From 24/2.8 to 24/1.4L. Will it make sense???

[arde]

Hi all,

I need some REALY GOOD arguments to go for a new lens...please help :-)

Currently I have the EF 24/2.8 lens and I am very satisfied with it. With this focal length, I can make 90% of the pictures I want to make. It's a kind of challenge to use a prime. In the old days I owned a Contax G2 with a 35, 50 & 90 mm lens and also then, the 35mm was on 90% of the time.

Bu I am thinking of L glass. The main reason would be sharpness, not the bigger lens opening.
On top of the list is the Ef 24/1.4L but I am also considering the 24-70/2.8, 16-35/2.8L and 17-40/4.0L (in this order).

I've read a review/comparison on www.luminouslandscape.com and there the EF 24/1.4L was (of course) less sharp in the edges when used wide open compared to the L zoom lenses, also when used wide open. At f8 the differences where close to nothing.

Did somebody compare the 24/2.8 and the 24/1.4L?
Will it make sense to go for one of the other L lenses if it comes to sharpness?

Any input appriciated.

Thanks,

[lightandlife]

My comment will not satisfy your appetite, but it may be somewhat related.

I was not happy with 28-70mm L zoom lens, which is now replaced by 24-70mm L. I thought about getting 16-35mm L or 24mm L or 35mm L.

If you need a sharp wide angle prime, 24mm 1.4 L will do. Its owners are generally satisifed with it, but some complained that the corners are soft.

[DaveG]

arde wrote:
Hi all,

I need some REALY GOOD arguments to go for a new lens...please help :-)

Currently I have the EF 24/2.8 lens and I am very satisfied with it. With this focal length, I can make 90% of the pictures I want to make. It's a kind of challenge to use a prime. In the old days I owned a Contax G2 with a 35, 50 & 90 mm lens and also then, the 35mm was on 90% of the time.

Bu I am thinking of L glass. The main reason would be sharpness, not the bigger lens opening.
On top of the list is the Ef 24/1.4L but I am also considering the 24-70/2.8, 16-35/2.8L and 17-40/4.0L (in this order).

I've read a review/comparison on www.luminouslandscape.com and there the EF 24/1.4L was (of course) less sharp in the edges when used wide open compared to the L zoom lenses, also when used wide open. At f8 the differences where close to nothing.

Did somebody compare the 24/2.8 and the 24/1.4L?
Will it make sense to go for one of the other L lenses if it comes to sharpness?

Any input appriciated.

Thanks,





I presume that you are goin to use this lens with a 10D so I'll base my comments on that.

First the 24 f1.4 would translate to a 38 (ish) mm lens. That fast aperture would be very useful with a lens of this focal length. I used a 35mm f2 for years and a 1.4 would have been very nice indeed.

The 24-70 f2.8 (and the older 28-70) has never made much sense to me. This lens would be a 35-112 and you wouldn't pay a premium for a 2.8 lens anywhere along this lenses' focal length. You already own a 24 f2.8 and you're thinking about 1.4. When was the last time Canon sold a 35 mm f2.8? A 50 (non macro) f2.8?

Now that lens is going to be sharp, no doubt. But so is my 24-85 f3.5-f4.5.

I own the 16-35 f2.8 L and this is a remarkable lens. It's very sharp. I must say that I wouldn't have purchased this lens without the long term hope that I'll have a 24x36 mm CMOS within a year or two. Once again the premium for 2.8 is offset by the effective focal length (35-60). But I am confident that 24x36 in an affordable DSLR is coming.

The 17-40 f4 would be an excellent lens but the speed and the focal length, coupled with the cost would put me off. I'd rather have a faster lens or a much cheaper one (back to the 24-85).

So my decision was to get the 16-35, with the conviction that using it as a true 16-35 won't be that long away.

[Littlebike]

arde wrote:
I've read a review/comparison on www.luminouslandscape.com and there the EF 24/1.4L was (of course) less sharp in the edges when used wide open compared to the L zoom lenses, also when used wide open.

Sharpness around the edges is not a big deal due to the cropping factor of the 10D, the small CMOS photographic surface will crop out the soft edges.

At least from what I understand it will.

[Belmondo]

Littlebike wrote:Sharpness around the edges is not a big deal due to the cropping factor of the 10D, the small CMOS photographic surface will crop out the soft edges.


Just a cautionary note: Marginal performance from a lens attached to a 10D may suffice for the moment, but might prove to be unsatisfactory on future bodies with larger sensors. If you think the 10D is the last camera you're ever going to buy, don't worry about the edges.

[DaveG]

Littlebike wrote:
arde wrote:
I've read a review/comparison on www.luminouslandscape.com and there the EF 24/1.4L was (of course) less sharp in the edges when used wide open compared to the L zoom lenses, also when used wide open.

Sharpness around the edges is not a big deal due to the cropping factor of the 10D, the small CMOS photographic surface will crop out the soft edges.

At least from what I understand it will.


There seems to be a large body of photographers who seem to think that the centre of a lens is a sweet spot and if you only use that centre then you'll have a sharper lens.

In one way this is true. The centre is sharper. However if you ever look at the lines per millimeter ratings of 35 mm lenses as compared to medium format and large format lenses you will discover that these larger format lenses are nowhere near as sharp as the 35 mm ones.

This is because that the larger format lenses have a larger image circle. The trade off (and in photography there's always a trade off isn't there?) is that along with the larger image circle comes lower L/P/MM. What makes the MF and LF images better is that the larger film size jumps the quality over the liabilities of the less sharp lenses.

So you are using the sharper centre of the 35 mm lenses with the 10D, but you are also using a smaller and more inferior "film" size. I have no doubt that the quality of the final image (think D1S) will be better with the full use of a 35 mm lens, including the "soft" edges, compared to the same lens on a 10D.