Comparing 24 f1.4L to 28 f1.8

[luq]

Hi guys,

 

I've recently acquired a 5D and am finding that it is very picky with

the lenses that I own right now.

 

I'm looking at getting a fast, wide prime and was wondering if anyone

has any experience with both the 24 f1.4L as well as the 28 f1.8? I've

tried out the 28, but will have to order the 24, so I can't compare

both before buying.

 

The 24 is obviously an L lens, but due to its large max aperture, how

does it compare optically to the 28? If the difference isn't that

great, then I guess it makes more sense to pay less than half the

price for the 28.

 

BTW, in the wide, fast prime category, I do own the 28 f2.8 right now

but there is a tremendous amount of light falloff at the corners, so I

am thinking of replacing it with one of the above 2 lenses. Also, it

would be nice to have USM! :P

 

Thanks.

[luq]

Oh yes, forgot to mention that I will be using the lenses mostly at f1.8 - f2.8.

 

Thanks.

[mike_meloy]

I don't have any experience with the EF24 f1.4 but I do own the EF28 f1.8. Mine is very

usable

at f1.8 and steadily gets sharper up to f4.0, where it is razor sharp. It has GREAT color

contrast. You can check out some of my shots with this lens here:

 

http://www.pbase.com/bosphorousman/inbox

 

Hope this helps!

[bill_fouche]

Size and weight don't matter to everyone, but it's a factor for me. The 24/1.4 is big and heavy (for what it is) at roughly 1.25 lbs. The 28/1.8 is less obstrusive and just over half the weight (roughly .7 lbs.).

[luq]

Mike: Thanks for your feedback and link on the 28. Great examples there!

 

Bill: I realize that the 28 is the smaller of the 2, but as long as the 24L is not bigger than the 16-35 (which it isn't), it'll be fine.

 

I'm mostly interested in the optical quality of the 24 in comparison to the 28, esp on a FF sensor.

 

Thanks!

[medina photography cherry]

I have the 24 1.4L and it is an awsome lens. I almost sent it back to get the 24-70 2.8L but I held onto it for a week and fell in love with it. I am glad I did not get rid of it, it is truly an excellent lens. Now that I have a 1.3x DSLR it is even better.

[terry_smith2]

You may also wish to consider the Sigma 24/1.8. It's no L lens of course but it's still quite good.

[lotsawa]

Mike, your pictures are shot with a 300D, but l uq has a full frame body. So your pictures tell little about light falloff at corners on a 5D. Just to mention it.

[mike_meloy]

Gee, thanks Chris. I realize I have a 300D but I thought I'd give him something to go on

since no one had yet responded to his post. I'm sorry that I cannot afford the 5D right

now. Believe me, if I hadn't been laid off from my job, I would have bought it by now. But

I'll have to wait till I find a new one (job that is). Until then I guess I'll just have to give

advise and samples from my lowly 300D. Sorry.

[blueviews]

I don't have the 24 but one of my buddies shooting lots of natural light underwater says the

24 is much sharper in the corners than the 28. Just one data point.

Bill

[david_jones18]

I own a 24 f1.4 and it is a very sharp lens and gives a good contrast and colour rendition. I would wholly recommmend it unless you are planning on architectural shots (where tilt-shift comes in handy).

 

Also I should note that I am on my 3rd copy of this lens - I noticed that this lens has a tendency to accumulate condensation droplets (dew) within the lens (which my non-L and some L lens are not prone to) - Not used in extreme conditions or misuse. These take a while to develop (months) and worrying start to join up ("where there is water there is life" - at least according to NASA). I think Canon has a QC issue with this lens are worse a design issue with an overly hydroscopic lens element (internal). Personally, knowing what I know now I would stay clear of this lens.

 

At this price tag I expected a superior lens not a can of worms.

 

Best Regards

[mike_earussi1]

According to photozone the 24 is slightly sharper in the center and has a flatter field than the 28. you might want to check their web site yourself at http://www.photozone.de/active/news/index.jsp.

[pbizarro]

If you can test the 28 1.8 yourself, and are happy with the results, and comfortable with that focal length, then buy it.

 

If you need 24 mm though, then the 28 will not be adequate.

 

I have used both lenses in the past with slide film, and they are both high quality.

 

This is a shot taken with the 24 f/1.4, just as an example:

 

http://paulobizarro.com/foto.asp?id=104&t=4

[lotsawa]

@Mike: Mike, for me, a simple amateur, the high price of a 5D is not justified, and that of a 24/1.4L isn't either (and I can't afford it). The 300D is capable of great pictures. I just got a 50cm x 75cm (20"x30") print from a lab, and the image quality is still amazing. So I wouldn't worry to much. Also, as users of a 'crop-camera' we don't have to worry about light falloff too much! I did update to the 350D recently when I could get hold of a good used one. Anyway, hope you get a good job soon.

 

(Sorry, way off topic)

[panos_voudouris]

Personally, I'd pick the focal length *first*. There is a significant difference in FoV between

24 and 28mm. Which one do you want? I do not like 24mm, thus have the 28/1.8. As a

side-effect, I save a lot of money as well. :-)

[medina photography cherry]

Just to add another thought. If you are going to be working with the 24 1.4L lens at any f-stop past 2.8, you mine as well save your money. I am not saying that this lens is a junker past 2.8, I am just saying that it is no better than my 17-40 4L past f4, and I am sure no better than the 24-70 2.8L @ 2.8. This lens is a specialty lens that is meant to be used in low light, just like the 50 1.0L is a specialty lens.

[PuppyDigs]

"...I am just saying that it is no better than my 17-40 4L past f4..."

 

There's much more to lens performance than sharpness. Primes usually exhibit much less distortion and flare than a zoom. Plus a F1.4 viewfinder is really a joy to use in low light--you can actually see your subject--even if you're shooting flash.

[luq]

Thanks for all the responses guys. Sorry if this reply is a little late.

 

At first I was going to go with the 24 f1.4 based on all the great feedback on it, esp with Bill saying that it was sharper at the corners.

 

Then I read David's response on its succeptability to dew, I have to agree with him that it would be too much money to spend on something that I can't rely on to perform flawlessly in a myriad of conditions (can't always be looking out for dew formation).

 

To Paulo and Panos - like I've mentioned before, I have a 28 f2.8. I use the 28 a lot but occasionally find myself wanting a little wider. I have also owned the 24-70L and am used to a 24mm focal length as well. To me, an optically good 28 or 24 doesn't really make that much of a difference if composed properly.

 

To Robert - other than the points that Puppy Face mentioned, I'd like to add that I did mention that I will be using these primes at close to wide open - f1.8-2.8.

 

Mike - I did realize that your samples were from a 300D, but I figured that they were good references for colour and contrast and was much appreciated. Sorry to hear about your job and hope you find another soon.

 

Take care and hope you guys had a great New Year's!