I need a 24mm focal lenght Lens.. is the 24mm f2.8 IS right for me?

[TrumpetPower!]

You want something like the $2,000 Nikon 14-24, and wonder why you can't have it for $700?

never said that, where did you read that?

Your OP
"i compared the images to my uncles images and his 14-24mm nikkor lens is much better.
the nikkor is sharper and has less distortions.

so i thought i buy the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.
it´s a prime and i expect better image quality then the zooms, right?
"

You appear to be asking if a low cost prime is going to be as good as a $2,000 lens.

Well, to be fair, she does seem to be under the common misconception that all primes are better than all zooms.

That hasn't been the case for ages. The 16-35 II, for example, stomps all over all the non-L primes in the same focal length range (though I don't know about the new IS ones). The new 24-70 even gives the TS-E 24 II a run for its money. The new 70-200 eats (almost) all the primes in that range for lunch. The 5-15 is the best fisheye ever made. And so on....

What primes get you is fast apertures, smaller size, cheaper cost (often), and, in some cases, features like movements or macro that you can't get in a zoom. Oftentimes there's also less distortion. (And then there's the Great Whites, of course....)

But the days when you could automatically assume that a prime beats a zoom are long past.

Cheers,

b&

[SteenerMe]

if sharpness is what you're after then the new 24 - 70 would be the best way to go and you could get there by selling one of your L primes plus the money you plan to spend already. that lens is awesome across the board and could easily replace one of the fast primes in your kit.  Otherwise I don't see a canon AF lens matching up to that nikon...

[bycostello]

Yes the 24 is will be sharper than both the 17-40 and 24-105.
PS remember the 14-24mm nikkor is a $2000 lens, so if you want a lens with than kind of sharpness on a zoom it is the 24-70 but the 24 is will be pretty close

If you want numbers

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-24mm-F28-IS-USM/(camera)/795/(cameraname)/CANON-EOS-5D-Mark-III

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM/(camera)/795/(cameraname)/CANON-EOS-5D-Mark-III

+!

[scottkinfw]

Really?  I love my 24 to 105 kit lens.

i tried the EF 17-40mm and was not satisfied, then i tried the 24-105mm and was also not satisfied.

is there really no 24mm lens with better image quality in the canon lineup that does not cost a fortune??
the borders looked bad with the 17-40mm and 24-105mm.
i compared the images to my uncles images and his 14-24mm nikkor lens is much better.
the nikkor is sharper and has less distortions.

so i thought i buy the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.
it´s a prime and i expect better image quality then the zooms, right?

is the 24mm f2.8 IS noticable better than the zooms i have tested?

i really only need the 24mm, but the image quality has to be great from center to border.
is there another 24mm lens option for me, around 600-800 euro?
 

before i forget, i have a 5D MK3.


ps: the 24-70mm f2.8 II is to expensive.

[Tanja]

You want something like the $2,000 Nikon 14-24, and wonder why you can't have it for $700?

never said that, where did you read that?

Your OP
"i compared the images to my uncles images and his 14-24mm nikkor lens is much better.
the nikkor is sharper and has less distortions.

so i thought i buy the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.
it´s a prime and i expect better image quality then the zooms, right?
"

You appear to be asking if a low cost prime is going to be as good as a $2,000 lens.

the nikkor zoom cost 1500 euro, i asked for a prime for around 800 euro.
the nikkor was an example and i compared it to the canon zooms i have tested (24-105mm = 900 euro).

so you say it´s absolutley ridiculous what i ask for? i don´t think so.

there is a 90 euro prime lens from canon that prove me right.   
primes are much cheaper to build, easier to design and should have better image quality. (*)
in the end the engineers can focus all their efforts on just one focal lenght.

the 150 euro 40mm f2.8 pancake is no slouch either.

(*) of course you can´t compare old FD or EF primes from the late 80 or early 90 with todays zooms. technology does not stand still.

and i like to say beforehand, i know zeiss primes are more expensive.   

That hasn't been the case for ages. The 16-35 II, for example, stomps all over all the non-L primes in the same focal length range (though I don't know about the new IS ones). The new 24-70 even gives the TS-E 24 II a run for its money. The new 70-200 eats (almost) all the primes in that range for lunch. The 5-15 is the best fisheye ever made. And so on....

you compare 20 year old lenses like the 50mm f1.4, 20mm f/2.8 or EF 28mm f/1.8 to relatively new ones are you?   

but i asked about a very new prime lens... the EF 24mm f2.8 IS.

so no, im not under the impression every old prime is better than new lenses with better designs, coatings etc. 

but i think the 24mm f2.8 IS is maybe pretty close?
i mean it´s a new design.

The new 24-70 even gives the TS-E 24 II a run for its money.

well not in terms of distortion.
yes you can fix that in post, as you can fix CA´s in post.
but let us talk about pure lens performance here.

[ahsanford]

That hasn't been the case for ages. The 16-35 II, for example, stomps all over all the non-L primes in the same focal length range (though I don't know about the new IS ones). The new 24-70 even gives the TS-E 24 II a run for its money. The new 70-200 eats (almost) all the primes in that range for lunch. The 5-15 is the best fisheye ever made. And so on....

What primes get you is fast apertures, smaller size, cheaper cost (often), and, in some cases, features like movements or macro that you can't get in a zoom. Oftentimes there's also less distortion. (And then there's the Great Whites, of course....)

But the days when you could automatically assume that a prime beats a zoom are long past.

Cheers,

b&

The new IS primes are sharper than the 16-35, and pretty clearly so at that:

Photozone:
   
   16-35 II:  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/435-canon_1635_28_5d?start=1
   
   28 IS:  http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/774-canon28f28isff?start=1

DXO (hate their cryptic data, but I'm presuming it's at least consistently cryptic -- I reported all data from 5D3-paired lenses, it certainly does affect test performance):

   16-35 II:  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF16-35mm-F2.8L-II-USM/%28camera%29/795/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

   24 IS:  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-24mm-F28-IS-USM/%28camera%29/795/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

   28 IS:  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-28mm-F28-IS-USM/%28camera%29/795/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

   35 IS:  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-35mm-F2-IS-USM/%28camera%29/795/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

The Digital Picture's sample crops:
(you mouseover these and the arrow changes direction, telling you which lens is being shown.  I've thrown in F/2.8 and F/4.0, but you can tweak this page any way you like)

   16-35 vs. 28 IS @ F/2.8:  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=789&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

   16-35 vs. 28 IS @ F/4:  http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=412&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=2&LensComp=789&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


You'll giggle when I say I am not a sharpness lunatic, but it's true.  It's just that when three completely different reviewers have the same conclusions, it's probably so.

I still believe that a prime is sharper than a zoom if they were made of the same quality around the same time (i.e. year of release).  The 24-70 II is the only flat-out exception to that rule that I've seen.

- A



 

[Random Orbits]

...

I still believe that a prime is sharper than a zoom if they were made of the same quality around the same time (i.e. year of release).  The 24-70 II is the only flat-out exception to that rule that I've seen.

- A

It'll be interesting to see how Canon does with new 35L and 50L revisions.  I'm guessing they'll be better than the 24-70 II, else you might as well take your chances with less expensive 3rd party alternatives.

[ahsanford]

It'll be interesting to see how Canon does with new 35L and 50L revisions.  I'm guessing they'll be better than the 24-70 II, else you might as well take your chances with less expensive 3rd party alternatives.

Will be less impressive from a pure resolution / sharpness perspective, I'd guess. 

It seems that Canon's F/1.4 prime lenses gives up sharpness to some extent to pull off the crazy wide apertures.  To me, those are art / DOF / portrait lenses, not landscape / product / corner-to-corner lenses. 

For instance, with both the (beloved) 35L and 50L lenses, they are currently out-resolved sharpness-wise by non-L glass unless you are in the F/2 or wider neighborhood.   The venerable 50 F/1.4 trumps the 1.2L on all but center sharpness, and though I haven't seen a head to head, I'd wager the new 35 F/2 IS would out-resolve the 35L.

But then again, there's more to it than just sharpness.  I say that to this forum every week, it seems.   

- A

[babiesphotos]

Here's the data you want, then:

Primes:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/06/the-other-canon-primes-why-did-they-do-that

     Basic finding:  24L II @ F/2.8 > 28 IS @ 2.8 (just barely) > 24 IS @ 2.8 
     To be fair, all of these are considerably sharper compared to the old flagship 24-70L I.

Zooms:  http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/canon-24-70-f4-is-resolution-tests
Also:      http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/canon-24-70-f2-8-ii-resolution-tests

    Basic finding:  @24mm, the new 24-70L II truly does stack up against Canon's primes, beating the 24L II @ 2.8
    in center and border but just barely losing in the corners.  But it's very expensive, and despite improvements
    in weight, it's still not a tiny thing to carry around.

Hope that helps.  I have to make the statement that resolution is but one of a great many variables in buying a lens, but I would imagine that you know that given your years of shooting.  I love the new IS primes as they are small and light, inconspicuous / unassuming (great for street), use a very common filter diameter, are internal focusing, and have the latest focusing tech  -- all being upsides in my book.

- A

+1 on the first link. Short quote OP may find useful:

"Like most newly designed lenses, the strength of these new versions appears to be in the corners. You can tell by the average resolution numbers that the new lenses are doing better in the edges and corners than the older ones (I consider the Canon 24mm f/1.4 a new lens). One of the ways they accomplished that, though, appears to be by allowing more distortion (correcting distortion and maintaining sharpness are sometimes a trade-off in wide-angle lens design). The table below shows the amount of barrel distortion in several lenses.

Barrel Distortion   Percentage
Canon 24mm f/1.4L II   1.00%
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L @ 24mm   0.75%
Canon 28mm f/1.8   1.50%
Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM   2.10%
Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS USM   1.55%"