Canon Lens EF-S 24mm 1: 2.8 STM review specially for Radozhiva prepared Rodion Eshmakov.
Canon Lens EF-S 24mm 1: 2.8 STM
Released in 2014, the Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM is positioned by the manufacturer as a (literally) “compact and affordable lens with a fixed focal length and f / 2.8 aperture” for the APS-C frame. Apparently, this lens is a manifestation of the company's concern for crop DSLR owners, who find it extremely difficult to find an inexpensive wide-angle fixed lens. And if you add here also the “compact”, then it was completely impossible due to the use of bulky retro-focus schemes. Until the “pancake” 24 / 2.8 STM appeared.
Technical specifications
Optical design - 6 lenses in 5 groups, aspheric rear element. A distant descendant of ordinary double gauss. scheme.
Frame format - APS-C;
Focal length - 24 mm, equivalent for APS-C - 38 mm;
Angle of the field of view (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) - 59 ° 10 ′, 50 ° 35 ′, 34 ° 55 ′;
Aperture - 7 rounded blades, volatile drive, F / 2.8-F22;
The minimum focusing distance is 0.16 m;
Focusing drive - STM gear stepper motor;
Thread diameter for filters - 52 mm;
Weight - 125 g;
Cost: $ 170-190, current prices are available see here;
Construction and assembly
Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM is a pancake lens that is a crop analog of a full-frame Canon EF 40 / 2.8 STM... The body is made of matte black plastic typical of this manufacturer's lenses. The white point indicates the orientation of the lens required for docking with the camera. The controls include an autofocus switch and a focusing ring on the nose of the lens. Aperture control is carried out through the camera menu.
Unlike most EF-S lenses, this one is not compatible with full-frame cameras not only “mechanically” due to the artificially added plastic part catching the mirror. The rear focal segment of the lens really does not allow achieving focus at infinity when trying to mount it on a camera with an EF mount.
View of the rear lens protruding beyond the bayonet plane
On the back of the Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM, you can see the words “Made in Malaysia” next to the mount contacts.
The inscription indicating the country of manufacture on the back of the lens
The lens focuses with the movement of the entire lens block. At the same time, its front part remains motionless and does not play. The drive is a gear stepper motor (STM), the main advantage of which is a fast, silent and smooth focusing when shooting movies, as the manufacturer claims. In reality, it requires a camera that supports the charms and autofocus chips with STM lenses (Canon 650D, 100D, 250D - for example): mine Canon 600D it doesn’t work with them and in the video it focuses in auto mode very badly. On the other hand, the focus is really not noisy - a noticeable buzzing appears only with a quick full run of lenses. Occasionally, you can hear soft jerky sounds when the motor produces an accurate fine-tuning of focus.
Infinity Focus Lens
Lens view when focusing on MDF
In the photo mode, autofocus works very quickly and tenaciously even on my camera, the time for a lens to completely run from MDF to infinity is less than a second. At medium distances, focusing from infinity is almost instantaneous - the lens allows you to shoot live dynamic scenes and is very convenient for shooting, for example, indoor events. The maneuverability of the bundle of a rather small crop camera with the tiny Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM helps in this.
Unfortunately, focusing is only available when the camera is on - even if you use the manual focus mode. In other words, there is no direct connection between the ring and the focusing mechanism: this is due to the characteristic manner of manual focusing of the lens, which requires habit after old lenses. And thanks to this, the ring does not rotate during automatic focusing and is always available for manual correction.
The aperture of the lens consists of 7 petals, and the shape of the hole is always very close to round. A trifle, and so nice! Point light sources will give a bun of 14 rays with a closed aperture.
View of the lens diaphragm through the rear lens
Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM almost perfect round aperture.
Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM almost perfect round aperture.
To take a photo of the lens with a covered aperture, I needed to attach it to the camera, select the aperture value and press the button next to the mount, closing the aperture to the selected value. Holding this button, I disconnected the lens. When I did this in Live View, the camera went a little crazy and had to reboot it with a battery. Do not do so.
Half a century of difference: Helios-44 and Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM.
The Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM turned out to be a well-built and very easy-to-use lens. I could not find any obvious flaws in the design or operation of the automation. If you find fault, then a drawback can be called a feature of the STM-drive associated with the inability to focus the lens on the camera off.
Optical properties
On Canon crop cameras, the EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM is a moderate wide or, rather, a universal staffer, with EGF 38 mm. Unlike full-frame 24mm lenses, the Canon EF-S 24/2.8 STM has a much less asymmetric optical design, which reduces field aberrations. In addition, the correction of optical distortion provides an aspherical rear element.
The picture on the lens is very sharp with an open aperture. Only in the corners of the frame can you notice a small (in comparison with any ancient wide-angle manuals so precisely) coma. There is a noticeable vignetting (up to 50%), its indirect sign is the twisting of the lens bokeh on the open aperture. When changing the aperture to F / 4.5, the lens becomes very sharp, aberrations disappear. Further closing of the diaphragm leads to an increase in the depth of the sharply depicted space.
Changing the picture when aperture:
Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM.
Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM.
Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM.
Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM copes very well with backlight: only bright sunshine directly in the forehead can make the frame fill with hares.
Lens behavior in hard backlight
The lens has very good color reproduction, excellent image contrast. For correction of residual aberrations (mainly vignetting and slight barrel distortion), a profile is available in Canon DPP.
At apertures close to F / 2.8 and small focusing distances, the Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM shows a pleasant blurring of the background. At portrait distances, the object is weakly separated from the background.
The short focusing distance (only 16 cm) allows you to shoot close-up objects, while interesting promising distortions become quite noticeable.
It is quite difficult to pronounce such a phrase, but it seems to me that this lens has no drawbacks related to the optical part: the open aperture is fully operational, to achieve maximum resolution it is enough to cover the aperture with a stop and a half.
Sample photos on the Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM and Canon 600D (development from RAW to Canon DPP, correction profile applied selectively) are shown below.
Conclusions
Canon EF-S 24 / 2.8 STM is a very, very successful lens for APS-C format SLR cameras. Compact, fast, high quality and affordable. There are no significant flaws. Holy Grail for crop camera owners.
Thank you for your attention, Eshmakov Rodion.
You will find more reviews from readers of Radozhiva here.
Let me remind you for Donat Rodion. Details here.
good review, thanks
Great lens. Of the nuances that were not said, as far as I remember, she had Focus Breathing, which may be important for someone.
Thanks Rodion!
It is very nice to read such reviews about the lens that you have been using for several years.
I’ll add on my own that the Canon EF-S 24mm f / 2.8 STM, installed through the appropriate adapter, behaves just as well on mirrorless cameras.
Is the focusing speed on a mirrorless as fast as on a DSLR? There is just an opinion that STMs from DSLRs "slow down" on mirrorless cameras. I want to take a mirrorless camera, I wonder if a fifty-dollar private label will work well on it?
UPC must support hybrid AF, as in the UPC for the video which. If we are talking about eos-m, for example.
Not quite right.
In czk canon with dual pixel in live view AF is not hybrid but phase. In the usual csk AF in live view, it is not hybrid but contrasting, for example, in all csk nikon.
Kenon even advertised somewhere where the dual pixel in her bzk is better than the usual bzk hybrid AF.
Rodion, could you fasten the archive with source codes to the presented examples of snapshots in the review? Thanks.
On my EOS M6 and ef-s 24 / 2,8, and ef 40 / 2,8 (both stm pancakes), they work fine and focus without problems. Lenses are small, mileage from mdf to ∞ second)
Focus speed on mirrorless cameras (used with Sony a6000) is poor ...
Only on two expensive adapters is it worthy - on Metabonse and Sigma M11. On the Chinese ones for 3-5 thousand, I was constantly heated by pairing with the camera and very unstable autofocus.
This is not an AF lens problem, but an adapter problem.
So far, no one has made any complaints on the native adapter for Canon R / RP.
On m5 and on m100 - no problem.
And on Sonya - sorry, a question for adapters. With the metabolism, it’s still somehow, but with any wild ketai - generally crap.
Exactly!
Thanks for the review! Still 16mm would be done and there would be a full-fledged fleet of easy fixes to the crop.
And what, for the Canon SLR there is 16mm for the crop?
No, I’m talking about this. It would be nice if Canon sawed 16 mm, it turned out a complete set then
Unreal. The working length will not allow. I would not refuse a compact APS-C fix such as 15 / 2.8 or even 15/4, but, I am afraid, due to the complexity of the retro-focus scheme, it cannot be made small in height, even if you can save on the width of the front element.
Pancake, of course, will not work. But something like Pentaxovsky 15 f / 4 would also be nice. Not a pancake, but rather light and relatively compact, in comparison with FF brothers.
Well, I'm afraid that's all. All new items will come out only for RF, the line needs to be refilled, EF will receive an update of a maximum of several large white lenses, and APS-C cameras will only be sold with a kit lens. The story of the death of the 7D line is indicative in this respect - it was the 7D that was the driving force behind the sales of new lenses for crop cameras.
What's the story? It seems that 7dm2 was released, it seems that it is being sold ...
Michael, the long-awaited m3 will not be released. They will release 90D, which will be the development of 80D + 7D rate of fire, but autofocus, for example, will be worse.
Not only are these just rumors, you are probably reading some headlines for these rumors, and by default you take them at face value.
Initially, there was a rumor about a mid-range DSLR APS-C format. And everyone immediately suggested that this is the new 7D. But when there were some details on the technical specifications (not confirmed by anyone), they did not fit into the new 7D and it looked exactly like the next camera in a two-digit line.
And the fact that the 90D supposedly will replace two lines of cameras at once is someone's fantasy, and nothing more. Do not present rumors as a reliable fact.
Igor, I’m sure that Canon has a mirror test 7D Mark III, 90D, and an RF camera with an APS-C matrix, and a 1DX Mark II with a mirror and without a mirror, and all this may not in one embodiment. Plus something completely unexpected. And from the option they announced, they showed up to launch in the series 2-3 months, no more, and marketing decides, and sometimes at the last moment.
But rumors, they do not appear from scratch, right?
Something full-frame should come out for the Olympics, moreover, either a mirror or a mirror and a mirrorless at once, something radically new will not come out for such a crucial event. Something needs to be released in the half-segment, because it’s high time, but at the same time, you don’t drop the mirrorless segment.
If Canon decides on a mirrorless crop, we definitely won’t see the 7D3 anymore, it simply has no place. And the EF-S line will also not receive replenishment. According to her there are not even rumors.
If we do not see 7D3, then the clock hands have shifted to the mirrorless position. Is there life without a mirror?
Sigmo 8-16 is there.
Oh, very peculiar glass, but unique.
“The rear focal length of the lens really won't allow focusing to infinity when trying to mount on an EF mount camera” - WTF ?? do ff and crop nikon have different focal lengths?
The back focal segment is the distance from the last optical element to the matrix (roughly), in contrast to the WORK segment - the distance from the bayonet plane. The ZFO is different for different lenses and smaller for EF-S due to the smaller mirror size with the same working. Rodion has a complicated formulation, but, in fact, the correct one.
The author wanted to say that the rear lens will abut the mirror on the FF camera? Or what, sobssno, he wanted to say?
Yes.
Mirror more on FF.
It also seems like some kind of heresy. They always danced from the working segment, and here on you ...
“The lens focuses by moving the entire lens unit. At the same time, its front part remains motionless and does not play. " Maybe the old fashioned way, "internal focusing".
So it is not internal, but with the entire lens block.
Oh, is this not internal? Well, I don’t know.
Focus, most likely, is programmatically limited in order to preserve the mirror on the FF.
Internal focusing is carried out by the movement of the inner group of lenses.
Well yes! The lens block, after all, is also a group of lenses, and they move without leaving the lens :).
Just going out.
When focusing, the entire lens block moves with a frame, a filter and a hood. Linear dimensions vary, ergo focusing is not internal.
Grazie!
Right And the full-frame version has the same operation scheme.
As I understand it, focusing with the entire lens block is the simplest and most convenient scheme, but it does not work on large and heavy lenses, because you cannot drive the whole kilogram of lenses, therefore it is used only on small lenses such as these pancakes. Fifty 1.8 and 1.4, in my opinion, focus in the same way. And of the shortcomings is still resizing. Therefore, it seems (I will not say for sure - not an optician) that televisions reduce the size of the picture with the front lens, and the central unit is already driven for focusing (well, maybe the back unit somehow compensates for aberrations).
"The lens focuses by moving the entire lens unit, the front of which does not rotate and does not play."
Maybe something like that?
I don’t quibble, it is just this pair of sentences that raises questions.
In the future, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I propose to call the lenses in which the dimensions change as “pumps”, “pumps” or “vacuum cleaners”, as opposed to “non-pumps”, in which the front and rear lenses remain stationary, and focusing is carried out by moving the internal lenses; - ). This is a typical "pump", like all whales and most lenses.
Well, when the leading manufacturers will name it that way, then we will.
In a typical “vacuum cleaner”, the front lens is fixed, and when the zoom ring moves, the rear lens unit moves inside, creating the effect of a pump and sucking dust into the body. The offset is quite large (especially for something like 55-250). This lens has the ENTIRE lens unit. Moreover, it shifts a very small distance, in my opinion, not even reaching the bayonet. You can't watch it live, because the focus control is purely electronic and the rotation of the ring on the removed lens does not lead to anything. So the term vacuum cleaner is not applicable to either 24 or 40 mm. Basically, these are zooms, and of the lower class.
By the way, it's easy to look live - no one forbids focusing on the MDF and removing the lens from the camera.
Well, these will be the extreme points, it’s easier to twist.
Just the opposite. If the front lens is stationary, then it cannot suck dust from the outside (only through the slots of the mount or body, which is unlikely). Even if the rear lens moves, it simply drives air inside the camera, just like internally focused lenses drive air inside the lens unit.
It sucks the dust out of the chamber. And, given the fact that the camera is relatively tight, the vacuum created by the movement of the lens is quite significant so that all the dust particles from the camera fall into the lens. Part is ejected by the reverse movement of the helicoid, part remains inside the lens for good. And in any case, dust gets into the camera when changing lenses, for good reason cleaning the sensor has become the standard of more or less serious cameras.
Roman, the camera is leaking, sucks dust, including through the viewfinder. Therefore, 'vacuum' lenses increase the amount of dust inside the camera as well.
a good review
For a long time I was thinking of writing something like this, but Rodion got ahead.
The lens is really very good and, as for me, is even more usable than 40 mm on a full frame (40 mm on a crop generally make little sense - fifty is not much larger, but much better suited for a portrait).
In principle, in the presence of a wide zoom (10-18, 11-16) and a telephoto (55-250, 70-300), this pancake alone is enough to cover the central part and take it instead of the standard 18-55 zoom for trips. Well, or just throw a DSLR with you in a backpack with this glass is very convenient. And if the DSLR is compact, such as 100D-200D, then even more so.
24mm on the crop is a good universal focal point for both street photography and portraiture, especially in a cramped room, while the small MDF allows you to crop well if necessary, by approaching the subject.
"40 mm on the crop doesn't make much sense ..."
Yes, not a fig like that! 40 mm on the crop - 64 mm ether, the most tsimes for a landscape: https://pp.userapi.com/c626625/v626625217/b3a1/IqHWEKEeg4M.jpg
Of course, you can’t shoot a street with them, but there’s 24 mm.
But on a fullframe with aperture from 4 to 8 frames to disgrace resemble Smena-8M (focal one!), But at a higher level))
Well ... This "landscape" can be perfectly filmed with a crop at 24mm, and at 40mm, and at 50mm, and at 18-55, and at 55-250. Quite undemanding to the focal frame, plus or minus a few steps back and forth, and perspective distortions due to planning will be about the same.
For some reason I didn’t find 40 mm in myself either on the full frame or on the crop. 50 / 1.8 with a slightly larger size is significantly better in aperture ratio (when dark) and in the depth of field. 35 / 2.0IS, although significantly larger in size, aperture, even less MDF and higher focusing speed due to USM. On a crop with 40 mm, I’m constantly cramped where I want to take a wide and too large depth of field, where I’m used to fifty kopecks. No matter how much I take with me, it lies in the bag, basically. I used it at home several times for the item, but even there it ceased to be needed after the purchase of a 35 / 2.8 macro. With a high degree of probability I will sell.
I agree. The fifty-kopeck piece is even faster than these two. 40mm cropped - neither one nor the other. And the room does not turn around, and the luminosity is not the same. For a crop, the normal option is 24-2.8 + 50-1.8. So to speak, Smena-8m + Zenith with Helios-40. Everything, the whale can be sold! And the groundwork for the future - both will stand on the FF-mirrorless.
Good afternoon! In your opinion, given the 250D and 50 1,8STM, is it worth bothering with the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM lens, or will the 24 2,8STM lens be enough? For non-professional use.
The picture from 50 1,8, of course, greatly outperforms the whale lens. The Sigma 18-35 1,8 art would probably be an ideal complement. But this is quite a horse price.
Or an analogue of Nikon's 35 1,8. But for Canon, this is again noticeably more expensive
You can take 10-18 and 24 2.8 stm - this is enough together with 50 / 1.8 for most situations.
As a stock zoom, the 17-55 is flawless, of course. As far as Sigma is concerned, there is always the possibility of incorrect work of af. If you do not need an ultra-wide angle, then 24mm + 50mm can be dispensed with, with a leisurely shooting there should be no problems with changing lenses and choosing angles.
It all depends on focal preferences. Enough for most situations ~ 38mm ether - take 24cm. If you often need a wider angle, it's better to take a zoom.
Changing lenses on the go is not very convenient and is only necessary for professional shooting, when nothing else can be done (and then, usually for this purpose, 2 ... 3 carcasses are taken), if (as in the case of 17-55) you can do with one lens - it is definitely better to use it as a wagon.
Of course, the 17-55 lens is not for perfectionists, but you still won't find anything better from your native optics on the Canon-crop (you will find it from non-native ones :))
IMHO, 17-55 heavy. 24 fix is more convenient in this regard. Zoom is sometimes better with feet.
But still, the picture quality is 17-55 cooler. Plus stub. I take the 24 only when it is hard to carry the 17-55, and this focal range needs to be plugged with something. And this is something you can put in your windbreaker pocket, carrying some kind of telephoto as the main one. And when you purposefully go to shoot something (or someone), and then you see the result, you understand that 24 would not give this feeling of an expensive picture.
In general, I do not regret that I have both. I regret a little about 40 / 2.8, but I will not sell.
17-55 is too heavy for your carcass. You can use it, of course, and it will give its excellent result, but it negates the very idea of a small camera and is not very convenient. Look towards 24 / 2.8, and an even more compromise solution would be 35 / 2.8 - a very underrated lens.
I have a Konica Hexanon AR 40mm F1.8, which is very good on crop, almost universal. Although a bit long for landscapes, yes. And also almost "pancake" :) only with adapters already bulges enough.
Actually, from Konika I made a trip to this lens.
Always wanted a similar lens on Nikon.
Support.
https://radojuva.com/2018/03/yongnuo-40mm-2-8-n-yn40mm/ - for a full frame. Perhaps you will find application on crop (see comment above).
Well, it’s so, 24mm on the trip will be more interesting
But they are not for Nikon cameras)
I support, I love Nikon, but I think that they will never release such - purely for marketing reasons. It's cheap and has too many clear advantages. An ordinary person will buy it and he will solve the main part of his tasks - to take pictures of children at home, and landscapes on the street and on trips it is ... This is not the case. :)
Well, 35-ku then released at the time. And 24 will not be released because the crop line has not expanded for a long time and they scored it
I do not think that Nikon will ever ever produce optics for DX DSLRs. I think that in 5-10 years the crop will go down in history, because there are smartphones for the consumer segment, and enthusiasts can easily afford a full frame.
So Nikon and Canon will have to give up profits from the crop segment, or arrange the release of smartphones)
I believe that on the contrary, the proportion of aps-c format will increase. The quality of the photos in this format has come close to the full format. Already, many are abandoning their bulky and heavy full frames and are moving, for example, to Fuji. And in the Fuji lineup there are no full frames and will not be. There is only aps-c and medium format, which, in my opinion, is optimal.
Most likely, in the medium term, only very expensive fancy cameras with high resolution, such as Nikon D850, Sony a7R IV and so on, will remain in the full-frame market. Cheaper solutions like the Canon 6D II will disappear.
Great review! pancakes are always good, and good pancakes are even better.
Some offensive comments have been deleted.
Commenting comrades, please respect the courtesy of my site.
Come on - why was that offensive?
Actually, it's all about the case.
Let's clean it up to hell - the number of readers from 150 will rapidly progress upwards.
And Rodion will still raise money for his ff.
Oh well…
This is what communication almost only with fossil glasses from the flea market leads to - any more or less sane lens with a freshish, in general, picture, is declared as “having no optical flaws” !!
What are its obvious flaws for its price? If we talk about bokeh, then this is not a bokey focal point, an ordinary compact staffer for every day for modest money. By the way, they talked about the use of a 40mm pancake, it’s very convenient for children to shoot at full height with moderate blur, it’s not always
wash away in the trash
Well, as for me, the very first drawback is that it is very dark, as for a fix. the difference with Nikonovsky 35 / 1.8DX is more than a stop (the comparison with Nikon is here only so that they don't say later “well, he's so cheap, let's forgive him everything now!”). This is especially important due to the predominant use on cheap crop DSLRs, which usually do not please with high working ISOs.
Well, if you still compare bokeh with the same 35 / 1.8DX - this is heaven and earth simply.
One indisputable plus is a very small MDF
How can blame the darkness of the lens, originally designed with aperture 2.8? Because it has to be compact, lightweight and cheap.
2.8 - This was once considered a "fast lens". And for the staff, this is a normal depth of field, I'm not complaining. This is not a flaw, it is a design feature.
It can be stated precisely as an optical flaw, a rather strong vignetting in the open. Which, again, can be understood given the size and weight. But the darkness ... Sorry, it's more like a run over.
Well, by the way, without a vignette it would be really fresh) With it, it’s more interesting to shoot flowers, and rare portraits come out nicer.
And for this I love my 20 / 2.8. He just has a wild vignette, but in the open it is she who gives the shot a charm. On the covered is already good, but it's for the landscape.
Yes, and bokeh should be compared to 2.8. And at the same time, it’s worth noting for yourself that this is pancake, not an artistic lens, it has other goals. Therefore, I have 35 / 2.0IS and 40 / 2.8, these are completely different lenses and each one is good for its tasks and for its price.
I completely agree. Nikkor is not only longer, and noticeably, but also much larger in size and will not fit in a pocket in a shirt. That's when Nikon will make 24/2 in the form of a pancake for their crop cameras up to $ 200, then let's say that canon 24 stm is dark. But, judging by the experience, for example, of Samyang, 24 / 1.8 for the APS-C CZK cannot be pushed into a pancake.
I tell you about bokeh - you tell me about dimensions
I tell you about the difficulties when shooting in bad conditions - you tell me about the price and weight
I'm talking about a not-so-small price - you about a focal point and a shirt pocket
Ugh on you, you can think that you are right and I am not.
Why compare hot and hard? You need bokeh and shooting in the dark - there is samyang 24 / 1.8. You are welcome. AF at night will still not help.
Yes, 24mm bokeh is generally a specific thing, even on a full frame and a faster lens, there’s no great art in it
I guess, yes. Here reviews 35 / 1.4 ran through - also nothing artistic. Aperture for the sake of aperture and no more)
Oleg, right now 24 / 1.4L was a shame.
Well, the same Nikon also has all “inexpensive” 24mm f / 2.8, and 1.8 and 1.4 are gold rings, as it were. So he has a normal aperture, like everyone else.
f / 2.8 - lenses from the film era, and this EFS is kind of like 2014. Well, all Nikon's 24s are full-frame. Comparison is generally inappropriate.
Well, with 35 mm, the comparison is also inappropriate - the focal one is completely different, and the aperture does not increase with the year of manufacture)
C 35 comparison is inappropriate but more appropriate, simply by the number of common places:
- both are (near-) normal lenses, due to the different crop factor for Canon and Nikon in EGF, the difference is not so big - 38 versus 52 mm
- both are made for crop cameras
- both are more or less new generation lenses
- both lenses are some of the cheapest, and therefore the most common fixes for amateurs.
And here's how for me - precisely for use by amateurs on crop cameras as the only lens, the Kenon 24 loses to the Nikon 35, primarily because of the low aperture, just a stop different from the whale dark zoom, while the 35 -ka has a difference of more than 2 feet, which after long and fruitless years on the kitosum simply blows the roof off the neophytes and makes them see their camera in a new way. With a kenon, such a difference will be much less dramatic.
Onotole, the roof is blown away by a cheap canon fifty kopeck piece, giving a difference of more than three stops at its focal point. First of all, neophytes take it. When done 24 / 2.8, the basic requirement was the form factor. Making a faster aperture pancake, while maintaining the simplicity of the optical design (and hence the low price) is unrealistic.
I took this glass precisely because of the size. When I choose what to wear for a walk, this little one or a massive 17-55, naturally, I choose it.
35 is still a normal lens, and 24 is still wide (38mm EGF is closer to 35 than to 50). Otherwise, I agree. And so 24 loses in addition to the luminosity and not always appropriate focal (for a standard lens it is understood). Still, 35 is a staff, 24 is a moderate shirik, which can (but often inconvenient) be used as a staff.
Just the same for all occasions, 24mm is much more usable as a station wagon. If you can crop from 24mm to 35mm, then you can't crop with 35mm. And something in the rooms of 1.8 aperture did not give me the convenience of shooting. For Nikon, 24mm with 2.8 would be much more appropriate, otherwise 35mm is an under-portrait, underdog, underdone, namely: not for portraits, not for indoor use, only subject shooting is convenient for them.
Plus I will add that it is one and a half times larger than a pancake.
I understand perfectly why you are defending 35, everything is simple - there is no pancake available for Nikon with such FRs and therefore all Nikon residents pray out of those available at 35mm in the crop, because he is the only one.
Very, very dicussion, Michael. From a 35/50 pair, as a staffer, I prefer 24 mm on a full frame, exactly the same as from a 24/35 pair - 24 on a crop.
Shtatnik - this is something that you can not remove from the carcass constantly. And to shoot everything with varying success. 35 (24) mm wide enough to capture maximum detail on the street when reporting or deploy in a cramped room. They can take a portrait right up to the front, enough to come closer. In principle, everything that a person does is by bringing an object of interest to his eyes.
The fifty-kopeck piece became a "staff member" in full frame, IMHO, for a technical reason. Due to the large focal distance of all DSLRs (about 45 mm), it is 50 (45-55) mm focal length, when you can get a high-aperture lens with the most straightforward design. Anything longer will require more elements to maintain a high aperture ratio, anything shorter will be either harder or darker. Therefore, Helios-44 reigned on the market instead of the much more convenient, but more complex (and dark) Mir-1.
Read: "Out of the 35/50 pair, I prefer 35mm on a full frame as a staff."
Here to each his own. I’m too used to 50mm and I prefer this distance as a standard
Just following your logic, you can agree on a 10mm staffer and complain about his aperture) Actually, because of more complex schemes, apparently they made 24 2.8 to be cheap, but at 35 you can use a simpler scheme with a higher aperture. In general, okay, debatable)
50 mm is not an axiom. If we are to clarify this issue to the end, then a lens whose fox is equal to the frame diagonal is considered normal.
For FF it is 43mm, for crop-nikon - 28.4 mm, for crop-kenon - 26,8 mm
This is normal (and not a staff) - this is what you wrote. Anything larger than a telephoto lens, anything smaller is a shirik
Do not argue the staffer is 18-55 / 3.5-5.6, he is also a whale. Humor
Oh, I even missed the answer in this old discussion. Isn't the “standard lens” and “normal lens” the same thing? On the full frame, everything from 35 to 50 mm is entered here (well, you can also start with a big stretch of Helios with its 58 mm, or all these high-aperture options with 55 mm, when fifty dollars did not allow you to build a mirror). Well, the very term "staff" in the era of zooms can be reduced to "a lens that necessarily has a normal FR", that is, it allows you to shoot all those scenes that a person sees with a glance in a normal and familiar perspective.
There are only two types of focusing - Unit Focusing - focusing by moving the entire lens unit, and Internal Focusing, focusing by moving the inner group of lenses. This also includes focusing by moving only the rear or only the front lens group.
I went to look at my 100-300 / 5.6L with a rotating and moving front element. I thought a lot. Along the way, I remembered 18-55 DC III.
They say your 100-300L is a very interesting lens with fluorite glass inside and the cheapest of them on the market. But with excellent optical performance. Can you make a review on it?
I have from that "old" that has not been reviewed here, there are 100-300 / 5.6L, 135 / 2.8SF and 20 / 2.8. I started going through old photos recently to find examples for all three. Maybe by July something will work out. In what order is it more interesting?
There is also an EF-S 35 / 2.8 macro - it is from the latest crop lenses (as if not the last) and EF 8-15 / 4L. I use these more often. The rest seemed to be seen here.
Review washed down, who are interested, soon promised to lay out.
I have fd 24rka, I can record a review on a9. This efs for the poor
Do of course. A lot of good and different lenses) It's always interesting to see something new, especially forgotten fd
Thanks for your review! Now I’m thinking, but not to buy the same, his size is very "marching".
Its size is so marching that I took this lens on a hiking trip))) And I didn’t lose it at all, I think. Added photos to the review)
Mikhail, 35-ka on the crop is not considered a normal lens. As far as I know, a lens with a focal length equal to the sensor diagonal is considered normal on a camera (full-free or crop), i.e. on Full-Frame it will be 43mm, and therefore a 40mm pancake is just what you need, and on a crop it is 27mm, and a 28mm lens would be perfect. 40mm perfect lens for every day, here is a photo taken with 40mm pancake
Please add a lens to the Canon lens list on the page https://radojuva.com/photo-review/.
Bought with it at half price. The seller claimed that manual focus did not work.
I did not dissuade him. I have made a few photos so far, but it’s for sure that I like the picture. Bought after watching this particular article! Thank you Arkady for your work!
This review was prepared by Rodion, not me :)
Thanks! Excellent overview. I was just puzzled as to whether it was worth taking this glass. )
Here there is a misunderstanding, or ignorance of history: “Fifty became a“ staff member ”in full frame, IMHO, for a technical reason. Due to the large flange distance of all DSLRs ... "
In fact, “fifty dollars became a full frame staff” long before the mass distribution of DSLRs - even on rangefinders, which had a focal length, and it remains much shorter.
There were no good lenses with FD <50 mm for rangefinders for a long time. Before the invention of retrofocus lenses, they suffered greatly with incorrigible (angle of incidence) vignetting. So 50 mm is in many ways a hopelessness. By the way, lenses like 38-45 mm were often used for cheap mirrorless cameras of the past.
Thanks for the review. Tell me, have you tried shooting with a polar lens on this lens? If yes, then as results, I did not find examples.
This lens is not listed on the main page.
Because the reader review. There is a separate list
Thanks for the review. Found an inaccuracy: the last element is not ultrafine, but aspherical (according to Canon.usa)
So it says that it is aspherical.
How big is his light spot and will it cover the APS-H sensor without a vignette?
It seems to cover. A little with a margin he made. At full frame, the angles are only dark, like the Zenithar 50 / 1.2.
Does anyone have a photo of a simple brick smooth wall on this lens? Interested in field curvature.