Canon 24mm f/2.8 vs. 17-40mm f/4 L Test Results

[taner]

I have to disagree with Carl. At the expense of repeating myself (another post on wide angles...) I wiill say this: There is, in fact, no such thing as a scenic landscape lens; if the scene calls for it, a 35mm, a 50mm, or a 85mm lens will be fully functional for landscapes. The reverse holds true as well; ultra wides and wides are perfectly usable in portraits (clearly not the glamour type), sports photography (with spectacular results), nature photography, etc.

 

Especially important are ultra wides and wides with very close focus ranges (about 1:4 macro or closer, in other words 0.25 magnification or larger): these lenses allow for very original perspectives and even more importantly, superb near-far compositions. For such applications, close range performance of the lens is critical, and that is when the floating element designs come into the picture.

 

Cheers

[taner]

<div></div>

[taner]

<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

>> Guys, there's one thing that you're all missing.

We're looking at a huge blow-up of a row of books that would form an absolutely tiny section of a 24mm by 36mm negative.

 

 

Not in my case. I use film and differences can sometimes be seen on a 10X15cm prints. I never enlarge more than A4 and even this is a rarity.

 

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[benb]

Thank you Carl for saying more clearly what I was trying to say originally.

 

I still say the test is suspect due to it only being a single image, no test of distortion, flare, etc.. and totally ignoring other factors between the two lenses like weight, min. focusing distance, etc..

 

Anyway, you really think the difference between these lenses is such that given the better sample of either one, you will produce a better image than a better photographer will with a poor sample of either one?

 

As a bicycle racer, I assure you, Lance Armstrong would still be a dominant racer on significantly more modest hardware. The best racers are often on very modest bikes unless they are being paid to ride a particularly trick bike as an advertisement. Like photographers who shoot hundreds of thousands of pictures a year, bicycle racers who ride 10,000-20,000 miles a year will often gravitate to simpler hardware that is more reliable and requires less maintenance.

[chachi_arcola]

Apart from comparing a 28-135 to the 20mm prime, which is like comparing apples and kumquats, here is my own experience with the 24/2.8 and 17-40.

 

For years I used a 24/2.8 as my primary lens. I took wonderful travel pictures with it and loved the compactness, color rendition, and sharpness.

 

Earlier this year I picked up a 17-40, thinking it could not match up to the 24mm prime, but curious nonetheless. Two trips with the zoom and I was sold. Better color rendition and contrast than the prime, and just as sharp if not sharper at 24mm. Taking into account the convenience of the zoom, the 24mm went on the auction block.

 

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the 24mm prime, but IMO and experience, the 17-40 is better, and worth the money. I shoot film (mostly slide) and haven't missed the extra stop. I carry a 50/1.4 for low light situations.

[tan]

Some people find it very hard to accept or believe that a zoom lens can ever

be sharper/better than prime lenses. This would be true maybe 10 years ago

but the newer designs are so good that many of the zooms have actually

surpassed the quality of the older primes.

 

The Vario-Sonnar 100-400mm zoom lens is sharper than the old Sonnar

180mm prime lens, for example, and I would believe that the 17-40 zoom is

better than some of the older wide-angle primes, as Canon has never

produced wide-angle primes of the quality that you get with Leitz and Zeiss

lenses.

[sheldonnalos]

Carl -

 

I totally agree, and don't want to encourage folks to stay at home taking pictures of their bookshelf. My opinion is that you should test a lens once, and if it's capable of taking good photographs - use it.

 

Both my 24mm and 17-40mm take pretty pictures...

 

Sheldon<div></div>

[sheldonnalos]

And the 17-40mm...<div></div>

[michael focus97.com lee]

Sheldon, great images! Beautiful!

<p>

"<i>Anyway, you really think the difference between these lenses is such that given the better sample of either one, you will produce a better image than a better photographer will with a poor sample of either one?</i>"

<p>

...not sure where that came from. A better lens doesn't make you a good photographer. I'm not concerned with out-doing any other photographers, I'm concerned with getting images that will satisfy my own eye.

<p>

Could Sheldon have done a more extensive test? Sure. This one has its merits, though, and many of us appreciate it.

[tan]

A correction ... I meant to say Vario-Sonnar 100-300mm ... not 100-400.

[don_clary]

I think what you are seeing in the 24mm f2.8 is just a slight amount of front or back focus at very close distances. You would never see this at near infinity ? landscape type pictures because of the extreme depth of field of such short lenses.

 

I tested my 24mm f2.8 and my 28mm f2.8 at very close distances (51 focal lengths) on a lens test chart on TMAX 100 B&W film on a heavy tripod and examined the images with a 30X microscope.

 

I normally get 100 to 112 lp/mm with prime lenses. On autofocus with the 28mmm, I got 24 images at 56 lp/mm. Terrible! I put it on manual focus, did focus bracketing, and got every image in the 100 to 112 lp/mm range. The 28mm slightly rear focused and the 24mm slightly front focused. Did that bother me? Not at all! I almost always focus manually and shoot at near infinity distances.

 

The finest lens in the world will produce absolute mush when it is not focused to perfection!