Anyone know how 24-70 and 24-105 is against 24mm 2.8 prime?

[landscape_shooter]

<p>Hi, I own the 24mm 2.8 Canon prime lens, I am looking to buy probably the 24-70, or the 24-105. I am leaning toward the 24-70. How are these zoom lenses compared to the prime? I am looking at focusing, color, contrast mostly. All these lenses should be plenty sharp I think. Thanks again!</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Sharpness is pretty much on par in my experience, perhaps even better with the two zooms. Color and contrast are also definitely better with the zooms vs the 24mm prime. Focusing in the L zooms is better with a USM motor compared to the prime.</p>

<p>I've owned the 24mm f/2.8 prime on two occasions and was never that impressed with it. I use the 24-70L instead.</p>

<p>As to the 24-70 vs the 24-105, there's a lot of discussion out there. I prefer the 24-70 primarily for the faster aperture, but also appreciate that it has less distortion and vignetting on the wide end for landscape shooting, though it is heavier.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Compare them via the target shots at The-Digital-Picture?</p>

<p>My take re the 2 zooms:</p>

<p>The '70 is ahead for sharpness, especially near the corners on full frame. I'm actually pretty disappointed in my '105's corner sharpness.</p>

<p>Of the 2 the '105 is cooler, and I'd say closer to being neutral. It depends, but the '70 seems to put a ruddy tint on a lot of my shots.</p>

<p>Contrast I'm not really sure about, except to say with strong light sources close to the edge of frame the '70 is more likely to have general diffuse flare, subsequently lowering contrast, washing out shadows.</p>

[bryanr]

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=246&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101">The 28mmf/2.8 vs 24-70mmf/2.8</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=246&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2">The 28mmf/2.8 vs 24-105f/4</a></p>

<p>Feel free to play with the focal lengths and f-value.</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Some food for thought here...<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-vs-24.shtml</p>

 

[anders_carlsson]

<p>More here:<br>

<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/24mm_lenses.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/24mm_lenses.html</a></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I shoot both primes and zooms, including one of the two you mention. Any difference in color or contrast is trivial to insignificant, especially in comparison to the variations in these factors of much larger magnitude that you'll encounter in typical photography and by comparison to the changes that one often makes in post. Although I have both types of lenses in my bag, I never make the selection on this basis.</p>

<p>In terms of resolution, the issue is a bit more nuanced. Certainly if you shoot wide open, in general primes can not only go to slightly larger apertures, but they will tend to (but not always) have somewhat better IQ wide open. However, if you stop down the differences decrease quite a bit.</p>

<p>It gets even more complex if you think beyond test results and think about this in the context of how you really shoot. First, while the prime may produce slightly better resolution on the test bench, the difference between it and a high quality zoom is often very small. My zooms on a 5D2 produce plenty of resolution (when used with care) to produce really excellent results at 20 x 30 and perhaps a bit larger. At smaller sizes it is very unlikely that viewers would notice any difference at all between prime and zoom, and even at this size it would take a very close inspection by someone who knows what they are looking for.</p>

<p>However, if the shot does not frame exactly right with the prime you will need to crop in post. If you have a 135mm lens and a 85mm lens and the ideal framing of the composition would be with a 100mm focal length, if you use a prime you'll shoot at 85mm and then crop. However, with a zoom you'll shoot at 100mm and "crop in the camera," thus retaining the entire image for use in the print. As you crop the prime shot you'll lose some of the resolution advantage that it might provide, and the advantage can even reverse.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I can't answer the question, although I have the 24mm f2.8. The Digital-Picture site shows that wide open the prime is superior - so you can probably take it from there. The 24mm prime is quite satisfactory without offering the kind of snappy image that comes from say the 35mm L or the 50f1.4 - probably much like the zoom. The 24mm prime is a reasonably well-made lens, but does not have USM - not that this really matters for a 24mm in my opinion although it implies a ruggedness that a non-USM does not have. The one let down of the prime is distortion - not too bad in general use, but noticeable when taking sea shots or similar. But by all acccounts both the zooms suffer from this too - and possibly to a higher degree. In short, I doubt either of the zooms will offer <em>superior</em> performance to the prime at 24mm, so it is all a question of whether the superior build quality and convenience of the zoom is something you need.</p>