Deciding Between Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS and Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS

[RuleOfThirds]

I've recently become very interested in street photography. I've come to the realization that my 17-40mm f/4L, 40mm f/2.8 STM, and 50mm f/1.4 USM are not suitable for this type of photography on APS-C sensors. The 17-40 is just too large of a lens and the 40mm and 50mm are too cropped in. I've decided that I want a fast wide-angle prime. Sure, 24mm and 28mm aren't wide angle per se on APS-C sensors, but with full frame in my future, one of them seems like a good investment.

Now, I've decided to get one of these Canon primes with IS because I have a physical deformity that hinders stabilization on my part. But I'm stuck deciding between the two focal lengths. I've run some tests at 24mm and 28mm with my 17-40, but I can't make up my mind. With street photography becoming something I want to experiment with more, which lens would you all recommend? Do any of you have experience with these new IS primes?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Khalai]

How about 35/2 IS? One full stop faster, 56mm equiv. reach/FoV on the crop (very close to "normal" lens) and very sharp lens.

 

[instaimage]

Not sure if you like Digital Rev on youTube or not... you can get some useful info out of Kai's reviews... sometimes... I've wondered myself about both of the lenses you're looking at and decided to stay where I'm at without them... but instead have just bought the new EF-S 10-18mm IS... Here are the three reviews, check them out... maybe something of use for you here...

28mm 2.8
http://youtu.be/laahqJ1zVRM

24mm 2.8
http://youtu.be/3RVh2HC0KSw

10-18mm 3.5-5.6
http://youtu.be/G7Q-5XhkAXU

I know you give up the depth of field but with this short of a lens you've got to get quite close to something to get the "advantage" of the 2.8 for shallow depth of field so... Good luck with your hunt!

 

[zlatko]

How about 35/2 IS? One full stop faster, 56mm equiv. reach/FoV on the crop (very close to "normal" lens) and very sharp lens.

RuleOfThirds feels that 40mm is too cropped and 35mm is just a bit wider. It could work and it is very sharp as you note, but may still feel a little too cropped.

The 28mm would give the closest to a true normal view on an APS-C camera, keeping in mind that 50mm on full frame is a slight telephoto, not a true normal. A true normal is something like 43mm equiv. on full frame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

Both the 24 and 28 IS lenses are fine lenses and I can't think of a way to recommend one over the other. It really comes down to personal preference. Good luck!

 

[tayassu]

I always found 24mm on a APS-C sensor too less for street photography. I would go for the 28mm.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

How about 35/2 IS? One full stop faster, 56mm equiv. reach/FoV on the crop (very close to "normal" lens) and very sharp lens.

RuleOfThirds feels that 40mm is too cropped and 35mm is just a bit wider. It could work and it is very sharp as you note, but may still feel a little too cropped.

The 28mm would give the closest to a true normal view on an APS-C camera, keeping in mind that 50mm on full frame is a slight telephoto, not a true normal. A true normal is something like 43mm equiv. on full frame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens

You have it right. I don't think the 35mm would be a good match for what I want with street photography. I've used my 40mm on my two SLR cameras and I adore that focal length on full frame. It seems that 24mm on APS-C would be closest to that focal length. But, as I forgot to mention, it all comes down to price. I can get the 28mm f/2.8 IS for $468 used in "like new" condition, while the 24mm f/2.8 IS would be well over $500.

Decisions!

 

[Random Orbits]

What you choose may matter less than what you think because the 1.6x crop factor changes how you would use the lens APS-C or FF. I loved having a 35mm prime for APS-C, and I ended up getting a 50mm prime when I moved to FF to maintain the same AOV. I still used the 35, but it was now for a different purpose. Just like many that used a 16-35 on APS-C as a general purpose lens use it for a much different purpose when they move to FF.

If you start out with a 24 on APS-C, then you might end up with a 24 and a 35 (or 40mm) pair when you move to FF, and if you start out with a 28, then you might end up with a 40 (or 50mm) on FF. I'm sure you'll be able to make either combination work well for you. Personally, I'd prefer the 28 IS to the 24 IS just because I find 24mm a little too wide for general use. That and there are so many options at 24mm (TS-E, f/1.4, f/2.8 IS) that I'd rather pick something else at 24mm.

 

[e17paul]

Both 24 and 28 IS lenses review very well, but the 28 comes out slightly ahead for IQ. Both are very very good compared to the 24. Both are ahead of the 16-35/2.8 and 17-40/4 zooms, but I have yet to see comparison with the new 16-35/4L IS. That could be another option.

I chose the 24 IS because of its extra width and greater depth of field, and I'm delighted with it. The colour rendition is ahead of my other non L primes, comparable to my only L lens and my legacy OM Zuiko lenses. Distortion is low, if that's important for buildings and other straight lines in your street photos.

At 24 I often use Av at f/11, then use the depth of field scale to set and forget the manual focus so that everything is in reasonable focus. IS really helps here where the tripod is not allowed or not with me. If I'm nice and relaxed, and can slow the shutter by the claimed four shots, but at other times only two or three stops.

For a different look, I can switch to f/2.8 and auto focus.

I'm similarly torn between 24 and 28 for a wide lens. 28 is 'comfortably wide' for an urban scene at full frame, but would give a nice and tight standard view on a 1.6x camera. 24 is the widest I like to go to for a realistic look at full frame, and moderately wide on a 1.6x crop. I'm also yearning for the 35/2 IS suggested in a previous post.

 

[Ew]

Another quite important thing to keep in mind is your environment. Different cities call for different focal lengths.

I was big on the 28mm (before IS version existed) with the 7D. But after moving to ff ended up giving it away as it rarely got use.

Tokyo and NYC are more 24... LA, Prague, Istanbul are comfortable with 28... but then again, that is with a ff perspective. Having recently picked up an M, I've been heavy on the Samyang 14 2.8, Nikkor 43-86, and Nippon 50 1.4 for street. All of which together cost me less than a 24mm IS.

Point is.. consider your environment - not only percieved performance and focal length.

-d

 

[Hazmatt]

Quite a few Photographers sites i visit seem to favour a 28 mm for street photography, the review below is for the Ricoh GR which has a 28mm equivalent lens and could even be a solution to your needs as it is a great street Photographers camera (discreet for a start) and very good image quality. I would be cautious of a 24mm as distortion could be a problem with people shots anywhere near the edge of the frame.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/05/06/review-2013-ricoh-gr-digital-v/

 

[albron00]

I'd pic Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS.

 

[alexturton]

I've recently become very interested in street photography. I've come to the realization that my 17-40mm f/4L, 40mm f/2.8 STM, and 50mm f/1.4 USM are not suitable for this type of photography on APS-C sensors. The 17-40 is just too large of a lens and the 40mm and 50mm are too cropped in. I've decided that I want a fast wide-angle prime. Sure, 24mm and 28mm aren't wide angle per se on APS-C sensors, but with full frame in my future, one of them seems like a good investment.

Now, I've decided to get one of these Canon primes with IS because I have a physical deformity that hinders stabilization on my part. But I'm stuck deciding between the two focal lengths. I've run some tests at 24mm and 28mm with my 17-40, but I can't make up my mind. With street photography becoming something I want to experiment with more, which lens would you all recommend? Do any of you have experience with these new IS primes?

Thanks for your help!

Have you thought about the sigma 30 1.4? I had the original version on 7d for years with greet results

 

[Ruined]

So, a couple of points between the 24mm vs 28mm, a tough choice as they are so similar.

1. Both are fantastic. However, the 28mm is a bit sharper.

2. The 28mm is also shorter and thus slightly more compact, as it has 1 less lens element.

3. The 28mm is about $50 cheaper.

4. For APS-C use, either the 24mm or 28mm are great for street photography. The 24mm will give you a "wide normal" FOV, while the 28mm will give you a "normal" FOV. It is 100% personal preference whether you want wide-normal or normal. Personally I think 28mm is the perfect focal length for street photography on APS-C.

5. For full frame use, arguably the 24mm is more desirable as it can produce more impressive looking landscapes with the sweeping "24mm look." 28mm is a bit of a compromise focal length between 24mm and 35mm on full frame IMO.

6. Otherwise, both are great for street photography on an APS-C camera - the 24mm will give you a bit extra width, while the 28mm will be a bit sharper and less prone to perspective distortion on the edges than the 24mm.

In summary:

If you plan to buy a full frame camera in the future, I'd get the 24mm - as it will serve well for street photography on APS-C, but will double duty as a landscape lens on a full frame camera.

If you don't plan to go full frame anytime in the near future, I'd get the 28mm - as on APS-C 28mm is a bit sharper, more compact, cheaper, has less perspective distortion at the edges, and on APS-C gives a bit more ideal focal length for street photography IMO.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Thanks for all of your replies.

I do plan on going full frame in the future (within two years), so that makes the choice of lenses more complicated.

I do like how Ew mentioned that the environment I shoot in should be considered. That never crossed my mind. I live near Atlanta, so that's where I do most of my street. I think I'll rent both and see which one I like most.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Ew brings up a very good point, and I experienced it first hand last week in NYC.
I had a 40mm f/2.8 on my 5DII (~25mm on APS-C) and here is the feedback:
1. First off, great lens. I went back and forth on getting this lens for a long time, and eventually got it just to make the best of a Canon deal- totally worth it for FF users.
2. It was okay for most part in NYC, but sometimes a bit too long. For example, I was trying to get motion blurs of some cool cars and buses in the street, but couldn't get the whole of it from the edge of the pavement (if I backed out, then there would be a hundred pedestrians in front of me). So I wouldn't get any longer than 24mm on APS-C.
3. Unless posed, street photos below 1/100 gave lots of blur due to subject movement. So I would recommend a faster lens rather than one with IS, as long as you can shoot at 1/100 at 24mm without IS in your specific case.
4. In NYC, sometimes I felt the need for a long lens (~135mm) for candids. People move away quickly when they see a lens pointed at them up close.
So, definitely recommend the 24mm over the 28mm. In fact a faster 24mm if possible (24mm f/1.4L, or Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ) although the larger size is not a desirable trade-off.
Finally, it seems an EOS M with the 22/2 might be a much better camera for street photography. It will probably cost you less than either of those lenses, and has an APS-C sensor. Horses for courses, you know...

 

[Ruined]

Thanks for all of your replies.

I do plan on going full frame in the future (within two years), so that makes the choice of lenses more complicated.

I do like how Ew mentioned that the environment I shoot in should be considered. That never crossed my mind. I live near Atlanta, so that's where I do most of my street. I think I'll rent both and see which one I like most.

Another thing to note with these lenses; due to their small size, both will make lighter aps-c cameras tip and sit unnaturally on the edge of the lens. But, with the hood attached this problem goes away entirely; so it is definitely worth buying the hood for these.

If you are renting primarily to test focal length, you might want to save yourself a few bucks and force yourself to shoot at 24mm and 28mm for a day each on your 17-40 to get an idea what focal length works best for you.

Also, FYI, in the focal length you are looking at (24-28mm) I have owned the following, the ones in bold/italics are the ones I still own currently:
EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF 28mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM
EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM

Ironically, I no longer own either of the ones you are looking at, but that is mainly due to selling my crop camera and acquiring the 24L, but I did put in time with each of them in FF & APS-C. Of all of these I've owned, the most underwhelming were the two EF-S lenses. The 17-55 was fast but the color/contrast seemed poor to me; the 18-135 was a nice focal range but just too slow.

I actually miss the feel and focal length of the 28mm f/2.8 IS on APS-C; it is such a nice fit for a small camera for street photography; some of my best shots on APS-C were with the 28 f/2.8 IS. But, it is hard to justify owning on FF when a 24+35 offers much more optical variety than a 28 alone - and I can't really think of a situation on FF where you'd want to take a 28 prime over a 24 or 35; on FF, most of my street photog is with the 35mm f/2 IS or 50L. Also, while the 24mm f/2.8 IS is one of the best landscape primes Canon makes (IMO better than the 24L), I mainly do events and portraiture where the higher speed of the 24L is frequently needed. But, the 28mm IS is a nice little lens that approaches the size of the 40mm pancake, while the 24mm IS is just a bit too long to be considered truly compact.

Another option - if you don't do much landscape - is to simply buy the 28mm f/2.8 IS for your crop, then sell it and keep the 17-40 for landscape when you go full frame (or upgrade the 17-40L to the new 16-35 f/4L IS). If you are into street photography, neither the 24/28 will be best for that on FF - probably better off with a 35mm f/2 IS USM at the very widest (which will give similar FOV to 24mm on crop). One of the best pictures street photog pictures I've ever taken was on the 35mm f/2 IS USM on a 6D - and that lens is very optically similar to the 24/28, just a stop faster.

Also as someone else noted, using the lens at 1/100-1/125 minimum shutter speed is crucial to prevent motion blur if you are taking pictures of people, at which point IS will become less needed due to the fast shutter on a shorter focal length.

 

[Vossie]

You can crop an image taken with the 24 mm to a 28 mm FoV, but not the other way around....

 

[reczey]

Choose a PRIME only if you are regularly and often shoot with the same focal length. Otherwise, choose a ZOOM. Maybe the 16-35 f/4 IS L is a better choice?

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Choose a PRIME only if you are regularly and often shoot with the same focal length. Otherwise, choose a ZOOM. Maybe the 16-35 f/4 IS L is a better choice?

I only use my 17-40L when I shoot architecture. 99.99% of the time I use my 50mm f/1.4 on my DSLR and my 40mm on my SLRs. Those focal lengths are way too cropped for the types of shots I want with my DSLR when I'm in Atlanta. I think getting a 16-35 f/4L IS would be redundant and too large for remaining discreet.

 

[bereninga]

I was in a similar situation when these lenses were just released and opted for the 24mm IS. I really liked the look of 24mm on the APS-C sensor and the images came out super sharp. It can also still be good for street photography and definitely great for landscape if you decide to go FF later on. The 28mm is rated to be sharper, but may not be wide enough.