Lenses -- Difference in Clarity

[kevinbriggs]

In general, is there any difference in the clarity, color, sharpness, and

overall quality of telephoto lenses versus non-telephoto when shooting within

the same focal range and at the same aperture setting?

 

For example, let's compare the potential difference between the Canon EF 16-35mm

f/2.8L ($1360 at B&H Photo) and the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L ($1120). I know that

the latter is a slightly faster lens of course, but what I'm really interested

in is the difference between whether or not the telephoto produces a different

image -- with regard to clarity, color, sharpness, etc. -- at 24 mm (@ f/11, for

example) versus the non-telephoto 24 mm (also @ f/11)?

 

I guess what I'm really asking is whether or not there is an advantage to going

with the non-telephoto lens? If so, what?

 

Thanks for all comments!

 

K.

[mike dixon]

Neither of those lenses is a telephoto.

[akira]

Hi Keven,

 

I suppose you are talking about the zoom and non-zoom (prime) lenses.

 

There are too many factors to take into consideration so you should compare the actual lenses side by side rather than thinking theoretically.

 

For Canon 24mm lenses (including 24mm setting of "zoom" lenses), this would give you one of the most perfect answers.

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml

 

Hope this would be of any help.

[akira]

Oh, I'm very sorry to mistype your name, Kevin.

[frank_dzambic]

For what it's worth, an f/1.4 lens isn't "slightly faster" than an f/2.8 lens, it's a whole two stops faster which is a huge difference.

[ben_hutcherson]

The FD version of the 24 1.4L never was considered to be a great performer. The 24 f2(FD) is considered much better, and also lighter and cheaper. I don't know how different the EF version is, but it may be worth doing some research on this. Of course, if you need the speed, the 1.4L is the best lens for you.

[andrew robertson]

L lenses offer speed and build quality as their top two features. Many of Canon's cheaper

consumer zooms can equal L zooms for image quality, but they will not be built as heavily.

[dan flanders]

In the case of primes many persons confuse long focus lenses with telephotos. The 90 and 135 Elmars, for instance, are not telephotos in the strictest sense but often identified as such by their users. The Telyt's OTOH are true telephotos. This issue has been batted back and forth for years, and quite frankly, other than weight and heft, I could never discern the difference if there is any.

[ben_hutcherson]

L lenses are L lenses because they use some sort of special element to correct specific aberrations that typically appear in larger-aperture lenses. Wide angle to medium telephoto lenses typically use at least one aspheric element to correct spherical aberration and reduce flare. Telephotos and some wide-angles use low dispersion glass to reduce chromatic aberration, and some really long lenses use fluorite elements for the same purpose.

 

These elements typically only make a difference when wide open or close to it.

 

Back in the FD days, there was both an L and a non-L 50mm 1.2. The difference was that the non-L was basically an overgrown version of the 1.4, and the L employed an aspheric element.

 

While superior build quality has generally become associated with L lenses, this wasn't always the case. There are some lenses which are built just as well as L lenses, too, but aren't because their design doesn't call for some sort of special lens element.

[andrew robertson]

In the EF era, usually L lenses have better build with a few exceptions such as the 50-200 L

and the 100-300 L.