28-105mm lens VERSUS 50mm f1.4

[tony_black1]

<p>Which one will be sharper at 50mm focal lenght?I guess 50mm prime but do you guys think there is a big difference in terms of sharpness?</p>

<p>And how good is 28-105mm lens at 28mm and 105mm?</p>

<p> </p>

[david israel]

<p>Hello,<br>

I have 28-105 and the 50mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8 is sharper. I would assume the 50MM 1.4 is much better. The 28-105 is good at 28.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I used the 28-105 for many years, both with film and digital.</p>

<p>In my opinion you will not only see better sharpness from the 50mm but contrast and color will be better too.<br>

Moving you mouse over and off of the image <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=302">on this page </a> will show comparisons.</p>

[songtsen]

<p>My 28-105mm <b>f3.5-4.5</b> lens is quite sharp through most of its focal length range if stopped down to f5.6 or so. It's not quite as good at 28mm, especially wide open.</p>

 

<p>My 50mm f1.8 is noticeably sharper, even at f8. <a href="http://old.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml">Photodo</a>'s <i>weighted MTF for 50mm</i> suggests that the 50mm f1.4 is even sharper (slightly) than the 50mm f1.8.</p><p>With the 28-105 on my EOS 33, I find the apertures available a bit limiting (with ISO 400 film) and have switched to primes (35, 50, 90mm).</p>

 

<p>By the way, Canon also has a 28-105mm <b>f4-5.6</b> lens which is apparently 'one of the worst lenses ever'.</p>

[chris_cross1]

<p>Let me put it this way. I have the 24-105L f/4 lens which is a very sharp lens let me say. I've only tested at f/4, because as you go higher it gets pretty close and i just haven't taken the time. However, my 50 1.4 is sharper at f/4 than the 24-105L glass valued at $1000+. However, you should learn to expect this as primes only have to be good at one thing...that focal length. so a 50mm prime only has to be good at 50mm whereas a zoom has to try to be adequate across the whole focal range. Check it out, you will be impressed. </p>

[tommyinca]

<p>28-105 is not one of Canon's better lens while the 50/1.4 is. It is a C- verse an A-, depending what you are aiming for. Note: An A or A+ will cost you.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p dir="ltr">There's no surprise that a prime will outperform most non-L zooms. However, beyond that, I have difficulty understanding what is the purpose of the question. Just accumulating general knowledge?</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Like Yakim, I'm puzzled by the premise. To me it's like asking which is better, Joe Namath or the New York Jets (OK, I had to reach back for this one, but still...)?<br>

The 50mm prime, whichever one it is, will almost certainly be better than the zoom set at 50mm; but the zoom covers a whole range of focal lengths that are not available with a 50mm prime. It's one apple versus apple pies.</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Dug through the lens testing archives... had this from quite a ways back.</p>

<p>The 50mm noticeably better.</p><div></div>

[tony_black1]

<p>the reason asking the question is, i m thinking of buying the canon 5d mkii. should i buy the kit lens(28-105) or just buy the body and a 50mm f1.4 lens?</p>

[tony_black1]

<p>i made a mistake. i just checked and the kit lens is 24-105L lens. and in the website of digital-picture.com there is an amazing comparison of lenses. thanks j.harrington.<br>

at f4 there is a slight difference btw 24-105L lens and 50mm f1.4 lens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>No matter, although the two lenses-- 24-105 and the 28-105--are very different fish, the answer remains the same. A dedicated, single-focal length lens will almost always outperform even the fanciest zoom....</p>

<p>The miracle these days is that they don't outperform them anything like as much as they used to.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">The 24-105 is extremely versatile lens and a very good one. It and the 50/1.4 are complimentary, not substitutes.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

[markonestudios]

Yakim puts it nicely. teh two lenses are complementary, not competing. There will be situations where you'll be glad you had the 50 f/1.4 and others where you'll be glad you had the 24-105L. Also, the 24-105L kit for the 5D2 is good value for money. Go for it, and if you have the cash, get the 50 f/1.4 as well. Or if it doesn't fit your budget, try out the 50 f/1.8...

[jnoir]

<p>I do own the 50 1.4 and I always recommend it. In my case is particularly useful as when in film my favourite primes were 85 and 100 so, now with a 1.6x crop body (EOS 40D) the 50 provides me roughly 85 and it's worth every cent I paid for it (i bought the 40D body only and the 50 1.4 at the same time). Now I am going for a "cheap" zoom and considering 28-105 and 24-85 (maybe you'll also like to have alook at it) but, from what I have read and seen until coming to those two glasses as only options, the 50 1.4 is better at 50mm than both of the zooms. Anyway, it's double the price...</p>

<p>Edit: Didn't notice your update. Seems like you are not very budgt limited, so if it's a good price i'd go with the kit and buy the 50 1.4 also, easier to travel with ;-)</p>