Can't decide-splitting hairs? Canon 24 vs 28mm f/2.8 IS USM lens

I have the Canon 60D body with a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens for walking around with. That's a nice zoom range and a little step up from the typical 18-55 'kit' lenses they make. I also have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.

But I really want a good prime in normal/wide range. I just sold a 35mm, which on a 1.6 crop camera is about 55mm, the old 'normal' lens on my film cameras. I never liked that focal length on my film cameras, I often felt like I was wanting to back up a little.

The 24 and 28 seem fairly similar, both have the newer IS capability and USM focusing. FF equivalent would be 38.4mm and 44.8mm, respectively. The 28 for some reason is about $50 less expensive.

I am wanting to use this for indoor 'snapshooting' as well as outdoor landscapes and architecture. Is there any reason to go for one over the other? I am really torn here. The 28 might be just what I want given my feelings on the old 55mm FF and the 35mm for crop I just sold. But maybe the 24 is a little more versatile? Decisions, decisions.

Thanks!

I have a 60D.
I went on ebay and bought the old versions of the EF24 f/2.8, EF28 f/2.8, and EF35 f/2 as they're now reasonably cheap, about £150-200 each.

I settled on the 28mm as it felt "right" for me.
So I sold the EF24 f/2.8 and EF35 f/2 for what I paid for them.

When the new IS USM versions came out I got the EF28 f/2.8 IS USM, and sold the old version (again for what I paid for it).

The EF28 is my main lens for all my general photography.

So much so that I don't really use the EF40 anymore (I'll probably end up selling it).
I hardly ever use the EFS18-55, in fact I don't bother putting it in my bag anymore.
I used to have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 but sold it when I got the new EF28.
I only take the EFS55-250 out with me if I know I want to do some bird/wildlife stuff.

So I probably only use two lenses:
The EF 28 f/2.8 IS USM or the EFS 55-250 IS

Thanks, PH68. Did you consider the 24 at all? I am having a very hard time deciding, as the 24 is close to a 35 on a FF, and 35mm seems to be the next focal length down the film camera folks went to after the 50/55 'normal'.

instead of spending $600 on an f2.8 prime...why not get the 17-55IS instead...you'll have f2.8 throught, and be able to go from 24-28mm, or even longer or wider if you wish...

I just don't want another zoom. I have a decent walk around normal zoom, I'm specifically looking for another prime, for a whole host of reasons. I have the 17-85 IS USM from a few years back and it is good enough for me I don't feel like 'stepping up' to another normal zoom range lens, although the one you mention is a good one, to be sure.

This is a very specific question, I'm not really looking for alternative suggestions, except perhaps non-Canon 24-28mm primes. I know I do not want the 35 (too close to my 50). I know I want another prime. Basically I'm trying to decide between these two lenses, and I'm kind of stuck, although I'm leaning toward the 24mm.

Thanks, though.

I too was considering a 24mm f/2.8. I love primes. I have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non VC which is an excellent lens that covers this focal length.

Yes, that Tamron has an excellent rep, too. I am just not looking to upgrade my walk around zoom yet.

This is driving me nuts. They are soooooo close. The conclusion on these two lens tests is nearly identical.

http://lenstests.com …-is-usm-page-3#conclusion

http://lenstests.com …-is-usm-page-3#conclusion


I have been leaning toward the 24 for slightly wider FOV. But after carefully lining up the image quality charts from the site above so I can flip between them, it is apparent that the 28 has slightly less barrel distortion, and exhibits slightly sharper, and has slightly less corner shadow -- and is $50 less. My reason for wanting primes is image quality first and foremost. I think I'll get the 28. The 24 is fine, mind you, and the differences are definitely slight. But there is no doubt (in my mind, at least) the 28 has better image quality.

I knew this would be splitting hairs when I posted. And I figured that most suggestions would be to look in a different direction (zooms or reconsider a 35 or something). I doubted anyone would come down strongly on one or the other. Frankly, what I am wondering is why Canon makes these two so similar lenses so close to each other in focal length, and price point. Odd.

Oh well, I'm going to ruminate on this for another few days, so post away if you think you want to sway me toward the 24, but I think the 28 will win out.

JohnCollins wrote in post #16674684
Thanks, PH68. Did you consider the 24 at all? I am having a very hard time deciding, as the 24 is close to a 35 on a FF, and 35mm seems to be the next focal length down the film camera folks went to after the 50/55 'normal'.

I assume all the new IS versions have excellent IQ.
It's just a matter of which focal length you prefer.

As I said... I actually bought (2nd hand off eBay) all the older non IS versions 24, 28, and 35 at the same time and used them a lot for about a month.
I also had the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 nonVC to compare as well.

The nonVC Tamron is a very good lens given the price with very good IQ.
But, those old (non IS) versions of the 24, 28, and 35 all (not surprisingly as they're primes) beat the Tamron in terms of IQ.

The only reason I kept and used the 28 was the simple fact that it seemed the "right" focal length for me on my 60D.

So when the new IS version came out I just naturally upgraded... and the new IS version of the 28 is even better than the old one or the Tamron!

On crop, I'd go the 24 mm, as it's pretty close to the 35 mm field of view on full frame. Which I like. A lot. In fact, if you look at the lens sample archive, you can see I did exactly that with my T2i/550D.

I now have a 6D after all my gear was stolen, and bought the 28 IS USM & love it. Less distortion, apparently it is a touch sharper, and it's just right for my wide shooting needs most of the time. I'd like to get the 24 & 35 IS as well, but that's just gearhead talk

speedync wrote in post #16675396
On crop, I'd go the 24 mm, as it's pretty close to the 35 mm field of view on full frame. Which I like. A lot. In fact, if you look at the lens sample archive, you can see I did exactly that with my T2i/550D.

I now have a 6D after all my gear was stolen, and bought the 28 IS USM & love it. Less distortion, apparently it is a touch sharper, and it's just right for my wide shooting needs most of the time. I'd like to get the 24 & 35 IS as well, but that's just gearhead talk

Back to the 24mm now. See how this is making me nuts? They are both great lenses in terms of IQ, no doubt about that based on all the reviews I can find. The crop equivalent of roughly 45mm for the 28 is not all that different from the old film 50.

Truth be told, I'd probably be happy with either of these for my intended purpose.

Never have tried either one but I have read here and there that the 28 just a bit sharper.

Roger from Lens Rentals is one of those reviewers:

http://www.lensrentals​.com …le/canon-28mm-f2.8-is-usm

All the reviews that I have seen indicate the 28 is sharper. However, I use the 35F2IS indoors and out on my 60D and prefer that focal length. I always found my 45F2 a bit too wide on film, and wanted a slightly longer focal length on crop.
For outside and architecture, a wider focal length might be better. I use a zoom outside when I want access to wide focal lengths. When indoors and taking people photos, I wanted F2.
If your zoom gives you those focal lengths, just try it out. If you are mainly interested in optical qualities, the 28 is more likely to do it for you. This is one question that only you can answer.
Take a look at the reviews at Photozone and Ephotozene.

28mm wouldn't be wide enough for me on my 60D. I might get by with the 24, but I'm not even certain of that. My 17-55 is my every day, go to lens, and I take as many shots at 17 as I do in the 25-35 range.

28mm was the widest I ever had for my 35mm film SLR, and it did fine for me, but there were still times when I'd have liked something wider. I just couldn't justify the expense back then. The 17mm end on my 17-55 puts me in that 28mm FF equivalent area that I'm so familiar with - that may be one reason why I love this lens so much.

Preeb wrote in post #16675621
My 17-55 is my every day, go to lens, and I take as many shots at 17

Is that because the lens is 17-xx.
My guess... if you had something like the 15-85, most of your shots would be 15mm, rather than 17mm.

Most zoom users only really use 3 focal lengths...
The widest, the longest, and one somewhere in the middle.

PH68 wrote in post #16675763
Is that because the lens is 17-xx.
My guess... if you had something like the 15-85, most of your shots would be 15mm, rather than 17mm.

Most zoom users only really use 3 focal lengths...
The widest, the longest, and one somewhere in the middle.

Then you guess wrong.

I didn't say "most". I said "as many". I use the entire zoom range. Unlike many many zoom users, I don't lock in on the ends of the zoom range. In a group of about 30 photos that I just downloaded from the camera this morning, not one is at 17mm. They range from 20 to 55, with most between 25 and 50mm. 20, 21, 28, 37, 40, 46, 50, 52, 55 are all represented in the mix.

That is why I prefer a zoom. Primes limit me.