optically, very sharp and creamy bokeh and I paid 450 dollars for it. it is 1000x more solid looking and feeling(i'm betting, haven't touched the Canon, but it looks pretty slight.) 
850 dollars for a plasticy looking, not fantastic optically, f2.8 lens just doesn't even make any sense to me. I would never consider buying a lens like this(F2.8 , and build quality) at that price.
Nikon just released a 28mm 1.8 for $699 which is at least as good optically from the test shots I have seen.
Why is it that all new Canon gear is more expensive and rather underwhelming than that of their competitors. 
I was very eager to buy the 24-70 II but at the price it's a non starter for me.
I would consider the 24mm or 28mm if they were F1.8
I would definitely consider the 5DIII if it was 2800 dollars, or even the same or less than the D800.
I am eager to spend money(I have a 5DC and a 24-105 with my Sigma 50 1.4) to upgrade, but they way things are going I'm waiting to see about the D600 and Canon's DSLR/Mirrorless response.


----------

