Hi again,

Would like to know if anyone could offer some input on whether to go for a Canon prime wide angle lens (24mm f/1.4) or the similarly priced Canon L 24-70mm f/2.8??

I'm looking to get one before I head off on a trekking and safari trip in Africa within a couple of months. So, I'd like something that could capture some very sharp landscapes. I'm worried about the sharpness difference between the prime and the zoom, after having been using a Canon L 28-70mm lately and not being all that impressed.

Has anyone used the 24mm f/1.4? With which body?

I'm mostly worried about the sharpness of the 24-70mm at the the wider zoom, where it will get much more use.

I have a sigma 10-20mm, which is good fun with the extra width, but its not all that sharp at all.

Cheers.

24mm is not a wide angle on cameras with crop factor (eos 3**D, eos 4**D, eos 20D, eos 30D, eos 40D)

Here is a good review including sharpness, aparently that guy did not  had as much luck with the 24-70 copies. http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/184-canon-ef-24-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

And here the 1.4 review: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/152-canon-ef-24mm-f14-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

I have the 24-70 and am very pleased with the images. Of course in general a prime is sharper but I am very satisfied with my copy. Even at 2.8 it is pretty sharp.

If you are planning to take the 40D as the only camera I would look into Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. I read that it is better than the 24-70, nice wide angle on crop body and IS on top of it. All that for about the same price. And I have the 24-70 f/2.8 myself.

I agree 17-55 would be good choice but remember that is  an EFS  lens and  won't work on a full frame body and if you are planning to upgrade to a full frame body  (like th new 5d as you mention above) I'd go for 24-70 if I were you as leaf mentioned I think it would be a more flexible lens than a prime when shooting landscape.

Without sounding too condecending, you ain't going to notice a lot of  difference in quality between a 24mm and a 24-70mm using a 40D, both lenses are top quality and can give great results.

If it was me out of those two I'd go for the 24-70, but then to be totally honest I wouldn't choose either, in the situation you describe I'd go for the 24-105mm, that way you can shoot landscapes and have a bit extra reach for some wildlife.

Either way it sounds like a nice trip, have fun.

Thanks, you're probably right. I use a 1ds Mark 2 as well, which i've been using someone else's 28-70 on, but i'm still not completely satisfied with the quality (maybe i need to give myself a break and focus on the content of the image ).. I think quality is more dependent on the glass than the body. I'm hesitant to take the 1ds to africa (kenya), tho without any assistants or any such things.

I have a canon L 70-200 with a 2x extender so i'm hoping thats enough to capture some of those furry critters.

This is probably an endless discussion. I started off wondering about the difference between the prime and the zoom at around 24mm of zoom, but there are just so many lenses and any L glass seems to be pretty top notch.

Anbody been or living in Africa with some essential tips?

I have a canon L 70-200 with a 2x extender so i'm hoping thats enough to capture some of those furry critters.

Do you have a canon 2x extender? How does it perform with the 70-200?
I have a 70-200 2.8 is and I tried it with a cheap 2x extender and the results are horrible. Perhaps with the canon...?

In the last few years Kenya has become a politically unstable and violent place, so be very, very careful and keep your wits about you.

I was saddened to see that Guiseppe di Stefano, a famous tenor in the 60's and 70's and who had probably the best relationship with Maria Callas on stage and on record was recently mugged at his home in Kenya, and being now in his 80's he died from the injuries.

I've never been there and don't intend to, but I suggest you stick very close to your guides and have plenty of dollar bills in your pocket for gratuities and bribes.

Do you have a canon 2x extender? How does it perform with the 70-200?
I have a 70-200 2.8 is and I tried it with a cheap 2x extender and the results are horrible. Perhaps with the canon...?

As I said above, I used to have a Canon 2X, but got rid of it. I used it with my 70-200mm, 200mm, and 300mm 'L' lenses and found that it magically transformed a superior lens into a mediocre one. I couldn't afford a 600mm, so I ditched the 200mm and bought a 400mm instead.

If you're at all a stickler for sharpness, you won't like using an extender. You should also know that you can't autofocus unless you use the extender on an f/2.8 lens, and that it costs you two stops (i.e. you now have an f/5.6 lens), which means you'll have to stop down to f/11 before you begin to hit the 'sweet spot'.

Overall, I found the combination of f/2.8 + 2x to be too much of a difficult compromise in anything but ideal lighting conditions.

Without sounding too condecending, you ain't going to notice a lot of  difference in quality between a 24mm and a 24-70mm using a 40D, both lenses are top quality and can give great results.

If it was me out of those two I'd go for the 24-70, but then to be totally honest I wouldn't choose either, in the situation you describe I'd go for the 24-105mm, that way you can shoot landscapes and have a bit extra reach for some wildlife.

Either way it sounds like a nice trip, have fun.

I had those exact thoughts and I went for 24-105mm. I may have been unlucky and I got a bad copy but my lens sucks big time.  Soft , but I mean "soft" all under f9 but the biggest problem is chromatic aberrations.

Recently I had a chance to try another copy , and was even worst than mine.