Canon 24mm f1.4mk1 V 24mm f1.4 mk2

[RD400]

Wanting to hear from people who have had either of the lens`s or moved up from the mk1 to the mk2 as to the difference`s between them as the difference in money secondhand seems a large amount and I wanted to know is the mk2 worth the extra bucks

 

[philthejuggler]

I've owned both, but only recently got the MKII, so this is only my initial feeling.

From f/2 onwards the original 24L is very good, but I wouldn't consider using it wide open for anything important. You can definitely use the new one wide open as it is much crisper at wider apertures and for some the weather sealing on the new one is also important.

Phil

 

[RD400]

Thanks for that phil I`d like to us it for landscapes so would be using f11 upwards but when needed wide open would like to think that I`d get a sharper picture with this focal lenght than either my 24mm-105 or 17-40

 

[philthejuggler]

Thanks for that phil I`d like to us it for landscapes so would be using f11 upwards but when needed wide open would like to think that I`d get a sharper picture with this focal lenght than either my 24mm-105 or 17-40

Well the MK1 will give you nice sharp shots from about f/2.0 and potentially usable shots from wide open, but if you are going to be often shooting at or near wide open go for the newer lens. Even the new lens isn't 85L sharp wide open, but I wouldn't hesitate to use it at f/1.4 if the need arose.

Phil

 

[ianmarsh]

My 24/1.4 mk1 is up for sale as I'm changing brands. I bought it on a whim as I like fast primes. But as noted, the wide-open perfromance of this lens is poor if you are looking for edge sharpness and it isn't so great in the centre either. Oddly though, I quite like it for environmental portraits where sharpness isn't necessarily what you want. Once closed down though it is a lovely lens.

My 24-105 at f4 was certainly sharper than the 24mm at f1.4 but I didn't test at the same apertures.