Difference between L and non L : any samples?

[PaulN]

Does anyone have any pictures of a scene taken with an L lens and a non-L lens? I am curious to see the difference. (I assume that the main difference will be when the aperature is wide open.)

I am thinking about either replacing my lenses with L lenses or possibly keeping my lenses and upgrading to a MK II.

-paul

[pradeep1]

Asking a question like this is akin to asking a pack of wild dogs if they care to eat dog food or hunt live game. Fortunately, you should get plenty of good respones. Good luck. :P

[Scottes]

Live Game!

[ShutteringFocus]

Wait...are L lenses the dog food or the wild game?

[chris.bailey]

Converting to a 72 dpi .jpg, downsizing and viewing off the web will only hint at the difference. I doubt therefore that posting up samples will be a fair comparison.

http://www.pbase.com/image/26874421.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/25235861.jpg

One is L and one is not. A bit unfair as different subjects, inside/outside etc bit I think it is clear which is which.

[rick barclay]

Yup. Bottom one is L! :D

[Cadwell]

Dunno how scientific this is... but for what it's worth....

Non-L
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/valaraukar/IMG_8413.jpg
L
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/valaraukar/IMG_8427.jpg

The Non-L is the Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 EX IF HSM.
The "L" in this case is the Canon EF 70-200mm F/4.0L.

[cgratti]

I seriously think the Sigma looks sharper.... is it just me? Look at the grill on both, the sigma looks much sharper...

[EXA1a]

Does anyone have any pictures of a scene taken with an L lens and a non-L lens? I am curious to see the difference. (I assume that the main difference will be when the aperature is wide open.)

I am thinking about either replacing my lenses with L lenses or possibly keeping my lenses and upgrading to a MK II.

-paul
Without knowing which lenses you have, nobody can seriously comment on that.

--Jens--

[terrijo]

cgratti, I agree with you. The non L does look a lot sharper. Um.....

[martcol]

I have just got 2 L lenses. Until now I have enjoyed using a 28-135 IS lens and a 50 mm prime. These L lenses are amazing (24-70 & 70-200). It isn't just about the results in the final image it's also about handling. The AF is swift, real swift.... and more accurate. I often suspected I had the dreaded focus problems on a fairly early 10D but was reluctant to press it as the problems were inconsistent. Now AF seems much more accurate, bang on first time. I also notice that overall colour seems more errr natural. Consistent between shots. Then, the out of focus areas on narrow depth of field is smooth and creamy. It's' difficult to explain but it just is.

Even though these lenses have cost me a small fortune I think they will last for ever (they feel so solid, smooth, they're quiet, you can kind of feel them....)

I am so glad I have these lenses and now also have the 100-400 on order.

Martin

[NILOLIGIST]

Yes, the non L does look sharper and more contrasty. But, if he finds the sweet spot in his L lens I think it would be the winner.

Having L isn't enough, you have to find that sweet spot. Also, there are too many variables, what were the settings on each lens, was he using IS, what post processing if any was done and so on...

Don't think it was a fair comparison. Look at one of RFMSports shots and then tell me if a non L is better.

Here is a link to RFMSports shot of a race car, makes that Sigma look not so good to me.

I hope you don't mind Jim.

Forum Link...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30575&highlight=rfmsports

Acutally image
http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2004/CCWS/img_8008_std.jpg

NiL,

[EXA1a]

cgratti, I agree with you. The non L does look a lot sharper. Um.....
Panned shots or shots of moving objects are not useful for such a comparison.
From downsized pics you cannot judge the sharpness.
Without exif the pics don't tell you anything.
Furthermore, the non-"L" shot was most likely taken with a faster shutter speed and is therefore more lkely to be sharp.
The shots are nice but they're definitively not suitable for a lens comparison.

--Jens--

[jalafer]

cgratti wrote: I seriously think the Sigma looks sharper.... is it just me? Look at the grill on both, the sigma looks much sharper..

Yes, the Sigma pictures is sharper ! but in my opinion the problem with the L picture is not sharpness, it is blurr. My experience with the 70-200f4L is that it is very difficult to avoid blurr when shooting lower than 1/500.
Anywat this sigma lens seems to be really good ...

[Cadwell]

:lol: This isn't a competition, people. If I'd picked another two shots the Canon might have looked slightly sharper than the Sigma, who knows? It just so happened that these two were the only ones I had where the image was a close match. I don't even regard it as a particularly good shot. It's certainly not amongst my top ten of that day.

(For the number obsessed... the Sigma was 1/640th f/5.6 ISO 400 and the Canon was 1/640th f/7.1 and ISO 400. Neither lens has an IS function. The only post processing done on the shots was resizing and the same amount of USM on each. )

In practice, I find it almost impossible to tell the difference between the images produced by these two lenses and that's very telling. They are both superb and complement each other nicely in terms of focal length.

[Tapeman]

The non L looks like a cat.
The L looks like a horse.

Sorry, I could't resist.

:D :D

[drisley]

I've found that the big difference is usually chromatic abberation.
The L's usually have none wide open, while even the sigma ex lenses have a fair amount wide open.

[PaulN]

Okay, thanks for all the replies...I think what it takes is a comparison with two lenses at the same focal length and aperature (can be zooms of course) and on a tripod. Then we could really see the difference. The best would be a couple of pics of the same object taken at different aperatures to see if the lenses differ most when wide open (as one would have to guess would be the case). Now, if someone wanted to donate an L lens, I'd of course be happy to suffer through performing such a test!
:lol:

For the record, I have a 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5, a 100-300 f/4.5-5.6, a 100 f/2.8 macro, and a 24 mm f/2.8 . I'm considering selling all but the macro and getting a couple of L lenses, or keeping the lenses and getting a mkII...my wife might kill me either way!

[Cadwell]

I've found that the big difference is usually chromatic abberation.
The L's usually have none wide open, while even the sigma ex lenses have a fair amount wide open.

Nope, no discernable CA on my Sigma. CA is one thing I cannot stand in an image. If it was there the lens would have gone back to the vendor on the day I received it.

[drisley]

I recently saw a webpage where I guy compared shots of airplanes using a sigma EX zoom lens and a canon L zoom lens.
I think they were 100-400mm lenses.
The sigma shots had bad CA in all shots greater than f8.
I will have to find that one again.

[karusel]

What about comparing Canon professional lens (L) to any other non professional lens, so no EXes and so on... that would be very unfair and a great hint of where that extra money went...

[chris.bailey]

The non L looks like a cat.
The L looks like a horse.

Sorry, I could't resist.

:D :D

:lol: :lol:

Ones a horse, the others a psychopathic Justabird killing machine

:lol: :lol:

[Cordell]

My technique in comparing lenses and the pictures I can produce with them work extremely well for me. It goes something like this . . .

. . . I like how much this lens cost because I can afford it. . . I like how this lens feel . . . I love this picture I produced with this lens because I learned how to use it.

Guess what? I didn't even get all techie about it. I just love the pictures and they were sooooo easy to snap because I learned how to use my gear after testing it before purchasing. Will Joe, Sue, Barb, and John have the same results and opinions? Nope! You gotta try it out to see what YOU like.

Some men like women with huge :shock: . Some men hate'm.
Some women like . . . whatever it is they like (I haven't figured them out yet says the wife).

Point is try it. See what you think. Go for what yah like.

Cordell

[larsesp]

I seriously think the Sigma looks sharper.... is it just me? Look at the grill on both, the sigma looks much sharper...

So do I...

[KennyG]

The Sigma 120-300 is probably their best lens and does produce good quality images, there is no argument about this. However, you can't make accurate comparisons between lenses on images posted after they have been down-sized and lost a lot of their information. Not only that, but the circumstances of the test for each lens have to be absolutely identical.

What you can say is over a period of time with a lot of shots from each that you find one lens better than another. To ask a user to post side by side examples will not prove anything unless the tests are fully controlled and the original images are posted. Even then there could be some variable factors such as AF if it is being used, or slight differences in MF, etc.

I have my own opinions regarding what are and are not good lenses based on a lot of use in the field. I have been through more lenses over the years than my bank manager wants to think about and I have settled on lenses that suit what I do with the best possible quality I can get. At an average of 2,000 shots per race weekend I can assure you my lenses do get a good test.

[karusel]

Wow. Although I never really depended entirely on one sole opinion, what you wrote sheds a lot of light from another angle... However, there are still lenses that are bad in terms of being considerably worse than an (sub)average L lens and I think by reading a lot of reviews you can rule those out, others you most probably really need to try out yourself. You don't just go buy a car you never even saw per mouseclick via e-bay, or do you?

After reading oh-so-many reviews and torments of a certain lens, you begin reading between the lines, you realize some weak and strong points that most of these reviews share together. For example, the 50mm 1.8 MK II, everyone agrees it's a good lens, that produces tack sharp images, and is cheap, on the downside it is for a fact, that it has plastic housing, and doesn't produce the creamiest bokeh, also lacks USM motor. A few people will claim it is terribly slow, some will say it's too soft wide open... and I think such rare stand-out opinions should not be ignored highly regarded, but are some sort of a hint of what may bother you if - as per example - you need very fast focusing or considerable sharpness at f/1.8.

[Pekka]

I think the single most important factor in L lenses which makes them really worth the money is that they deliver usable image with all aperture settings, wide open is great, too. This is why 50/1.4 is not L and 85/1.2 is.

Good example of this "L" quality is this casual test shot by 85/1.2L at aperture 1.2, from about 20 meters (crop), taken today with 10D (could not keep 85mm in box fro Mark II :) )

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/demo/CRW_9849.jpg

[Mikesht]

:lol: This isn't a competition, people. If I'd picked another two shots the Canon might have looked slightly sharper than the Sigma, who knows? It just so happened that these two were the only ones I had where the image was a close match. I don't even regard it as a particularly good shot. It's certainly not amongst my top ten of that day.

(For the number obsessed... the Sigma was 1/640th f/5.6 ISO 400 and the Canon was 1/640th f/7.1 and ISO 400. Neither lens has an IS function. The only post processing done on the shots was resizing and the same amount of USM on each. )

In practice, I find it almost impossible to tell the difference between the images produced by these two lenses and that's very telling. They are both superb and complement each other nicely in terms of focal length.

I just checked the price of your Sigma lens. FOr this much money it better be sharp (and it is as far as I can judge). But I think the original question was an implication of another question :does it makes sence to spend all these money on L lens? You are not helping here :-)))

[Tom W]

I think the single most important factor in L lenses which makes them really worth the money is that they deliver usable image with all aperture settings, wide open is great, too. This is why 50/1.4 is not L and 85/1.2 is.

Good example of this "L" quality is this casual test shot by 85/1.2L at aperture 1.2, from about 20 meters (crop), taken today with 10D (could not keep 85mm in box fro Mark II :) )

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/demo/CRW_9849.jpg

Woah!!! That is some fine glass there, Mr. Pekka! Nice...

[nosquare2003]

I think the single most important factor in L lenses which makes them really worth the money is that they deliver usable image with all aperture settings, wide open is great, too. This is why 50/1.4 is not L and 85/1.2 is.

Good example of this "L" quality is this casual test shot by 85/1.2L at aperture 1.2, from about 20 meters (crop), taken today with 10D (could not keep 85mm in box fro Mark II :) )

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/demo/CRW_9849.jpg

The 85/1.2L is an exceptional lens!

But it is more interesting to know if:
- 24-70/2.8L @50mm/f2.8 is better than
- 50/1.4 @f2.8

The build quality and autofocus speed for L lens (except a few old L lens) is much better. Is L lens always better than non L in terms of optics? (I'm not trying to compare the 85/1.2L to 85/1.8, but one L to one non L lens).

[Tom W]

I think the single most important factor in L lenses which makes them really worth the money is that they deliver usable image with all aperture settings, wide open is great, too. This is why 50/1.4 is not L and 85/1.2 is.

Good example of this "L" quality is this casual test shot by 85/1.2L at aperture 1.2, from about 20 meters (crop), taken today with 10D (could not keep 85mm in box fro Mark II :) )

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/demo/CRW_9849.jpg

The 85/1.2L is an exceptional lens!

But it is more interesting to know if:
- 24-70/2.8L @50mm/f2.8 is better than
- 50/1.4 @f2.8

The build quality and autofocus speed for L lens (except a few old L lens) is much better. Is L lens always better than non L in terms of optics? (I'm not trying to compare the 85/1.2L to 85/1.8, but one L to one non L lens).

Well, that's a darn good question. I happen to have both, so I may just do a comparison. I will note though that I already know that the 50/1.4 is better at 1.4 than the 24-70/2.8. :) But honestly, I'd be willing to bet that the two would be close at 2.8. Real close....

I'll look into it tomorrow!

[AzzKicker]

Guess which one was taken with L glass?

http://panam4.panam.edu/~rzamora8/ROOSTER.JPG

http://panam4.panam.edu/~rzamora8/TURKEY.JPG

[nosquare2003]

Thanks Tom W.

PaulN,
- does your camera not accurate enough?
- do you miss some shots because the camera response is too slow?
- do you want faster fps?
- do you want larger aperture lenses? Do you always shoot wide open?

Perhaps, you will finally get a MkII + several L lenses :P

[ron chappel]

Yep,the sigma is definitely sharper but i too noticed the motion/shake induced blur from the 70-200L
i suggest looking at as many comparison pics as you can.After awhile you'll definitely see differences,even on the web
Don't forget to look into the awsome canon primes! many of them are as good as L's

[adegiulio]

For the fowl pictures above, I think the top one is sharper...

And the answer is?? :)

Anthony

[AzzKicker]

For the fowl pictures above, I think the top one is sharper...

And the answer is?? :)

Anthony

The answer is none :)

Both those pics were taken with a Canon EF 70-210 f/4 lens. Very OLD lens the push out to zoom type lenses. I bought it for 125.00 used.

[PaulN]

Well, soon I will be able to answer my own question that started this thread. I am getting a 17-40L and a 24-70L tomorrow and I will take a few pics on a tripod at various aperatures to see the difference.

(Now, if I can just sell me 10D and three of my lenses, I will have enough supplemental cash to get an mkII!)

Stay tuned for pics in a few days.

-paul

[vvizard]

I think the single most important factor in L lenses which makes them really worth the money is that they deliver usable image with all aperture settings, wide open is great, too. This is why 50/1.4 is not L and 85/1.2 is.

Good example of this "L" quality is this casual test shot by 85/1.2L at aperture 1.2, from about 20 meters (crop), taken today with 10D (could not keep 85mm in box fro Mark II :) )

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/demo/CRW_9849.jpg

Very nice Pekka. But is that "L"-CA around his zipper-lock? =P

[PaulN]

Thanks Tom W.

PaulN,
- does your camera not accurate enough?
- do you miss some shots because the camera response is too slow?
- do you want faster fps?
- do you want larger aperture lenses? Do you always shoot wide open?

Perhaps, you will finally get a MkII + several L lenses :P

nosquare2003:

I am actually very happy with the 10D. The image quality is very good. However, although I do mostly outdoor photography, I have started to photograph during my Aikido practice, and I really wish I had more fps to capture the action. Also, from what I have read, the mkII has a larger dynamic range than the 10D.

-paul

[drisley]

The MKII has a 9 stop dynamic range.
The 10D has a 8.5 stop dynamic range.

[Pekka]

I think the single most important factor in L lenses which makes them really worth the money is that they deliver usable image with all aperture settings, wide open is great, too. This is why 50/1.4 is not L and 85/1.2 is.

Good example of this "L" quality is this casual test shot by 85/1.2L at aperture 1.2, from about 20 meters (crop), taken today with 10D (could not keep 85mm in box fro Mark II :) )

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/demo/CRW_9849.jpg

Very nice Pekka. But is that "L"-CA around his zipper-lock? =P

With 1.2 you MAY get some CA in _extreme_ bright spots. Less that with 50/1.4 at 1.4.

[Belmondo]

I recently picked up the lens in question (85mm f/1.2L) and have noticed that tendency (some CA on bright, contrasty features). Evidently a little planning is called for before taking a picture, and stopping it down a bit is prefereable whenever possible. It's a gorgeous piece of glass anyway.

[Pekka]

I recently picked up the lens in question (85mm f/1.2L) and have noticed that tendency (some CA on bright, contrasty features). Evidently a little planning is called for before taking a picture, and stopping it down a bit is prefereable whenever possible. It's a gorgeous piece of glass anyway.

Yes, I think slowish focusing and possibility of CA wide open are small price to pay when you get to use this lens. It's a pure art machine.

This (yet another hardware test shot with aperture 1.2) example is taken with my 8 hours old 1D Mark II <---- :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/demo/V8O0101.jpg

[Tom W]

As promised, a comparison between the 50/1.4 and the 24-70L, both lenses at f/2.8. These are crops with no post-processing other than cropping. They are not 100% crops, probably about 35-40% of original image.

Try and guess which shot came from which lens.

*Also, click on the image for a larger (750 px wide) version. Fotopic gets reduced to a choppy 500 pixels wide for some reason.*

Shot A:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4294379


Shot B:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4294380

[PaulN]

Tom W,

I would say that the first is the L picture, but I wouldn't wager much money on that. I base that on a 400% enlargement of the bench. First picture looks slightly more resolved, but I'd really like to compare the RAW files to be sure. Do these show a more clear difference?

-paul

[Tom W]

You would be correct, Paul. I'll try to muster up a couple of 100% crops of the bench and transformer - the difference will be more apparent.

[Tom W]

OK, here's the 100% crops of the 24-70L vs. 50/1.4, with both lenses at f/2.8. These are essentially out of the camera with no sharpening or other adjustments:

First, the 24-70 at f/2.8, 50 mm zoom setting (click on image for actual size):

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4297430

Considering that this is a 100% crop on a bright sunny afternoon with high-contrast subject material, I'd say that looks pretty good.


Now for the 50/1.4 at f/2.8 (again, click on image for actual size):

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4297431

The 1.4 is just a bit less clear than the "L" lens, even though it is a prime and the L is a zoom. Its still pretty decent when you consider that this is again a 100% crop, but its not quite as good as the other.

It should be noted that from my experience with the 1.4 and my former 50/1.8, my 1.8 was a little less crisp below f/4.0 or so as compared to the 1.4. It should also be noted that the 1.4 works superbly on lower-contrast low-light subjects, where it would get most of its use anyway. Still, if I had to give up either lens, I'd keep the 24-70 and not the 50/1.4.

[Belmondo]

I pulled up both your images to screen resolution and put them side by side. The 24-70 image is quite a bit sharper. Where I noticed it most was on the yellow lettering on the electrical equipment cabinet.

[Tom W]

Yes, that lettering is what jumps out at you - the high contrast is where the 50 loses its sharpness at large apertures (I'm not even going to show you the f/1.4 shot).

And yet, I have some really sweet indoor low-light shots with that 50 that, while a little soft, have a nice creamy look as well as a very decent bokeh.

[EXA1a]

I pulled up both your images to screen resolution and put them side by side. The 24-70 image is quite a bit sharper. Where I noticed it most was on the yellow lettering on the electrical equipment cabinet.
I agree but did you notice that these two pictures have different focus planes? Look at the grass: it's very unsharp in the 50/1.4 pic but it's unsharp because it's out of focus. The background does appear sharper than the L pic, right?
--Jens--

[vvizard]

[quote=belmondo]
Yes, I think slowish focusing and possibility of CA wide open are small price to pay when you get to use this lens.


It sure better be, since the _real_ price is stiff enough ;) Good shots though, and probably and excellent lens to own. If I could only afford :/

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think the question should be "Difference between a top quality lens, and a regular lens"

As the Sigma inCadwell's post clearly indicates that it isn't JUST Canon "L" that blows away the rest of the pack.

I am a firm beleiver in the quality of some of the best Sigma EX lenses.. as well as some other manufacturers...

But.. there is clearly an advantage gained from all that extra $$$ required for a good quality lens.

[Tom W]

I pulled up both your images to screen resolution and put them side by side. The 24-70 image is quite a bit sharper. Where I noticed it most was on the yellow lettering on the electrical equipment cabinet.
I agree but did you notice that these two pictures have different focus planes? Look at the grass: it's very unsharp in the 50/1.4 pic but it's unsharp because it's out of focus. The background does appear sharper than the L pic, right?
--Jens--

You know what - I think you're right. I hadn't noticed, but when I look at the tree just above the transformer box, it looks more focused on the 50. It looks as though I caught the tree instead of the transformer/bench with the AF point, which is quite possible as this is considerably smaller in the whole picture than it looks in this crop.

I guess I'll have to do another comparison - this one wasn't controlled enough. That's what I get for just opening the front door and shooting like that. :)

[Jim_T]

The image below is two unedited crops of the same thing stuck together.. The one on the left was taken with the EF100-400L at 300mm. The one on the right was taken with the EF100-300 @ 300mm. They were taken within a few seconds of each other.. The exact same ISO, shutter speed, aperture etc was used.

There isn't a stunning difference in sharpness. The 100-400 has a bit more contrast.. But most importantly, note the purple fringing on the point of light reflected off the cowl of the car on the image taken with the EF 100-300 ( It's just below the driver's window wiper )... The 100-400L is pretty well immune to this.

http://members.shaw.ca/jamestownsend/CAcomparison.jpg

[PaulN]

Jim T--

good example!
I think the L lens shot is much better than the 100-300 EF. Much sharper image.

My 17-40L and 24-70L just arrived, so I should be able to compare these lenses at 28 mm to my 24-85 EF. Results to follow today or tomorrow.

-paul

[Tom W]

Jim T--

good example!
I think the L lens shot is much better than the 100-300 EF. Much sharper image.

My 17-40L and 24-70L just arrived, so I should be able to compare these lenses at 28 mm to my 24-85 EF. Results to follow today or tomorrow.

-paul

I'm glad that Jim posted that - he had done so back several months ago and it was quite convincing then as well. It is a good comparison between a decent zoom and a very good zoom.

I think you'll find that the 24-85, while a decent lens, is no match for those two "L" lenses. I had one for exactly 1 day and it wasn't even as fine as my 28-105. Resold it and went to "L"!

I still intend to run a comparison between my 50 and my 24-70, since the 50 is one of the very good non-L lenses that Canon makes. I apologize for my "tainted" comparison earlier - it didn't show the 50 in as good a light as it could have, though I still believe that the 24-70 ranks very close, and perhaps above this decent prime lens.

[PaulN]

well, maybe I can put this thread to rest:
I have a shot of my barn with a 24-85 and a 24-70L both set at 28mm at f/3.5 and 1/400 second. I think the best comparison is to examine the RAW images. I have posted them (till 5/14/04) as a zip archive for your perusal. WARNING: 17 Mb file download!
http://www.usm.maine.edu/~pauln/photos/archive.zip
The L lens has much more contrast and saturation than the non-L.

-paul

[Tom W]

well, maybe I can put this thread to rest:
I have a shot of my barn with a 24-85 and a 24-70L both set at 28mm at f/3.5 and 1/400 second. I think the best comparison is to examine the RAW images. I have posted them (till 5/14/04) as a zip archive for your perusal. WARNING: 17 Mb file download!
http://www.usm.maine.edu/~pauln/photos/archive.zip
The L lens has much more contrast and saturation than the non-L.

-paul

Well, I won't download it now as I'm on a 56K and the laptop, but considering that those two lenses are of similar zoom range, it should be a good comparison with which to show the L's superiority.

BTW, I don't have it uploaded yet, but I finally did a good, controlled comparison between my 50/1.4 and my 24-70L - at f/2.8, the 50 has a slight edge in sharpness, but its quite close. The difference is very small at f/4.0. I'll try to get those pictures up tomorrow or Tuesday. Primes, due to their relative simplicity compared to zooms, are much more likely to be sharp. Still, that the 24-70 holds up well against the 50 is testament to its decent design.

[PacAce]

For the fowl pictures above, I think the top one is sharper...

And the answer is?? :)

Anthony

The answer is none :)

Both those pics were taken with a Canon EF 70-210 f/4 lens. Very OLD lens the push out to zoom type lenses. I bought it for 125.00 used.

Yup, that's what I figured it was...that it was a trick question. The first one was obviously a PS'd image which is very evident just looking at the edges fo the rooster. The second one looked more "authentic" except it's missing that "L" sharpness.

[Mike H]

Actually, Fred Miranda has already done this comparison. The link is below.

Mike

http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

[Tom W]

Actually, Fred Miranda has already done this comparison. The link is below.

Mike

http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

I know, but I wasn't quite sure as to how my copy of the 50 stood up so I did one of my own.

Ironically, my results mimiced Fred's, though I didn't shoot into the sun and thus didn't experience the flair issue that he had on a couple of shots (though I suspect a slight change in angle with reference to the sun might have changed his results).

Frankly, I was starting to get a little worried about the 50, but this test renewed my faith in that lens.

[Tom W]

OK, I finally got the pictures up.

Here's the crude, but well controlled comparison of the 50/1.4 vs. the 24-70/2.8 at f/2.8. Focal point was the neighbor's gas meter. Vantage point was from inside my garage since I'm already looked at rather funny by the neighbors for walking out and taking repeated pictures of silly things.

Anyway, these are both 100% crops. They are straight from the camera JPEGS with the exception that one had a slight levels adjustment to even them out (there appeared to be about 1/3 stop difference in brightness between the lenses).

As always, click on the picture to get the actual uploaded size:

#1:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4401406

and #2:

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=4401405

[slejhamer]

This comparison of the Tokina 19-35 and Canon 17-40 might be interesting to some of you:

http://www.canonians.com/wideanglecompare.htm

Some who see this can't believe how good the Tokina seems to be. Others say it's a clear victory for the Canon. I think it's fairly evident that the Canon is superior, but it should be given the price differential. :)

[EXA1a]

Tom W.:

#1 is significantly sharper, color is warmer in #2.
Is the cropped part from the center of the picture?

--Jens--

[Tom W]

Tom W.:

#1 is significantly sharper, color is warmer in #2.
Is the cropped part from the center of the picture?

--Jens--

Both are center crops - the focus point was the gas meter. The schrubery should be a little soft as it is not on the focus plane.

#1 is the 50/1.4, and #2 is the 24-70. I have to point out that I bumped #2 up just a bit in PSE levels as it seemed about 1/3 stop darker, so I don't think it would be a fair comparison to judge minute color differences.


The difference wouldn't be noticeable in most prints, considering the actual size of a 100% crop.