I do admit to not having checked down to such detail, I use UWA almost exclusively for landscape / travel photography, and yes I have owned at different times the EF 24mm 1.4L (amazing) and the TS-E 24mm (exceptional), but the 11-24 is very close and shines where I need it most (11-20), since I have the RF 24-105L for 24mm and above (OK, some distortion at 24 as well, but again not something that is so far off the "perfect" rating for my specific usage). More important for me when looking at a trade-off "quality versus versatility" is having access to the whole range on UWA with a single lens. When bulk is an issue I have the EF 16-35 F4 IS which is quite amazing across the whole spread of focal lengths, and slightly better than the 24-105 in the 24-35 range.My experience with W.A. zooms is that they sometimes (depending on aperture ,distance, focus settings) exhibit a strange behaviour.
Some parts of the pictures that should be in focus aren't, while other equidistant ones, are.
Primes are far more reliable.
But maybe this is a purely personnel experience?
Additionally: just try to compare the 11-24 or 16-35 set at 24mm with results obtained with the EF 1,4/24 or TSE 24 II ...
Or have a look at the Nikon Z 24mm.
Primes are in my subjective pixel-peeping opinion sharper.
I just hope the new Canon primes will not be comatose wide open.
Upvote
0