[wim]

Hi Ed,



I hope you don't mind, I have added some comments.

[quote name='edonir' timestamp='1281443504' post='1629']

Yakim, cheers for a swift reply. See my comments in the text:[/quote]



[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1281442474' post='1628']

How much does the 2 stops matter to you?



IMO the 2 stops would be nice, if the 24mm was 'well' usable wide open (which it is not really, amongothers while the bokeh is not too pleasing). They do matter, however, in view of the fact that a f1.4 lens is getting 'well' usable already at f2.8-3.5. Otherwise, high-ISO of the 5D mII is of more importance than the two stops.

[/quote]

Well, I don't agree with you here. Bokeh, for a 24 mm lens, is actually very pleasing. You have to shoot low light and properly white balance your shots to really appreciate it however.



Regarding this lens not being usable at F/1.4 to F/2.8, again, this is internet myth, IMO spread by those who don't know how to use this lens. This lens was actually regarded the top in its (world) class even by 16:9.net, and we're talking the 24L Mk I here. The Mk II is even better. I don't think it gets any better at all in this class (fast 24 - 25 mm lenses), not even the Nikon 24 F/1.4G (although I probably get comments about the latter remark <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />; IMO they are probably about equally good, with a slight edge to the Canon I think).

How wide is wide enough for you?



24 mm on a FF



How much does AF matters to you?

It does, hyperfocal distance setting is not always viable and I am not sure I can effectively focus by hand (these days are long by <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

Hyperfocal distance doen't really work too well on digital anyway, DoF is a little less than with film, and behaves differently. If you stop down far enough, it becomes feasible again, but not at wider apertures.

Why not consider the 17/4 TS and 24/3.5 II TS as well? While primarily targeted towards architecture photography, they can also be used for landscape photography.



Very interesting point - have not thought about a TS, mainly because of the price tag (& extra cost for 82 mm filter). I do some architecture as well so, generally, why not.

Obviously apertures aren't as wide, (F/4 for the 17 and F/3.5 for the 24), but IQ is unbeatable with these lenses. Nothing better in existence for dslrs, AFAIK. And if bokeh is important to you, the TS-Es actually have marvellous bokeh, at any f-stop. However, they are MF only, although with a 5D II and Eg-S focusing screen that is not a problem at all IME.

For street photography most will opt for a 35mm lens on FF. How about you?



I like a wider perspective BUT am not against having a 35 mm (all-round - landscape, streetscape, general indoors) + 70-200 mm (portraits + compressed landscape) setup.

35 mm is still WA on FF <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Personally I prefer 50 mm for street and general photography, but as Yakim also said, these types of choices are very personal.

Note that the answers to these questions are very subjective. What is right for some may not be right for others. Also, what is your current WA lens and why do you want to replace it?



None. Have been using 50 mm (exclusively) on a 1,6x crop factor for several years, training composition & having fun.



Thanks, Ed

You should really try an 85L in that case.... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Kind regards, Wim