In a thread following hubsands 24 mm lens tests, I mentioned that a new Canon 24L was on it's way, and I would duly post my impressions. I used the lens for a few days, initially on a 400D body and was quite impressed by the results. Available light shots came out quite sharp at the two largest stops, good contrast etc. No trace of hubsands copys softness in the center.
This is at f2, ISO 400.
So far, so good. Then I got down to serious testing with the 1DsII (tripod, MLU, cable release, ISO 100, etc.) and the picture changed. Here are 100% crops from left and right hand side (close to the edge, not the corner) first at f2,8. All are sharpened equally and only slightly.
Left 2,8.
Still the uneven performance is striking. It was necessary to stop down to f11 to get a reasonably decent result. Btw., I tested the lens at all apertures with several series of AF and MF with essentially the same results. All RAW/C1.
The only other 24 mm lens I had at hand was the Canon 24mm TSE, so I shot some series to compare. Sharpness of the TSE (as far as pure resolution is concerned) was on the same level as the left hand samples of the 1,4L, but with (much) better corners. However the contrast and colour differentiation of the 1,4L was vastly better, making the images from the TSE look rather dull.
Here's another curious experience: I did the usual close-range bookcase test (at abuot 1,8 m) and could not see any notable difference between the two sides. Results were so-so, but equally so-so over the whole field.
The results were a rather mixed bag, but probably a below-average sample, now on its way back to Canon.
Now, if I would only use it for low-light close-range shots, I'd love to keep this lens.
Measuring the classics.
400D, ISO 800, 24L wide open. Image slightly cropped.
Arne, this seems to be the infamous Canon left-right-asymmetry. I had the same problem with two copies of the 17-40L, and ended up sending both of them back. My *cheap* Tamron 19-35, on the other hand, is way more even left-to-right, and definitely a lot better than the 17-40Ls were on their bad side (and yes, the good sides of the 17-40Ls were better than the Tamron). I think that it's just a quality control issue, but it's a very annoying one.
Rainer wrote: Arne, this seems to be the infamous Canon left-right-asymmetry.
Could well be. I'm familiar with it, my 50/2,5 macro and 70-200/4 zoom exhibited this trait. Just about usable on 1,6 crop bodies, not on FF. Seems to be the curse of the (Canon) lens buyer.
Still it's odd that it only shows up in the distant shots with this 24L.
Edited by photoArne on Feb 26, 2007 at 08:47 PM GMT
I dunno, Arne - I'm not liking the color on the 24L examples at all. It looks like the shadows were pushed in post a bit too much, whereas the 24TS is getting about the same results that I love in mine.
About the corners - you'd expect a TS lens to have better performance there, all other things being equal, due to the oversized circle of light.
Eric, I haven't posted any 24 TSE samples.
I mentioned the corners briefly because hubsands copy showed outstanding corner performance and mine did not.
Arne, your sample looks very much like the one I just tried. Same, near the center, red edge/blue edge CA on high contrast areas and too much softness in the corners. The one I tested also had more softness on the right hand side, than the left.
Interesting that, like you, I also saw this same issue on the 50/2.5 macro I tested.
pdmphoto wrote: Arne, your sample looks very much like the one I just tried. Same, near the center, red edge/blue edge CA on high contrast areas and too much softness in the corners. The one I tested also had more softness on the right hand side, than the left.
Paul, I noticed the quite strong CA too, this is the one trait that consistently shows in all tests I've seen of different samples of this lens.
What the tests also have shown is that the 24L MAY project a symmetrical image, it MAY deliver excellent corner sharpness, it MAY produce great center sharpness and it MAY give excellent zone-B performance, but one wonders if there's really one single lens where it all comes together.
One has to be careful with some of the Canon lenses. The best way to buy Canon lenses is to get them used when you can ask for a sample shot or to test the lenses yourself. Buying new is ok too of course but when you get a dog it can take weeks to service the lens.
I 'd be extra careful with the following lenses: 16-35, 17-40, 24-105, 24L (Hubsands test show this lens almost as good as the 35L, the only 24L I had the chance to test was ok but not so good, there seem to be many issues with it)
Yes it was better after calibration, I payed about 200 and sold it with a loss. When I sent it in they told me they could not do it in Switzerland and the lens went for a 6 weeks trip to Germany, it came back just the same. I gave them a ring and made a print which showed the problem before sending it in again. The posted sample is after the first service, no kidding
I don't say that too often but the Nikkor 17-35LLL is far better when it comes to landscape and no AF is needed. I just sent back a new 24-105L as I felt and even heard some dust under the focus ring, otherwise a very good zoom lens. I still hope Zeiss brings a 18mm ZF.
Your results with the 24L are typical from what I've seen with other copies with respect to CA and nasty IQ in the corners, even stopped down a stop or two.
andi, that is unbelievable. canonīs wide are just unacceptable. i tried an ef24-85 on my 5D today and the results were lacking in every way. i hope that the new 16-35 is better but i wouldnīt bet on it.
