Alternatives to the 24mm 2.8EF

[johann_fuller]

As I and others seem to like this focal length but are dissapointed

with it's perfromance (see several past posts) - what are the

alternatives?

[Greg M]

24mm f1.4L- over $1,000

Sigma 24mm f1.8- $300

Zooms

[scott_eaton]

Alternatives that present higher quality please, and this certainly doesn't include the $300 zoom category.

 

The Sigma does have a slightly higher rating than the 24mm Canon, although I can tell you from first hand experience the 20mm Sigma does not.

[rtrace]

Why is this topic being discussed to death? According to most reviews and sites I've seen (look at http://www.photozone.de - Equipment -> Canon -> Lens Performance, for example) the Canon 24mm f/2.8 has the highest quality among 24mm primes with the Canon EF mount. I also researched the topic before buying my 24mm f/2.8.

 

Is it optically as great as my 50mm f/1.4? No. But what options do I have if I want to use 24mm as a focal length? I'm fine with its quality though, but if you're really that unhappy, then all you can do is contact Canon R&D to talk them into creating a better 24mm prime. Unfortunately primes seem to be on the down trend with crappier zooms getting all the attention.

 

Talk about making something out of nothing!

 

Bogdan

[aljaz_.]

There?s the 24mm tilt-shift lens as well. Often admired and may be an interesting choice if you?re dedicated to Canon. As for alternatives, there are many. Buying a nikon 24mm lens and a cheap body is one. Splashing for a Leica packet is another. Some excellent Zeiss-Contax lenses also exist. No need to despair, hence.

[johann_fuller]

"Talk about making something out of nothing! " Nothing - many users have found this lens not very good when used on hi res DSLR capture - never mind what people say who just do sub 10x8 prints from their lab or only look at slides with a 4x loupe or what reviewers say or what MTF graphs show. Something - DSLR capture with wide angle lenses is being compromised by optics that were bareley adequate for film.

[paul hart]

I used to have a Leica 24/2.8 M lens that was marvellous, but I sold it before it became an expensive paperweight.

[psoriano]

I have a Canon 24mm 2.8EF with my 300D and can say that, at f/8 I've got very sharp

images, showing clearly a resolving power beyond the camera's resolution. What kind of

bad performance have you detected?

 

There is also a f/1.4L model (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?

act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7303), with a similar MTF graph

[carl_weller]

Johann,

 

I have to agree with those that wonder where this question is coming from.

 

I've had the lense for over two years and am completely happy with it [shoot on an EOS 3, not digital]. I also can't understand why you seem to think that a DSLR would make any lense a worse performer. As far as I am aware the only issue with non-DSLR 'optimised' lenses on DSLRs is that you can have flare and reflection problems if the internal elements are not coated well enough. Otherwise DSLRs generally improve lenses as the crop means the edges of the frame[always poor performers on wide lenses] are not visible. You get a crop of the better performing center.

 

The 24mm 2.8 is widely regarded as one of the very best of its type. Maybe you just got a 'monday edition'. How many 24mm lenses are you basing your coments on? If its just one or two and on the same DSLR [could be the camera too], then I'm sorry, but thats no reason to scream blue murder.

 

Apart from my satisfaction, if Yakim is happy with it [and he has recomended it without reservation many times on this forum], I really think this is a much ado about nothing debate. You might want to beg steal or borrow at least 3 or 4 of these and test them on at least the same number of cameras. That would be approaching scientific...

 

carl

[Greg M]

Sorry Scott. I left a comma off above. the 24mm f1.8 SIGMA was $300.

[PuppyDigs]

I get excellent sharpness from my EF 24 2.8 on my 10D and film bodies: decent wide open and very sharp at 5.6 or smaller. Also, very little flare and distortion compared to my wide zooms.

[vincent_j_m]

The alternatives are to re-evaluate your photographic objectives and figure out what you want to do with your photos. How sharp is sharp? Would a 1000lp/mm microscopy lens be sharp enough? Can your sensor or film distinguish between the blades of grass on a hill a mile away, shot at 24mm?

 

People are disappointed with the 24's performance? I am not sure where people come up with these "findings" I've never seen such complaints before and I've never had anything to complain about my 24/2.8.

 

Yes, now I understand. The only lens that will satisfy is the 24/1.4L (maybe). The alternative is to switch to medium format. Maybe that will give better results.

[johnrwoods]

All I know is that I plan on getting the Sigma 24mm 1.8, I need it for low-light work at concerts. Most reviews of it have been positive, and has some neat features (internal focusing and MFD of 7.1 inches). Something to look at if you need the speed.

[josh1]

Out of curiousity, I started searching through my chromes taken with the EF 24/2.8 in search of chromatic aberation. I couldn't really detect it with a 8x loupe, but with a 4000 dpi scan of some Provia 100F on my Coolscan V I found a little bit. Here is the original picture (downsized for web display, converted to jpeg, and sharpened a little bit). I know thats a bit of post processing, but its just for the purpose of showing you the overall layout area and location of the 100 percent crops. F-stop used was most likely f8 or f11...shutter speed unknown....handheld unfortunately.

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2695642">FullScan<a>

<p>Here are the 100 percent crops that have been converted to jpegs. No sharpening from scanning or photoshop.

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2695651">TopLeftCorner<a>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2695662">BottomLeftCorner<a>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2695670">MiddleRightEdge<a>

<p>Personally, I don't find this amount of CA that objectionable. I'd hate to do this test with the 17-40L, 16-35L, or 17-35L. I'm not familiar with the area in which the CMOS would be cropped from on my original scan. But the three areas that I posted 100 percent crops of, as far as I know, would not be included with any 1.6X sensor. I know you guys all say film is inferior and hides lots of imperfections of 35mm lenses, but I'm trying to help with what I have. If soemone could post photos showing what they are finding so objectionable with the 24/2.8 on their DSLR's, that would probably be useful.

 

<p>But from what I see with this lens on film, I will have no regrets continuing to use it. Is it as good as the 50/1.4? No. Does it have some CA? Yes. But I can't think its enough to cause problems unless you are making Ginormous prints. In that case I think maybe you should just step it up to medium format instead of trying to squeeze every last drop out of a wide angle designed for a tiny strip of film.

<p>Bottom Line? I like mine and will continue to use it. Canon can ad USM at any time, as long as they keep the price the same. I've also used the 20/2.8 and thought the 24/2.8 was much better. Of course, that comparison isn't fair and is about as useful as comparing the 24/2.8 to the 50/1.4.

[josh1]

Sorry...would be more useful to paste the 100 percent crops beside the original for refence, but I had trouble figuring out how to effectively do this...

[sheldonnalos]

I've been thinking about my earlier comments regarding the 24mm f/2.8 and whether the performance was lacking. I can say that it doesn't have the resolving power of my 50mm f/1.4 or 70-200mm f/4 L, but maybe I shouldn't be expecting it to...

 

I'll throw an image up for you all to weigh in on whether it's sharp enough. I'll post a downsized full frame first, then a 100% center crop.

 

Details: 10D, tripod mounted, mirror lock up, self timer, focused on the center gazebo, f/8, large/fine .jpg with +2 sharpness setting. Some color correction post process work in PS, and the top half of the photo is a layer mask. USM was used at 15%, 100 pixel radius, 0 threshold for local contrast enhancement, then at 100%, 2 pixel radius, 2 threshold for sharpening.

 

Taken last Saturday on a trip to Vancouver, BC at the University of Brisish Columbia Rose Gardens.

 

What do you all think? Is this soft, or am I expecting too much?

 

Sheldon<div></div>

[sheldonnalos]

And the center crop...<div></div>

[josh1]

Here's the areas I cropped from

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2695810">CropAreas<a>

[josh1]

Looks pretty darn sharp in the center Sheldon... though they aren't gonna like that you used USM on it probably. I didn't post any crops from the center of my image cause I knew it would be pointless.

[sheldonnalos]

Good point Josh...

 

Here's a center crop from the same image, pre-processing. No color/exposure corrections, no USM. The only sharpening is the +2 settings from the in camera .jpg parameters.<div></div>

[josh1]

Lo and Behold. Even the almighty 35/2 suffers from CA as well.

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2695916">FullFrameFromEF35/2<a>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2695917">100PercentCropNoSharpeningFromEF35/2<a>

 

<p>Notice the purple fringe above the snow? This is an outrage. I demand Refunds and Retooling for all. Someone at Canon is going to be tarred and feathered for this. Get a rope...;)

[scott_eaton]

Sheldon's samples are plainly showing chromatic aberation and softness, and it's especially obvious in the heavy USM'd examples. The top of the arch poles are fringing red, and the bottom blue, which is something I'd expect in a cheap off brand zoom and not a Canon or Nikon prime. I'm noticing the same problem in many of my shots, along with just plain being soft. The other Canon primes I've used with my 10D flat out rock.

 

If I made a 16x20 LightJet print out of that shot it would be glaringly obvious along with the color fringing getting worse because interpolation would go crazy on it.

 

Either Canon has a serious Q/C issue with this lens, or it just plain sucks. The people who think these samples show a quality lens are the same lot that can't tell consumer print films from professional films either.

[scott_eaton]

Purple fringing is a different problem than the red/blue chromatic aberation demonstrated above, and rather than use a rope, somebody should use a whip - on you.

 

I guess most of you simply have shit standards and nobody would buy your work anyways, so who cares. Maybe Canon should also just re-brand Soligor cuz it's good enough. Looks like I'm getting a 50mm for my RB after all.

[robin_sibson1]

Some of the posts on this thread fall short of the standards of courtesy that underpin the EOS Forum. Let's not lose sight of the constructive spirit that makes this Forum valuable.

 

The UBC example is very interesting because it shows quite significant CA at the very centre of the frame, and the CA is not behaving symmetrically as you move away from the centre. The CA that arises from design limitations in a wide-angle lens is normally negligible at the centre and grows to what may be quite severe levels as you move towards the edge, in a radially symmetric pattern. So this particular example looks much more like a mis-alignment problem, which could be a quality control issue during manufacturing or could have arisen during use. In either case, it might be possible for an expert technician with the right test equipment to improve matters.

[yakim_peled1]

>> People are disappointed with the 24's performance? I am not sure where people come up with these "findings" I've never seen such complaints before and I've never had anything to complain about my 24/2.8.

 

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.