Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: timescapes on July 12, 2008, 01:06:14 pm
-
I was reading this review of the EF 24mm f/1.4 L....
The Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 USM L left some mixed feelings during the tests. The peak performance is about the best that I've seen at this focal length but it is reached late (f/8). The center quality is surely very impressive throughout the tested aperture range but this isn't quite as true for the borders which are soft at f/1.4 and the quality only increases slowly towards medium aperture settings. The distortion and CA figures are acceptable for such a lens but vignetting is way too pronounced on an APS-C DSLR even though the problem is only visible at f/1.4.
LINK (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/152-canon-ef-24mm-f14-usm-l-test-report--review?start=2)
Why would vignetting be worse on a camera with a smaller sensor when the lens is wide open? Could this be avoided by shooting at f/1.8 or f/2?
-
I was reading this review of the EF 24mm f/1.4 L....
Why would vignetting be worse on a camera with a smaller sensor when the lens is wide open? Could this be avoided by shooting at f/1.8 or f/2?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Canon 24/1.4 does have some serious vignetting at f/1.4, visible on both full frame and APS bodies. It's also soft in the corners at f/1.4. Yes, vignetting is reduced by f/2, and the corners get much sharper by f/4 or so.
All I can say is, if you need f/1.4, you need it. Soft corners and vignetting are part of the deal, and for my type of work, are not a problem. Yes, my 24-70 f/2.8 zoom is sharper and has less vignetting at 24mm -- but it's two stops slower. The f/1.4 lens is made for low-light shooting -- journalism, sports, etc., -- not for architecture or traditional landscape photography. (Both of which it can excel at if you shoot at f/8 or f/11.)
I now have six lenses with the 24mm focal length somewhere in their range. For convenience, I choose the 24-70 or maybe the 16-35. For architecture, the Sigma 12-24. For odd focus shifts, the 24 T/S. But I find the 24/1.4 on my camera most often when I am shooting in a journalistic style, or under low-light conditions, or when I want the very shallow depth of field combined with a wide-angle view.
BTW the lens works quite well on a 40D body, where it's roughly a 40mm equivalent. Nice wide-normal lens, and good speed. But it's awesome on a 1D or 1Ds-series body.
-
Why would vignetting be worse on a camera with a smaller sensor when the lens is wide open?
It is not worse, and no-one said so. Photozone's review stresses the result on APS-C, because they are (he is) testing on a cropping camera, i.e. positive results do not apply to full frame (but negative results apply increased).
-
Would this be a good lens for astrophotography of landscapes and stars? I like the focal length conversion on an APS-C, because it's long enough to reach out. Even if I had to stop down to f/2 it would still be 1 or 2 stops faster than most lenses in this range.
This is the type of stuff I like to shoot...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3277/2565058574_a5f8bc79de.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2111/2428683316_b8c7767812.jpg)
I also like the fact that the lens will hold up well on a serious FF camera.
-
Why would vignetting be worse on a camera with a smaller sensor when the lens is wide open? Could this be avoided by shooting at f/1.8 or f/2?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It should be read "even on APS bodies it vignettes a lot", meaning that it will be worse on FF.
Cheers,
Bernard