Comparison of old 24mm and 28mm lenses

[ed_avis2]

<p>Recently someone asked about the difference between the old 17-35L wide angle zoom and the even older 20-35. I compared the two at various focal lengths and apertures at <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/7500206@N08/albums/72157636215933256">Lens comparison: 20-35L vs 17-35L</a>. This is a rough and ready test photographing several objects at varying (but fairly close) distance, not a scientifically controlled test chart. Nonetheless it may be useful, if only to indicate that there is no clear winner and that the two lenses have different field curvature.<br>

I also made some test photographs comparing these two L zooms at 24mm focal length and a range of apertures against a third party wide angle zoom, the Tamron 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 (which was also marketed as Vivitar Series 1 among other brands) and a manual fix-focal 24mm lens which can be adapted to Canon, the Olympus Zuiko 24/2. You can see these at <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/7500206@N08/sets/72157655861904413">24mm old lens comparison</a>.<br>

Finally I tested the three zooms mentioned above at 28mm, alongside another old L zoom, the 28-80L, and two more adapted fix-focal lenses, the Olympus Zuiko 28/2 and the Contax Zeiss 28/2.8. These are at <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/7500206@N08/sets/72157655851982394">28mm old lens comparison</a>.<br>

Again this is only a rough test with obvious flaws (the light changes, and I even moved the tripod part way through) but I found it interesting. It seems to show the two wide angle Canon L lenses beaten by the much cheaper third party zoom, which in turn doesn't match the sharpness of the Olympus lenses. That said, the smudged look of the outer frame with the Canons may be due to field curvature. The 28-80 zoom at 28mm looks better than either of its Canon stablemates - surprising, since they are in the middle of their zoom range and it is at one extreme. The Zeiss 28mm does OK but did not quite match the sharpness of the Zuiko in this test.<br>

I would have liked to do some more rigorous testing - perhaps of more distant objects at infinity focus. Sadly, all of the zoom lenses tested were stolen in a burglary. I still have the adapted manual lenses and have bought a replacement 19-35 Vivitar zoom, so I might be able to test those if someone is interested.</p>

[fmueller]

<p>Sorry to hear about your stolen lenses. That sucks!</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Thanks for sharing the test Ed. I also own the 17-35mm f:2.8 L lens. I mostly use the 17-35mm lens on my Canon 5 DII for wider angles than 24mm, and for night time landscapes that include star fields, usually at 17mm and f:2.8. The lens exhibits noticeable chromatic aberration in the corners, which is mostly corrected in Canon DPP software, or in PT Lens, which is a Photoshop plug-in. Whatever small distortion there is at 17mm is not a problem for such photographs. I recently acquired a manual focus Rokinon 24mm f:1.4 primarily for night landscapes. It works well, and displays less chromatic aberration at f:1.4 than the Canon lens at 17mm and f:2.8. For general photography at 24mm, I usually use my Canon 24-105mm L lens, just because that is usually what is on my camera. I have not had a chance to compare it with the other two lenses, but they all seem to work very well between f:5.6 and f:11.</p>