[wim]

Hi Geno,

[quote name='genotypewriter' date='22 June 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1277209728' post='654']

lol ah yes... the 16-9.net's backyard shrub test <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I liked how they were looking at different "zones" but they were never clear about where exactly they focused.[/quote]

I was amazed actually, that the 24L Mk I came out tops... . It must have been really good IOW <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

Yes, the sharpness thing becomes moot on fast lenses but I see it as an ugly thing that has to be tested to know the absolute truth <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> After being very familiar with the 24 1.4 type (I also had Mk I before Mk II became available),

Same here...

I can say that the far focus sharpness isn't all that useful for serious shooting because you can't isolate subjects as soon as you focus more than a few feet away and then if sharpness is also important, you can put it on a tripod and stop it down. The only time the large-aperture sharpness can help is when doing long exposures to get effects like this:

[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3727437284/sizes/o/in/set-72157613286508755/"]See 933x1400 version[/url]



Even then, none of these lenses are capable of getting sharp corners for any real enlarged output.

I do find it has a remarkably flat image field for a 24 mm, though, certainly much more so than the 24L Mk I. AF accuracy is also a lot better. The 24L Mk I did miss occasionally, especially close to MFD. I have no such problems with the II, and the I kept on doing that even after two calibrations.

So that leaves us mainly with close focusing shots. Then the DOF becomes really shallow, making it difficult to perceive sharpness under normal usage. As you can see, even when put on a tripod with everything done to ensure sharpness, you really have to view huge to see fine detail (let alone differences between two lenses). And by enlarging, you're effectively magnifying all the ugly aberrations because these ambitious lens designs have more aberrations than IQ.

Hey, that's an opinion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I reckon it doesn't get much better for a fast 24, unless you are prepared to pay 10X or more as much <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

For me, a 24 1.4 is a multi-purpose lens (although everyone calls it a specialised one): I love using it for travel because it does handheld low light extremely well, isolates subjects when I get close (but the bokeh isn't the best I've seen)

Very good for a 24 mm though, if you ask me. The only things better in that FL are the TS-E 24s, both Mk I and Mk II.

and the 24L II in particular turns in to one of the best landscape lenses at f/8-f/11 (but not the best, compared to TS-E 17L and TS-E 24L II.

Yes, at the cost fo speed and AF, though, and a price increase too <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. It is indeed second best however, if you ask me <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

I don't know how the 24G is for small apertures).



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



GTW

Neither do I, unfortunately. I have not been able to handle one yet. Looks like I need to go and visit one of my favourite retailers again <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim