|  | | | Used and New: | | |
| All | |
| $325.00+ $5.45 *Shipping | Used
- VeryGood | | |
| $359.99+ $4.99 *Shipping | Used
- Mint | | |
| $374.00+ $0.29 *Shipping | New | | |
| $469.00Shipping Free | New | | |
| New | |
| $374.00+ $0.29 *Shipping | New | | |
| $469.00Shipping Free | New | | |
| Used | |
| $325.00+ $5.45 *Shipping | Used
- VeryGood | | |
| $359.99+ $4.99 *Shipping | Used
- Mint | | |
| | Customer Reviews: | | | Average Customer Review: ( 22 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
115 of 117 found the following review helpful:
Bang for few bucks... May 14, 2005
By Careful Critic
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.
16 of 17 found the following review helpful:
Mr Watson, come here, I need to see you Jun 16, 2010
By Mr. A. Pomeroy
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.
22 of 25 found the following review helpful:
 If only vigneting could be reduced... Dec 06, 2005
By Gabriel Massip Fons
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.
18 of 21 found the following review helpful:
just what I expected Jun 07, 2006
By James P. Palazzolo
"James"
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.
5 of 5 found the following review helpful:
 Inexpensive little gem Feb 12, 2011
By Health Nut
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.
See all 22 customer reviews on Amazon.com
|
| | |
