# The Canon 24mm f/1.4L



## Viperjet (Dec 5, 2007)

Hello everyone...

I've been looking into some wide angle lenses.  I like the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM.  

Does anyone have this lens or know much about it?  Is it worth the money?

Thanks!


----------



## YoungRebel (Dec 6, 2007)

Don't used it myself but I'm sure it's a fantastic lens!

What exactly are you shooting? Do you neccesarily need the f/1.4 ?

'cause the 24-70mm f/2.8 is a fabulous lens for a little less...


----------



## Helen B (Dec 6, 2007)

The existence of the 24 mm f/1.4 L was the reason I bought a Canon. (It is still the only Canon lens I have.) If you want a wide fast lens there is no real competition, apart from the 24 mm lens on the P&S Fuji Natura but that is a very different thing. The Nikon 28 mm f/1.4 looks to have better correction at wide apertures (from the few examples I've seen) but it is 28 mm not 24 mm and it didn't exist when I made my choice. There aren't many around, and they are expensive. Oh, and you have a Canon...

Best,
Helen


----------



## Viperjet (Dec 6, 2007)

I do astrophotography, so the f/1.4 is important to me in order to be able to pretty much snap pictures of the milky way...  I mean, if the f/1.4 wasn't important to me, I would probably be getting a much cheaper lens.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 6, 2007)

Do people usually shoot astrophotography at large apertures?  I would think that you would just put the camera on a tripod and shoot at F8 :scratch:

Also, it should be noted that 24mm would be a nice wide lens on your Rebel G....but not so much on your XTi.


----------



## Steph (Dec 6, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> Do people usually shoot astrophotography at large apertures? I would think that you would just put the camera on a tripod and shoot at F8 :scratch:.


 
I don't know a thing about astrophotography, but I guess at f8 the shutter speed would be long enough to record movements in the stars (due to the earth rotation). Please somebody help us...


----------



## Helen B (Dec 6, 2007)

At f/1.4 the performance at the edge of the frame, even with a less-than-full-frame sensor, may not be acceptable for astrophotography. I don't have the current version, but the coma at f/1.4 is pretty bad on my version. It doesn't matter much for documentary work - but remember I have the old version, and use it full frame. From what I've seen, the current version is an improvement on mine, but there are still image quality issues once you are away from dead centre. Hopefully someone with the current version will chime in.

A 24 mm f/1.4 that covers full frame with a sufficient amount of retrofocus to clear the mirror is a tall order.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Viperjet (Dec 6, 2007)

Big Mike said:


> Do people usually shoot astrophotography at large apertures?  I would think that you would just put the camera on a tripod and shoot at F8 :scratch:
> 
> Also, it should be noted that 24mm would be a nice wide lens on your Rebel G....but not so much on your XTi.



Astrophotographs can be done a few different ways.  The first way is to have a lens with a really low aperture value (like the 24mm f/1.4L), and you can pretty much snap pictures of the milky way like this one.  No, I didn't take that.  Found it on Google Images...

However, if I were to take a picture (and try to replicate the link above) with my 35-80 lens (which has a higher aperture value) I would have to mount my camera on either a telescope and keep it pointed on the same field of view or use a modified tripod (usually called a barn door apparatus).  If I were to just go outside, crank up the ISO and take a handheld picture of the sky, it would be almost completely black (this is at night, of course).  With a lens with a lower aperture, I could take  snapshots that would normally require a 10-20 minute exposure.   Keep in mind if you don't track, you will get star trails (I'll have to post some of mine sometime...)

Well, I hope this all makes sense...and if it doesn't, let me know!


----------



## Helen B (Dec 6, 2007)

The 24 mm f/1.4 may have a large relative aperture, but it has a small absolute aperture - which is the important thing when considering the brightness of point sources, surely? Wouldn't something like the 85 mm f/1.2 be much better because its absolute aperture is about 71 mm diameter against the 17 mm diameter of the 24 f/1.4 - ie a difference of about three stops.

Best,
Helen


----------

