Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 24-70 f/2.8L vs Prime Lenses - Any Tests on Web?  (Read 5914 times)
mholdef
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« on: September 27, 2005, 03:14:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I am looking to enter the digital SLR arena with the Canon 5D and want to get was is best in terms of sharpness, distortion, color, etc.

I am looking for any websites that may have done some objective and illustrative tests comparing the 24-70 f/2.8L with the following lenses:

24mm f/1.4L
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.4L

Any help is very welcome.

Kind regards,

Mark

PS

I currently shoot Leica M with following lenses:

28/35/50/90mm but I use the 35mm and 50mm 75% of the time.

My budget really will only allow me to buy the 50mm f/1.4 and either the 24mm or 35mm L but not both!

I am leaning towards the 24mm L and 50mm with the EOS 5D as previously when I shot Nikon I used wider lenses than I do now with the rangefinder - but am hoping I will not regret the 35mm...
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2005, 06:03:54 PM »
ReplyReply

If you are used to manual focus and aperture rings then installing the split viewfinder screen and using a the excellent and cheap Contax 28/2.8 (better than any canon WA) and 35/2.8 lenses together with Av or manual mode may be an ideal solution. It would mean stopping down the lens for the shot, thoug if you shoot wide open or at f4 that isn't an serious issue. That should leave you plenty money for a good adaptor, and the EF 50mm 1.4 (BTW it's not 'L').
Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 805


« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2005, 08:04:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 vs. 50mm f/1.4 Samples

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 vs. 24mm f/1.4 L Samples

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 vs 35mm f/1.4 L Samples

Hope this helps!

Sheldon
Logged

mholdef
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2005, 04:08:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks everyone.

Mark
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6802


« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2005, 05:31:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark,
You may also find valuable info here.

Francois
Logged

Francois
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6802


« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2005, 05:33:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
24mm f/1.4L
35mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.4L
Try to contact Jack Flesher (do a search in the members list). He used to have a few of these lenses.

Francois
Logged

Francois
mholdef
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2005, 05:56:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I would be curious then to compare the 16mm-35mm f/2.8L with the 24mm f/1.4L and 35mm f/1.4L...?

Mark
Logged
mholdef
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2005, 05:58:28 AM »
ReplyReply

What I meant to say was is the 16mm-35mm f/2.8L better at 24mm and 35mm than the 24-70mm f/2.8L

If it was I could always add say a 50mm f/1.4 and an 85mm f/1.8

Mark
Logged
DAVO
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2005, 08:30:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark,
I think the 24-70 2.8L is good but not great, I've had 2 copys and just sold the second one..
It's a good range, but very heavy.
Hopefully the new 24-105 4L is at least lighter..

The 50 1.4 is very sharp.

David.
Logged
mholdef
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #9 on: September 28, 2005, 09:37:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks,

On the whole the feedback I've gotten and seen from reports is that the 24-70 is a very good lense which however is surpassed by the 50 f/1.4 in terms of sharpness at corners, etc. but not so much the 24mm or 35mm.  There is however a bit more distortion than the previous 28-70mm but this aside the 24-70mm L delivers better results.

What I might end up going for then is the 24-70L to get me started (and not get me too far in debt and remain married to my wife), very soon adding a 50 f/1.4 (great lens, cheap and offers 2 additional stops) and then an 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8 or 135mm f/2.0L for a telephoto.  Only then will have to decide on something in the 300mm-400mm range which is very good but more or less affordable as I do do some wildlife but this is less than 10% of my shooting.

Mark
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2005, 10:29:49 AM »
ReplyReply

The 24-70/2.8 L is one of my most-used lenses. While the zoom gives up some quality to a prime, in real-world shooting this disadvantage is largely irrelevant. The ability to get the composition exactly right in-camera, eliminating the need to crop in post, usually overcomes the slight quality advantage of a prime in terms of the quality of the final result. The only time I use primes (and I have one of the best there is, the 135/2 L) is when f/2.8 is too slow for available light.
Logged

DonWeston
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 148


« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2005, 10:58:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I think it is really too much to ask of any zoom lens, that it equal that of a good or best prime lens. I do not know if any really do. Too many tradeoffs. I sold off my 24-70L last yr and tried to get along with 14-40 and 70-200L and 50mm macro. Ultimately, although I got some decent results, alway felt that I was missing a mid zoom. After trying a friends 24-70, and still not being satisfied for the money decided that for most of what I shoot with a zoom in this range, my kids, not landscape stuff, non macro, that I would look at non Canon alternatives. Recently bought a Sigma 24-60/2.8 DG. An early opinion, is that it is 90+% of the L mid range for about 1/3 the cost. It is FF and 1/2 the size and fraction of the weitght also. I do not know if it is perfect yet even for my uses, but I feel it is a better tradeoff for its value than the L. So far this is on a 20D, and will see how things are with an eventual 5D.
Logged
sgwrx
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 158


« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2005, 10:10:06 PM »
ReplyReply

i wish i hadn't seen the 50mm f/1.4 comparisons.  they are obviously sharper and more dynamic.  UGH!

but since i have nothing to speak of, i think the 24-70 2.8 L is the better choice for me now.

i heard issues about "soft" versions and "sharp" versions. i was thinking of searching for a used one (24-70 2.8 L) can anyone fill me in about this?

thanks in advance
steve
Logged
aaykay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 359


« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2006, 07:37:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
i wish i hadn't seen the 50mm f/1.4 comparisons.  they are obviously sharper and more dynamic.  UGH!

but since i have nothing to speak of, i think the 24-70 2.8 L is the better choice for me now.

i heard issues about "soft" versions and "sharp" versions. i was thinking of searching for a used one (24-70 2.8 L) can anyone fill me in about this?

thanks in advance
steve
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=54567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 24-70 f2.8L is pretty heavy too.  You will have to try one out in person.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6896


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 02, 2006, 07:52:11 PM »
ReplyReply

My 24~105L would be be hard to beat - sharp as a tack.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad