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

Recent Comments

1. 

   Careful Critic @ 5:21 pm

   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.

   
2. 

   Gabriel Massip Fons @ 8:04 pm

   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.

   
3. 

   James P. Palazzolo @ 9:15 pm

   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.

   
4. 

   Charles @ 10:35 pm

   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.

   
5. 

   W. King @ 12:51 am

   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.