Thanks Paul. I just remembered that Kodak indeed once had a purple fringing issue and admitted so much with an updated version of the 14/n to 14/nx. I guess it would be better stated as some sort of sensor blooming along high contrast areas. Thom mentioned the specific case you showed of tree limbs against a bright sky. Its been so long ago and I think this model may have preceeded your SLR/c so perhaps thats not the case here. I know CA and fringing have traditionally been lens issues but sensor bloom can sometimes appear as CA. Anyway, that Tamron indeed looks nice. Is that an SP with the Rare Eos mount or are you adapting a different mount? Have you per chance tested the 17mm Tamron? I'm awaiting delivery of the old all metal Tamron 90mm 2.5 Macro currently. http://www.bythom.com/14n.htm
Well, that does make sense but my experience has not demonstrated this at all - and I have both bought and sold well over 100 cameras, lenses, etc. over the past 7 years off ebay. I do try to buy from individual users of the equipment and not just ebay stores and I think that makes a difference, particularly if they have 99%+ feedback. Another option is to buy used from somewhere like KEH or the like where you can just return it if its not what it should be.
shiwan wrote:
I have a theory regarding the quality of used lenses found at photography stores. Note that I'm saying this in general, as opposed to in specific.
I hypothesize that the best performing used lenses are sold to and through friends and acquaintances, then through specialty sites like FM's B&S Forum, where quality and reputation are rather important, as opposed to lens condition and price.
Concordantly, "duds", as it were, would be sold on eBay, where one can get a good price because of the mint condition of a lens, regardless of its optical performance, or lack thereof. Then, one would attempt to sell or trade it in to the local camera store that, again, will pretty much care about the physical condition of the lens, as opposed to its optical performance.
Although you wouldn't get as much money for your lens selling it to a store, or even on eBay sometimes, you don't have to worry about having a dud; you merely pass it on and make it someone else's problem, with the store or eBay getting a cut of each transaction.
So, basically, buying a used lens on eBay or from a camera store, without knowing the seller which would imply a sort of heads-up about the optical quality, you're pretty likely to get a mediocre sample. The best samples would be either kept, or sold to friends, or go through places like the FM B&S Forum.
When I buy a lens on eBay, I make it a point to play the New-In-Box Lottery(tm)....Show more →
I've just received a used copy of Canon 24/2.8 and tested it on my 5D. I hope the OP doesn't mind if I put some samples in this thread. I don't have anything to compare it with other than my old Canon 20-35/2.8L and would really like your guys expert opinion wether it is worth keeping. I do think that my samples look better than Paul's samples from 24L . The light is very different which may give a boost to everything.
Alex, just my opinion, but the corners certainly do not show the sort of fine detail I get from the inexpensive Olympus Zuiko 24mm 2.8 at F8 noted by the lake of any micro detail in the tree bark whatsoever - contrast yes, but not fine detail. The Center is so so, not spectacular either noted by the lack of any detail in the light above the house numbers which don't have fine sharp lines for the numbers in themeselves. The contrast of the scene also gives the illusion that there is actually more detail then is really present. CA is not bad at all though present.
shiwan wrote:
Concordantly, "duds", as it were, would be sold on eBay, where one can get a good price because of the mint condition of a lens, regardless of its optical performance, or lack thereof. Then, one would attempt to sell or trade it in to the local camera store that, again, will pretty much care about the physical condition of the lens, as opposed to its optical performance.
That doesn't change the fact that Canon is making enough duds for this to be a significant problem. I have bought a new 24-70 L and it was hopeless. I have also bought many non-Canon lenses used, such as every one of my Rollei lenses. They all work very well indeed.
Wow Paul! Thanks for posting those images. That 24L you tested was one stinky lens. I'm not sure I would say they all are like that but that one sure was a dud. I've bought about 15 canon lenses in the last few years - all of them new and never had one that I thought I needed to send back. Guess I have been really lucky? I had a 20mm f/2.8 which was decent, a 16-35 which was super, a 17-40 that's good, and I have the 15mm fisheye and that is a super lens. My old 28-70 was pretty nice too and actually better than my 24-70. I never had any of the chromatic abberations like those in the images you posted in any of my canon lenses, however now that I have been exposed to contax, leica, and oly lenses I'm not sure how I would rate those canon lenes for sharpness.
I also bought a 24L and very quickly returned it. I had exactly the same, poor quality images. Not even close to the 35L. It is definately not worth the money no matter how bad you think you need a fast wide prime.
Tariq,
Thanks for your opinion. I was thinking about the Olympus 24/2.8 and still might decide to get it. But I really prefer to have AF when possible. Would you be so kind to email me a 5D RAW file demonstrating the Olympus performance ([email protected]).
Alex, I can send you something better Monday when I get back to my Studio. In the meantime, here is test shot with that lens(the uncoated version even, the MC version has a little better contrast but sharpness is the same from the two samples I used). The sort of micro-detail I'm talking about would be demonstrated in the extreme right corner crop showing the powerlines where you can start to make out the individual strands of the lines.
foto-z wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that Canon is making enough duds for this to be a significant problem. I have bought a new 24-70 L and it was hopeless. I have also bought many non-Canon lenses used, such as every one of my Rollei lenses. They all work very well indeed.
Fair enough. I should have mentioned that, with the exception of a Canon 50mm f/1.8 I bought to test my camera's focusing calibration, I've never bought another Canon lens. I've pretty much just bought a bunch of Zeiss C/Y lenses, and don't plan on stopping. I suppose that's cheating, though, because I see the odds as being on my side with respecting to getting a good lens when I buy one, be it new or used.
Have you considered that lightly used lenses are more likely to be lemons than new-in-box samples? There is usually a reason that they have been traded for other products.
This does not mean that these particularly lenses are of poor design. There is sample variability in modern AF lenses. I have owned or used unequivocably excellent copies of each of these lenses. I have also experienced (relatively) poor copies.
This is one reason that I buy new and arrange a return privelege.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks Paul. I just remembered that Kodak indeed once had a purple fringing issue and admitted so much with an updated version of the 14/n to 14/nx. I guess it would be better stated as some sort of sensor blooming along high contrast areas. Thom mentioned the specific case you showed of tree limbs against a bright sky. Its been so long ago and I think this model may have preceeded your SLR/c so perhaps thats not the case here. I know CA and fringing have traditionally been lens issues but sensor bloom can sometimes appear as CA. Anyway, that Tamron indeed looks nice. Is that an SP with the Rare Eos mount or are you adapting a different mount? Have you per chance tested the 17mm Tamron? I'm awaiting delivery of the old all metal Tamron 90mm 2.5 Macro currently. http://www.bythom.com/14n.htm...Show more →
Tiraq, I have been away from the computer. The earlier Kodak FF models did have a host of issues that were mostly taken care of in the last editions (the SLR/c and SLR/n). There is no doubt that sensor bloom can be an issue at times, with any digital camera. I know my SLR/c - going on three years now almost always for landscape photography - and the 24L is showing CA and PF that is mostly originating from the lens. My Tamron 24/2.5 shows a only small percentage of the same, even with a more demanding scene. I am using it with the rare EOS adaptall mount (I have three of them ) I have tried it with an adaptall OM+OM-EOS combo and it seems to work as well. Tamron never made a 24mm SP lens AFAIK. If you want to talk Tamron adaptall lenses send me an email (or start a new thread) so we don't go too far off topic here.
BTW, Arni has started a new thread about the 24L he has and it's looking a lot like the one I tested.
Edited by pdmphoto on Feb 26, 2007 at 08:08 PM GMT
Grant808 wrote:
To Alex and Tariq:
Both of your samples exemplify why I sold my Canon 24/2.8 and use my wife's Zuiko (or others) in its place.
I agree, the biggest issue I saw with Canon 24's is that they do not hold sharpness across the frame. It's not just the corners. The Zuiko 24/2.8 I had did a much better job across the frame and into the corners.
. The light is very different which may give a boost to everything.
) I have tried it with an adaptall OM+OM-EOS combo and it seems to work as well. Tamron never made a 24mm SP lens AFAIK. If you want to talk Tamron adaptall lenses send me an email (or start a new thread) so we don't go too far off topic here.