Posted by Derek Sedillo on February 17, 2007 at 8:57 PM
I am looking at getting some new glass to fill in the gap between my 12-24 Tokina and Canon 50 1.4.
While the Tokina is a great SWA lens, I sometimes wonder how much better a high end prime might be. I want to capture as much detail throughout the frame as possible.
I was thinking initially that I would get a well regarded zoom such as the Canon 24-70L or Tamron 28-75. But I really like the 'potential' benefits of higher quality primes such as the Canon 24L, 35L or Canon 28 1.8.
The question is would a high end Canon 24L or 35L resolve more detail than lets say the Canon 24-70L@35mm when both are stopped down (f8-f11) within their optimal range? Both the 24L and 35L are Canon's top of the line wide primes. But they seem to excel more at low light photography. A lot of band shooters rave about these lenses when shot wide open. But does it really make that much of a difference with landscape images which are stopped down to begin with?
I don't expect us to answer the age old debate (prime vs zoom). But I would like to know what 'Your' findings have been? If you are using a zoom do you sometimes question whether you are achieving the maximum resolving power of your camera's sensor?
Thanks,
- Derek
Posted by Roger Rouch on February 18, 2007 at 12:39 AM
I'll be interested to hear how some of the more exerienced weigh in on this, as I just picked up a 24L to fill in behind my Tamron 28-75mm. My research and final decision was not so much one of detail, but cost, weight, barrel distortion and potential flare. I'd become used to primes before zooms came into their own and always appreciated using the hyperfocal markings on wide angle primes for focusing near far compositions. I've toyed with picking up a 50mm prime to replace the Tamron zoom.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on February 18, 2007 at 9:58 AM
Roger,
I look forward to hearing how your Tamron @28 compares with your new 24L. Those are two lenses I am looking at right now. Do you find the Tamron resolves relatively good detail in landscapes when stopped down? Are you happy with its color and contrast when to compared to other lenses.
Thanks,
Derek
Posted by Roger Rouch on February 18, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Derick, the Tamron 28-75 is my first digital camera lens on my first digital camera and I've only used it about 6-8 months. I'd been mostly shooting 645 before that. With those few points of reference the 28-75mm on my 5D has impressed me significantly in terms of contrast and sharpness. I can see some distortion and maybe a little purple/color fringing in the corners of a few of my shots that were stopped down and at the wider end, but it isn't too significant and would probably be just subtle if printed large. From this lens I've made some 16X22 prints that would compare to, or better 645 enlargements.
My humble take away from shopping and researching is that most of the higher rated Canon or third party lenses are only going to have minor differences in center sharpness, but if you're shooting full frame the corner distortion may be something to check out in the various reviews online.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 20, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Derek,
First, I don't have any of the primes you've listed, just a 50/1.4 and a couple zooms in the range you asked about. My information on the primes you've asked about is from reading many posts, especially on Fred Miranda's Canon gear forum where the argument over prime versus zoom is never-ending.
One thing to think about is that alot of the WA Canon primes (14L, 24L, 24TSE, 28 1.8) is that their main advantage is faster apertures (except the tilt-shift). They may be a little sharper and correct for distortion better, but they may not be light years ahead of the zooms in color, contrast or sharpness. From what I've read, the 35L is very well liked though and is more like the 50ies or 85L than the 24L. Its also much larger than the 50 1.4 (just something to be aware of).
I don't think the resolution difference on the 24L, or 28 1.8 is as distinct as the difference between the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 100/2 and a mid zoom such as the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, 24-70L, 17-40L or 24-105L. At the same time, Canon and others have gotten very good at making mid range zooms. Since you are looking to fill the gap between 12-24 and 50mm, I think any of the primes you've listed would be a good solution.
Another thing to consider with landscape, is that you can't always take a step forward or back to change the framing. This is where a zoom becomes useful. Photographers who use primes for people photography usually say to zoom with your feet for framing, but this isn't always realistic with lanscapes, especially grand landscapes.
If you are willing to spend as much as a 35L or 24-70L costs and you plan to stay with a crop body, you might seriously consider the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. This lens is said to be sharper than the 17-40 f4L or 16-35 f2.8L and even the 24-70L where they overlap while covering the traditional normal zoom range on a crop camera. I don't think that you'll find the overlap with your 12-24 to be an issue.
Mel-
Posted by Guy Tal on February 20, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Except the 17-55 will not cover the full frame sensor of the 5D.
Guy
Posted by Derek Sedillo on February 20, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Thanks Mel,
I will probably go with a zoom for the flexibility that you mention. I have realized that I cannot always 'zoom with my feet.' That is why I need to fill the gap between 24mm and 50mm for landscapes. The other approach is to do what Guy recommended in another thread - to 'stitch' multiple frames together to achieve more resolution and cover more area.
I probably won't buy an EF-S lenses because I do hope to upgrade to FF eventually. Hopefully 5D used prices will drop once the next gen 5D/6D comes out. I would definitely 'settle' for a used 5D
I was thinking of selling my Tokina 12-24 and replace it with a Canon 17-40L for FF compatibility. But the Tokina is just too good (sharpness, color, contrast, build, etc...) to sell until I go FF.
Don't get me wrong, I think the current crop bodies have their advantages, especially for wildlife, birding, sports, etc... But for grand scenics the 5D it pretty hard to beat.
- Derek
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 20, 2007 at 5:52 PM
You didn't mention the 5D in this thread, so I didn't take that into consideration. I'm of the same mindset as you and all the lenses I own are full frame 35mm lenses. I can understand the reluctance to buy EF-S lenses.
40mm to 50mm on a crop body isn't that big of a difference in my experience, so I wouldn't consider it to be a bad choice to go ahead and buy the 17-40L right now if it suited your needs now and in the future. At the same time, the 24-70 and 24-105L lenses have both got excellent reputations, and both would fit into your current lens lineup very well. As I offered before with the Tokina, and since you are local, I'd be happy to let you check out both the Tokina 28-70 and the Canon 17-40. Getting your hands on the lens really helps in making a decision and the local stores don't carry all that much.
Discussion
7 repliesWhile the Tokina is a great SWA lens, I sometimes wonder how much better a high end prime might be. I want to capture as much detail throughout the frame as possible.
I was thinking initially that I would get a well regarded zoom such as the Canon 24-70L or Tamron 28-75. But I really like the 'potential' benefits of higher quality primes such as the Canon 24L, 35L or Canon 28 1.8.
The question is would a high end Canon 24L or 35L resolve more detail than lets say the Canon 24-70L@35mm when both are stopped down (f8-f11) within their optimal range? Both the 24L and 35L are Canon's top of the line wide primes. But they seem to excel more at low light photography. A lot of band shooters rave about these lenses when shot wide open. But does it really make that much of a difference with landscape images which are stopped down to begin with?
I don't expect us to answer the age old debate (prime vs zoom). But I would like to know what 'Your' findings have been? If you are using a zoom do you sometimes question whether you are achieving the maximum resolving power of your camera's sensor?
Thanks,
- Derek
I look forward to hearing how your Tamron @28 compares with your new 24L. Those are two lenses I am looking at right now. Do you find the Tamron resolves relatively good detail in landscapes when stopped down? Are you happy with its color and contrast when to compared to other lenses.
Thanks,
Derek
My humble take away from shopping and researching is that most of the higher rated Canon or third party lenses are only going to have minor differences in center sharpness, but if you're shooting full frame the corner distortion may be something to check out in the various reviews online.
First, I don't have any of the primes you've listed, just a 50/1.4 and a couple zooms in the range you asked about. My information on the primes you've asked about is from reading many posts, especially on Fred Miranda's Canon gear forum where the argument over prime versus zoom is never-ending.
One thing to think about is that alot of the WA Canon primes (14L, 24L, 24TSE, 28 1.8) is that their main advantage is faster apertures (except the tilt-shift). They may be a little sharper and correct for distortion better, but they may not be light years ahead of the zooms in color, contrast or sharpness. From what I've read, the 35L is very well liked though and is more like the 50ies or 85L than the 24L. Its also much larger than the 50 1.4 (just something to be aware of).
I don't think the resolution difference on the 24L, or 28 1.8 is as distinct as the difference between the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 100/2 and a mid zoom such as the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, 24-70L, 17-40L or 24-105L. At the same time, Canon and others have gotten very good at making mid range zooms. Since you are looking to fill the gap between 12-24 and 50mm, I think any of the primes you've listed would be a good solution.
Another thing to consider with landscape, is that you can't always take a step forward or back to change the framing. This is where a zoom becomes useful. Photographers who use primes for people photography usually say to zoom with your feet for framing, but this isn't always realistic with lanscapes, especially grand landscapes.
If you are willing to spend as much as a 35L or 24-70L costs and you plan to stay with a crop body, you might seriously consider the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. This lens is said to be sharper than the 17-40 f4L or 16-35 f2.8L and even the 24-70L where they overlap while covering the traditional normal zoom range on a crop camera. I don't think that you'll find the overlap with your 12-24 to be an issue.
Mel-
Guy
I will probably go with a zoom for the flexibility that you mention. I have realized that I cannot always 'zoom with my feet.' That is why I need to fill the gap between 24mm and 50mm for landscapes. The other approach is to do what Guy recommended in another thread - to 'stitch' multiple frames together to achieve more resolution and cover more area.
I probably won't buy an EF-S lenses because I do hope to upgrade to FF eventually. Hopefully 5D used prices will drop once the next gen 5D/6D comes out. I would definitely 'settle' for a used 5D
I was thinking of selling my Tokina 12-24 and replace it with a Canon 17-40L for FF compatibility. But the Tokina is just too good (sharpness, color, contrast, build, etc...) to sell until I go FF.
Don't get me wrong, I think the current crop bodies have their advantages, especially for wildlife, birding, sports, etc... But for grand scenics the 5D it pretty hard to beat.
- Derek
40mm to 50mm on a crop body isn't that big of a difference in my experience, so I wouldn't consider it to be a bad choice to go ahead and buy the 17-40L right now if it suited your needs now and in the future. At the same time, the 24-70 and 24-105L lenses have both got excellent reputations, and both would fit into your current lens lineup very well. As I offered before with the Tokina, and since you are local, I'd be happy to let you check out both the Tokina 28-70 and the Canon 17-40. Getting your hands on the lens really helps in making a decision and the local stores don't carry all that much.