I've become a bit disenchanted with my 24-70mm lately. It's a nice setup, but after having used the 35mm II, I am craving more in terms of image quality. I like my 16-35mm II and use it frequently for landscape work. However, if I'm closer to the 24mm range of that lens, I wouldn't mind switching to a prime if it's going to give me some better results.
Here's my question. At what aperture does the 24 image quality become more or less equal to the 24-70mm? What about the 16-35mm II? I know that the 24L does have some issues with color fringing, but I'm curious as to how correctable it is. Some lenses are easier to correct than others.
24L center sharpness is much better than 35L in all FL, same as 135L. At f8~11, 24L corner falls little bit short than that of 24-70L. However, nobody beats 24L at f1.4-f2.8. Truly low light lens. I can shoot almost in dark. For landscaping, I prefer 24-70L or even 24f2.8. I just did test last week to figure out if 24L is good for landscape and came out this conclusion.
I'd say that at f2, the 24L will win. I am not sure which 35mm II you are referring to (I thought there was only one of them), but at least my 35L (from 2 years ago) is sharper in the corners and not so much in the center. I absolutely love the 24L, and not so much the 24-70L since I got the 1Ds3.
Some useless comparisons - click on the magnifying glass above each detail to see the fullsize. Sorry for the shadow noise, taken with the 1Ds2
If you shooting landscape I would assume you are shooting at F8 to F11 IMHO the 24-70 will give you better versatility and as good of IQ as the 24 1.4 at those apertures combined with the 16-35 2.8 II you have a great landscape combination.
The 24-105L does a good 24mm; and it beats the 35L when stopped down to F5.6 and beyond. The 24-105L won't do jack for bokeh, but it's a reasonably sharp landscape / walk-about lens. http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Canon_24-105L_IS.html
When we went to Hawaii last summer I also had the 16-35L II. It's a fine lens, but I don't use it much. The 16-35L II's corners are okay, but its center resolution is lacking IMO.
Here is my concern. I have the 1DsIII, and my 24-70mm just does not quite seem to be up to par. I compared it to my 35L, and it was not until f/11 that the 24-70mm was about the same when it comes to sharpness. I sent my 24-70mm in for servicing and they said that the chassis was not aligned properly, and it was tweaked. It seems to be a bit better now, but the 35 still seems to smoke it even once you have it stopped down a ways.
The 1DsIII is quite critical on lens quality. I had not considered the 24L in the past, but now it makes me think about it based on how freakin sharp the 35L is. Even if the 24L is half as good as the 35L, I think I would still be better off.
I've been pretty darn happy with the 16-35mm II and since this lens already contains the 24 focal length, I think I don't have an immediate need for the 24. However, I've just been trying to think through this lens dilemma.
John Black wrote:
The 24-105L does a good 24mm; and it beats the 35L when stopped down to F5.6 and beyond. The 24-105L won't do jack for bokeh, but it's a reasonably sharp landscape / walk-about lens. http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Canon_24-105L_IS.html
When we went to Hawaii last summer I also had the 16-35L II. It's a fine lens, but I don't use it much. The 16-35L II's corners are okay, but its center resolution is lacking IMO.
I've found the opposite to be true. The center resolution on my 16-35mm is stellar, but the corners do fall off a bit. I expect that though.
I agree Ben, my 16-35 II center sharpness is outstanding as well, prime quality in my opinion. In fact, it beat my very good 35/2.0 head to head, both at f/2.8.
Ben Horne wrote:
I've become a bit disenchanted with my 24-70mm lately. It's a nice setup, but after having used the 35mm II, I am craving more in terms of image quality. I like my 16-35mm II and use it frequently for landscape work. However, if I'm closer to the 24mm range of that lens, I wouldn't mind switching to a prime if it's going to give me some better results.
Here's my question. At what aperture does the 24 image quality become more or less equal to the 24-70mm? What about the 16-35mm II? I know that the 24L does have some issues with color fringing, but I'm curious as to how correctable it is. Some lenses are easier to correct than others.
Fiddle with the above till your eyes get tired. The 24L tested from above is pretty bad. I think he got a lemon or I struck gold since mine is better than that
I am still not happy with the 16-35mm II. I believe Canon can do better
FWIW, my 24-70L is as sharp as my 35L from f/4 and smaller in the center. Corners are better on the 24-70L. Of course my 35L is better from f/1.4 - f/2.8. Sounds like your 24-70L isn't still behaving like it should. Maybe sent it one more time. Also, differences between all these lenses are marginal at f/8 and smaller. At these apertures it's more a matter of FL
The 24L is my favorite lens. Had it since its inception and more than once it's the only lens I'd take on a multi-day trip (on FF body). Its reputation is not nearly as good as it deserves to be; it's a gem.
I beg to disagree. The 24-105L has terrible barrel distortion at the 24mm end .... A LOT worse than the 24-70L. It was for this very reason that I switched back to the 24-70L.
John Black wrote:
The 24-105L does a good 24mm; and it beats the 35L when stopped down to F5.6 and beyond.
I don't own the 24mm L (yet), but I have found that my 24-70 is better (sharper) than my 16-35mm II from 24mm upwards (mostly corners). However, the 16-35mm has FAR BETTER control over barrel distortion at 24mm. In fact, the 16-35 is actually quite remarkable with respect to distortion. If/when I add the 24mm f/1.4 L I will look closely at how it compares with the other two lenses in terms of distortion and not only look at how sharp it is.
Just sayin'...
For landscapes I'm now considering the Nikon 14-24mm w/adapter, but I keep hoping that Canon will surprise us and give us a great wide lens for use with bodies like the 1Ds3.
bobbytan wrote:
I beg to disagree. The 24-105L has terrible barrel distortion at the 24mm end .... A LOT worse than the 24-70L. It was for this very reason that I switched back to the 24-70L.
24-105L out does the 24-70L anyday of the week when it comes to corner sharpness at 24mm. The 24-70L's MTF has a very steep drop off in its MTF @ 24mm which results noticeably soft corners because the drop off is so sudden. The 24-105L's distortion can be fixed in post processing, a smeared corners can't. Hopefully Canon will take a page from Nikon's playbook and update the 24-70L.
This post propelled me into the next stage of lens procurement: Planning of Marriage Tranquility Damage Control.
Next stage is stockpiling hotdogs and beans for survival when my wife stops cooking for me when she sees the credit card charge to BH. They are easy to cook and the beans make for potent ammo for retaliatory strike.
stanj wrote:
The 24L is my favorite lens. Had it since its inception and more than once it's the only lens I'd take on a multi-day trip (on FF body). Its reputation is not nearly as good as it deserves to be; it's a gem.
Ah yes, MTDC, always necessary when you don't have them convinced that your "Optical savings account" has outperformed the stock market over the last couple years.
I just made a spreadsheet showing my wife how my lens investments have held value much better than her 401k, no more problems .
Daan B wrote:
FWIW, my 24-70L is as sharp as my 35L from f/4 and smaller in the center. Corners are better on the 24-70L. Of course my 35L is better from f/1.4 - f/2.8. Sounds like your 24-70L isn't still behaving like it should. Maybe sent it one more time. Also, differences between all these lenses are marginal at f/8 and smaller. At these apertures it's more a matter of FL
.