Customer Reviews

Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is a cheap lens - old design, very plastic - that can prove terribly useful for those on a budget who want a wider perspective, especially on 1.6x crop factor dSLRs.

I learned about "cheap" with this lens - broke the focus ring the day after delivery. But I blame myself too, and the replacement's given me no trouble, though I think my first one was a bit sharper than the second. (Update: calibration of the replacement optimized my performance to match or exceed that first one that I broke. It now performs *very well* wide-open at f/2.8, and beyond belief at f/5.6.)

By many standards, this lens will match or exceed zoom lens of comparable price (as a prime lens should). Autofocus is a little buzzy, but the main time you'll notice is when it loses its bearing and suddenly lurches way off target. Mostly, focuses quickly enough and well. Some chromatic aberration in worst-case scenarios, but nothing awful or unexpected. Vignetting, even on a 1.6x crop, can be noticeable, mainly in sky shots, but gradual rather than sudden. (Might be unacceptably worse on a full-frame camera.) Undue distortion seems minimal - haven't really checked but also haven't really noticed, if you see what I mean. Flare seems average, perhaps better than one would expect from such wide glass. (I've never had a shot blown out, even with the sun in the shot.) Bokeh is nonchalant, not dreamy but never intrusive.

But at the price, the positives make up for the negative and "average" tendencies. It's vibrantly colorful and contrasty almost to a fault. Hard light is a little more challenging with this lens, a little more tricky to balance exposure between highlights and shadows. It can be softish wide-open, but very unobjectionably - have rarely regretted shooting at f/2.8. My main lens is a 50mm f/1.4, and switching back and forth on the same aperture setting is perfectly functional in practice. Lose a little crisp for taking in four times as much space, and that's a trade-off I can run with. (Their filter threads match too.)

Before calibration, my second sample got "plenty sharp" by f/4, and "stunning sharp" at f/5.6 or beyond. Now, I never find any complaint at f/2.8, and frequently get my breath taken away at f/5.6. However, other reviewers around the web have verified something I've noticed - the focus is more consistently crisp when focused out to infinity (which isn't far) than when aimed at nearer subjects. For any kind of scenic photography, I recommend setting the focus to infinity and then flipping to manual focus to lock it out there, for easiest and most reliable results.

"Crop factor" over-simplifies the effect of mounting a wide-angle lens on a 1.6x camera. Yes, the field of view will match 40mm on a full-frame, but the perspective will not, because you'll be closer to your subjects. Shooting live subjects (like bands, models, or street life) will require a learning curve, so beware mission critical work before you've broken yourself in so you can anticipate its exagerations.

That said, I bought this lens primarily for "head-to-toe" model shooting in my modest studio, and it's been a real asset. Interestingly, it tends toward a very useful "slimming effect" that makes hippy girls look more slender and shorter girls more ambiguous in height. This happens if you're filling the frame with them and standing with your lens at about their head level - relatively speaking, their hips are much further away so they narrow. Disconcerting at first but terribly useful once you've gotten the hang of it. (Beware chicken legs or the reverse from dramatic perspectives.)

I read every review I could find before purchase, and this lens seemed to be a magic middle between the higher cost clarity of the 20mm and the cheaper lesser sharpness of the 28mm. Near as I can tell, I nailed it. The build and buzz create an ongoing sense of cheapness, but the performance really pays off if you need an affordable wider angle that generally won't let you down.

I bought this lens to have a fixed, light lens to use with my digital EOS 10D (due to 1.6 crop factor it has the same viewing angle than a 45 mm lens, in the "standard" range). I use it in "keep it simple" photographic sessions.

Resolution and overall image quality are quite decent; but it has one main drawback: vigneting is non-negligible at f/2.8, even inside the digital cropped frame (so I can't guess how bad could it be in a full 35 mm frame). At f/4 it becomes usable. I've done a very informal comparison with Canon EF 17-40 L and both lenses give comparable results at f/4.

Design is old, but effective; it has a depth of field scale. I'd like it to have a more silent focus engine, or a somewhat more robust build, but it does its job.

I was on the lookout for a good-quality autofocus wide angle lens for my Canon 5D MkII, and this seemed to be the best option. Canon's telephoto lenses are generally superb and they make some good zooms, but the company has traditionally had trouble with the wider focal lengths. I can't justify the expense of a 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24mm f/1.4, and the 17-40mm and 16-35mm seem either underwhelming or too specialised for what they are. The 28-135mm didn't appeal to me, ditto the 20-35mm f/3.4-4.5, the 24-85mm didn't impress me when I owned a copy. The non-L wide primes include the 20mm f/2.8, which no-one seems to like; the 35mm f/2, which lots of people like but doesn't seem great in the full-frame corners; the 28mm f/2.8, which I have tried and hated, and the 28mm f/1.8, which doesn't appeal to me at all. The 24mm f/2.8 seemed to be the dark horse, based on the tests I have seen, and so I found one cheap and snapped it up.

It is surprisingly good. Not excellent, but sufficient. I already have a very good 24mm, an old Olympus 24mm f/2.8 that I use with an adapter, and although Canon's lens isn't quite as sharp it's more practical to use, on account of it having autofocus and an automatic aperture. I don't have to keep checking live view when I focus closer than infinity. I like the 24mm focal length, and with a 5D MkII I can always crop down to something approximating 35mm without too much loss of resolution.

Physically it's a solid unit that doesn't rotate or extend. It doesn't feel weak and I have subsequently thrust it into bags and taken it out and about without breaking it. The autofocus is buzzy but the focus travel is very short, so it's not a problem. The manual focus ring is dire and I have only used it when shooting video. Canon gives you front and rear caps but no hood, the meanies.

Optically it's close to very good. At f/8, f/11 it's sharp across the frame almost but not quite into the extreme corners, far better than the 28mm f/2.8 that I briefly owned. There is CA, but DPP will correct this. There is some barrel distortion, but it's not very noticeable and not offensive, and this is one thing the lens has over the 24-105mm f/4 (the other being that it's much smaller and lighter - in the end I went on holiday with this lens and a 50mm, and the combination was smaller and faster than the 24-105mm). Vignetting exists and is inescapable on a 5D MkII, this is the major optical weakness. At f/2.8 it remains sharp in the centre. The background blur is busy and it's not really a bokeh-licious lens. You, sir, are no 24mm f/1.4.

Drawbacks? The very extreme outer corners are always mushy but, having said that, outside the world of Carl Zeiss every wide angle lens seems to have this problem. On an APS-C camera it would be sharp but redundant, because your kit lens is probably just as sharp and also wider and it has image stabilisation. The other problem is the price, which is too high. If Canon reworked the lens, added USM, sharpened it up a bit more, they could justify this price, but I suspect they will simply discontinue it in favour of the 24mm f/1.4. Which is a shame, because it is otherwise a bit of a hidden gem.

From all the reviews I read, I expected certain pros and cons from this lens. I was not disappointed.
pros: very sharp lens with very good colors
cons: vignetting at wide open, and a little too contrasty
For myself, the pros outweighed the cons for the price. It is ideal for the 1.6 multiplier cameras, where it becomes a 38mm lens.

This lens has great image quality. It's images are sharp from corner to corner even with the lens wide open. Most lenses must be stopped down a bit to get a sharp image which to me defeats the purpose of having a fast lens. I don't notice any distortion, aberration, color fringing etc. under even difficult shooting conditions. This lens feels well made and I like how small it is on the camera. The autofocus is always spot on and focuses very fast. It makes a little whirring noise for about a nanosecond while focusing which I think sounds cool. I feel this lens is a super bargain and I enjoy using it as a general purpose or small light "walk around" lens for my canon T2i. To me the lens is a little "retro" because it came out around 1988, but I like that about it. In terms of function, I have found it to work flawlessly and much better than similar focal length canon prime lenses I've tried, except the 24mm 1.2L (which costs almost 5 times as much). If I were a pro, or made of money I would definitely buy the 24mm 1.2L as it is weather sealed, silent, f1.2, and one of the best canon lenses you can buy. As a hobbyist, I love my super bargain powerhouse that is very affordable, well made, retro cool and has image quality as good as my canon 17-40mm f/4L. I am really enjoying this lens and have taken some sharp, color saturated, stunning photos with it.

I have an EOS 7D that I bought with the Canon 60mm 2.8 Macro lens. I am very happy with that lens so naturally that is what I compare other lenses to since it is my only point of reference. I quickly realized that I needed a wider angle lens but did not like the quality of all the zoom lenses so I quickly settled on buying a prime. After reading some poor reviews of the 24 and 28mm Canon lenses I went with the Sigma 24mm 1.8 lens. After trying two copies and sending one into Sigma I never was able to get them to focus reliably and had to finally give up on that idea. Of the 24 and 28mm Canon primes the 24mm did seem to have slightly better reviews.

I have to say that I am very happy with the lens and it is very sharp and pleasing overall. I really have no complaints at all except that the focus ring seems a little cheap. The focus is fast, accurate and consistent.

Update:

After using this lens for many pictures I feel like I should let everyone know how it is working out for me. So far the lens is working great and hasn't given me any problems after 1000+ images. The copy I received seems very sharp all across the image. I had the chance to compare it to a 17-55 f2.8 lens and I must say that it had pretty much the same if not better image quality. Considering the price difference I would say that it is well worth it for the person on a budget.

This is a nice lens, relatively small, with decent resolving power (better at close distances)and a great,IMO, focal length for an 1.6 crop.
What I didn't like was that it is relatively slow for a fixed focal lenth at 2.8, it does not have full time manual focus, my 50 1.4 seemed to resolve (this is a subjective conglomerate of resolution and contrast) better at infinity focus. As far as small primes go, this is one of the few to chose from in this range (I like pentax's selection better), it is a good performer.
Note: I find the 28mm 1.8usm edge sharpness similar.

I have the Canon 35/2.0 prime lens, which I like very much but on my Canon XTi, it's not quite wide enough. So, I purchased this lens and also a Sigma 18-50/f2.8 EX Macro to take on vacation, thinking the Sigma would be used for more flexibility, and the 24mm for a very light walk-around lens.

In my tests, though, my 24/2.8 wasn't nearly as sharp as my 35/2.0. It might have just been my copy of the lens, I don't know. But, the Sigma was as sharp as the 24mm. So, I returned the 24mm, and will keep the Sigma. With a prime, you lose the zoom, so it better be both a) sharper and b) brighter (wider aperture). Since it was the same sharpness as the Sigma, and no brighter, back it goes. I was thinking I'd sell my 35/2, but now I'll keep it, as it's both very sharp and has an f/2.0 aperture.

Again, it could have have been the copy I got, but since my Sigma fits my needs, I won't try again.

I love, love, love this lens. It makes a great companion to my Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras and has come in handy in many situations.

If you're looking for a wider Angle of View, then this lens will provide it. Whether taking landscape shots or tight interior shots, it will perform and deliver outstanding photographs.

That said, you have to be careful when purchasing filters for this lens. I purchased a Tiffen 58mm Haze-1 Filter to protect this lens and when I put it on the lens, there was a small dot about 3-5mm in diameter in the center where the filter and lens were touching each other. I ended up having to buy a more expensive, thinner glass, filter to get an acceptable fit.

Beyond that, the only other negatives for this lens are that it's more loud than my USM lens, but that's to be expected. It's also not so loud that it's distracting; it's just noticeable if you're used to USM. And the focus ring on the lens stops at either end. I prefer the way my 50mm lens handles that in you can just keep turning it and not feel like you're damaging anything internally. With this lens, I fear turning the focus ring too far.

All in all, the negatives with this lens pale in comparison to the benefits. I don't think twice about swapping the 50mm for the 24mm when the situation calls for it.

I did quite a bit of research on this lens before buying it. I must have read fifty reviews. In the end I came to the conclusion that hypercritical people who have enough money to fill their bag with L lenses can find something bad to say about any lens that doesn't have a red ring around it. This lens seems to have a great balance of features with minimal discrepancies for a great price. I own an L lens (70-200 IS F/2.8) and it's amazing, but I don't have the money to pony up for another one this time around. I think this lens fits my needs just fine for now. My only complaint? I usually buy my lenses from this site, but I found it at three other major spots for a hundred and a quarter less. I know it's been cheaper here before so why so expensive now? I wish I didn't have to take my business elsewhere, but that's a big difference and why pay more than you should?

UPDATE: Jan 14, 2009: Well would you look at that! The price comes down a full hundred overnight! Finally the price on this thing is in the neighborhood of other major retailers again. It's hard to believe the price could flux this much this fast. Do some comparison shopping and make sure you're okay with what you are going to pay in case the price suddenly drops after you buy it.