Canon EF 24mm F2.8 VS Canon EF 28mm F1.8 USM

[andreas_holmstr_m]

Hi guys,

 

I'm having troubles deciding between these two lenses.

 

Both are aprox. the same price.

 

Which has better image quality?

 

I know the obvious, 4mm more focal lenght, the 28mm being a faster lens and

faster and silent autofocus.

 

Thanks!

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Well well,

 

What is less obvious is what do you use it for?

 

4 mm different seems meaningless or huge difference depends on what you shoot and what body you sit them on.

 

However I'd pick the longer and wider lens

[ujwal]

Well, to me wider angle is more important in wide angles. I would never shoot portrait with a 28mm anyway so 24mm in my opinion is the lens to buy.

 

Cheers.

 

ujwal( www.ujwal.com.np )

[andreas_holmstr_m]

I use it for Photography:)

 

I have an 5D.

 

The 28/24mm would be a scenery and urban landscape lens.

 

The thing I do like more with the 28mm is the extra stop of light it offers. Small DOF is something I also value.

 

And being very used to the USM motors, I think this is a plus aswell.

 

But, image quality is also very important to me.

[lester_wareham]

If you want to use it for landscape then I would go for the 24/2.8 although the expensive 24/1.4L is sharper.

 

The 28/1.8 is a very sharp lens in the centre and less so at the edges, correction is required for CA. It has a fast positive USM AF with FTM. Best for shooting with low light and shallow DOF work. Bit of a low cost and light weight compromise for the 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L.

 

If you want something sharp for landscape that is less wide then the 35/2 would be good. Both this and the 24/2.8 have older noisier AF drives and no FTM but this should not be an issue for landscape.

 

Finally if you want quality and flexibility the 17-40 f4L does deliver and also has the FTM and USM.

[andreas_holmstr_m]

Thank you Lester,

 

So you reckon the 24mm is sharper than the 28mm at for example F2.8?

[robert_turner]

Andreas- this subject has been discussed in depth in here before. Try search next time.

 

Robert

[yakim_peled1]

I had both and wrote about them in these posts.

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G6ao&tag=

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G9o7&tag=

 

As you can see, each has its pros and cons and you need to make up your mind what is more important to you.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Good info at

<a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php">SLRGear.com</a> - especially see

their sharpness testing at all apertures (click on the small image on the right side of the

review page):

 

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/82/cat/

10">24mm f/2.8</a>

<li><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/83/cat/

10">28mm f/1.8</a>

</ul>

 

<p>Dan

[lester_wareham]

"So you reckon the 24mm is sharper than the 28mm at for example F2.8?"

 

The 28/1.8 is a great lens, I use it for low light but not landscape.

 

A full frame compare at f2.8 is here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=246&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=2

 

Stopped down to f11 things are more equal

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=253&Camera=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5&LensComp=246&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=6

 

At f4 the 24/2.8 is a little better than the 17-40

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2&LensComp=246&CameraComp=9&FLI=2&API=0

 

At f11 there is not much difference between the zoom and the 24mm.

[frdchang]

i have the 28mm 1.8 and what is bothersome is the its very prone to flare.

 

you see, resolution doesn't really matter much in a print, but when your highlights bleed then it affects the image quality allot.

 

but,

 

when you use this lens in soft even lighting (like the indoors) and wide open, (once again in soft even lighting) then it is a fantastic lens.

 

you see, even though the 2.8 is a superior lens, it doesn't have fast and smooth autofocus, nor the light gathering ability of a 1.8.

 

even though i knew the 24mm 2.8F was a superior lens, I really needed the 1.8F not only for its DOF effect, but because of its light gathering ability. and i need light gathering ability the most in dim light, which is usually pretty even, which means that flare is not a factor.

 

so it is complicated... imagine what you need, and go for it.

[yakim_peled1]

>> i have the 28mm 1.8 and what is bothersome is the its very prone to flare.

 

 

I agree. As I see it is the lens' biggest flaw. I stated this in my post in the second link.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[andreas_holmstr_m]

I've made up my mind. I'm getting the 24mm lens.

 

It seems that the 24mm has superior image quality, and image quality is more important to me from a 24mm lens than a large aperture.

 

The site where you can compare different lenses just by moving your mouse over a test picture was super! Thanks for that link, never saw it before.

 

Too bad that this 24mm lens is very expensive in Finland compared to US prices for example. Cheapest one over here is 499 euros.

 

At a weight of only 270grammes it's on par with my Leica M lenses.

 

I used to be a die-hard Canonist owning lenses such as the 200mm F1.8 L and happily carried it around the world:), but since I got into Leica M, my back grew weaker:)

 

My camera bag filled with the Canon gear to accompany me on my next trip will only weigh: aprox 1,8kg. This is a 5D, 24mm 50mm and 85mm.

[yakim_peled1]

That is an excellent kit and I went on several trips with such a kit (24-50-85) or a very similar one (24-35-85). However, there were times when I found the 24mm not wide enough (on film). I therefore recommend considering replacing the 24mm and 50mm for the 17-40/4. I have it and really do not think it is too big.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[andreas_holmstr_m]

Thanks Yakim,

 

For now I feel happy with my setup.

 

I think the small aperture (F4) on the 17-40mm ruins a bit small DOF photos. The 50mm F1,4 lens produces some excellent shots even wide open.

[lester_wareham]

frederick chang: "I have the 28mm 1.8 and what is bothersome is the its very prone to flare. "

 

Yes Yakim told me that in another thread, I have found the opposite it was quite good and only slightly worse than the 17-40. When I reproduce the test Yakim showed me both the 17-40 and the 28 did equally badly, but this was not surprising as the light source to subject lighting range was something like 22 stops, any lens will flare under those conditions.

 

Considering the 28/1.8 is a high speed lens I found it?s flare resistance impressive and close to that of the 50/1.4.

[yakim_peled1]

>> When I reproduce the test Yakim showed me both the 17-40 and the 28 did equally badly

 

 

This must be a sample variation issue. My 17-40/4 is one of the most flare resistant lenses I have ever owned (together with the 24/2.8 and 35/2). The 28/1.8 USM is easily the worst. Even a friend's 15-30 (which is known to have a flare problem) was not that bad.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.