What does the "Sonnar T" mean for the 24mm F1.8 lens mean?
767729
A lens with a multi-layer T* coating that minimises light reflection on the lens surfaces, eliminating ghosting and flaring. With less reflection than a conventional lens, more natural light is able to reach the imaging chip, which makes images more natural-looking and vibrant.
767730
T* is the Zeiss multi-coating. Sonnar is the optical formula used in the design. It's a lightweight design with typically 7 elements in 3 groups allowing a maximum aperture of f/1.5. Sonnar has less elements than a planar, so generally better contrast and less flare. It will have more aberration than a planar. It's a refinement of the Tessar design.
767731
Sonnar is just term Zeiss uses to indicate what lens design the lens is using. Sonnar is just one design that Zeiss uses. There are also planar, distagon, and tessar Zeiss designs. The "T" part is lens coating that reduces flare and ghosting.
767732
T* is the Zeiss multi-coating.Sonnar is the optical formula used in the design. It's a lightweight design with typically 7 elements in 3 groups allowing a maximum aperture of f/1.5. Sonnar has less elements than a planar, so generally better contrast and less flare. It will have more aberration than a planar. It's a refinement of the Tessar design.
570725
Not quite sure what "oprat" means. It's a fast lensvthat has a fixed focal point.... Very wide angle.
2258792
it says Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L on the front in the picture. Take that for what it's worth. =)
1481628
It's 35mm thread. Some versions of the lens may different thread sizes, but the one from Rainbow is 35mm. (BTW, I'm not conflating the focal length with the filter thread size. Both happen to be 35mm.)
323361
I don't have the 28mm 1.8 but borrowed it before my purchase of the 24mm 1.4. It's a very good lens that is much lighter and obviously cheaper than the 24 1.4. The advantage of the 24 is obviously the extra stop of light or so. The 24 also was somewhat sharper than the 28(to my eyes), especially stopped down equally. You can't go wrong with either. Just depends on your price point and needs.
2061531
24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken more towards 16mm then maybe the mk2 of the 16-35mm would be best. 24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken... » Read More 24-70mm in general whether its mk1 or mk2 or even some other third party brand are all good for general purpose uses. Coming from 16-35mm lens, you might feel it wont be wide enough. a great question to ask yourself is: do i want a wide angle lens or a general purpose lens? for me, 24-70mm can be constricting sometimes, but the bulk of my shots are shot around 35-50mm. As a piece of advise, Id say see what photos you have already taken and see what most of your shots are taken at. If they are usually taken around 35mm seems like the 24-70mm might be a better choice. if your shots are taken more towards 16mm then maybe the mk2 of the 16-35mm would be best. « Show Less
1252944
I use it on a d810 with 17-35f2.8 and indeed get some vig at 17, not sure about 24 but the filter is pretty thin. If it's really a concern use a step up ring and a larger filter. I just shoot wide.
122415
Correct --The 1.4x will lower it 1 f-stop, the 2x will lower it 2 f-stops. This means an f4 will be f5.6 with the 1.4x or f8 with the 2xWith that said, this tele extender can be used with fixed focal length lenses 135mm and longer (except the 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus lens), and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, 70-200 f/4.0L, 70-200 f/4.0L IS USM, and 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS zoom lenses. I don't think it will work on a 24-105
358176
Yes. Two completely different lens. 24mm is twice as wide as the 50. Especially is u are not shooting a full frame dslr
2153209
If you have a 12-24mm already, you don't have to guess at a question like this. Just turn your current zoom to 16mm and you'll see what 16mm looks like.
1276663
I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut... » Read More I've been using the 14-24mm f2.8 for a year now. Tack sharp! No lens creep. I was worried about no filters to protect glass also. Built in lens hood protects front element well enough. Lens cap fits OVER hood when not in use. I am comfortable with that. No VR doesn't seem to be an issue, as a lot of light comes through the glass and allows higher shutter speeds I feel. I generally shoot with a standard ISO of 400 to kick it up the speed a bit. Great lens. I also use the 24-70mm and 70-200mm lenses, both at f2.8 as well. Throw any pic from these three lenses on you monitor and you could cut yourself on the sharpness. LOL. « Show Less
100137
I love them both. I find the 40mm is best for indoors and people because it's just the right field of view for close quarters. The 24 is almost a wide angle lens in comparison.
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
330875
Perhaps Peter means the 18-200VR. Peter, the 12mm gives about 25-35% more viewing angle, to my eye.
1267954
Well, in the maximun aperture f1.8 this lens is very poor, present too much vigneting and very soft focus. In f4 to f22 this lens is great with an excelent sharpness.
253872
The T at the end of the model references the Tech line which all come with smoked lens.Thanks
759242
If anyone is interested I have a 24-70L 2.8 Canon Lens. I only use it about 5 times total. 6 weeks after I bought it I purchase the 24-105 IS Canon Lens because I shoot mostly Wedding & Party's. The 24-105 IS works much better for the type of photography I do. I would sell it for $900.00 and include the B&W; UV Filter which is the top of the line brand filter which is made in Germany. Plus $25.00 for shipping. You can email me at rjgphoto@sbcglobal.net if anyone is interested.