Lens recommendations for Canon FF

[feppe]

As I recently concluded that the Canon 24-105mm F4L is too soft to my liking, I'm looking to replace it with primes. I have Canon's 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm F2L so I have the telephoto end already covered.

I'm looking for two lenses in the range between 25-50mm - I'll probably get the wide angle first, and a normal lens if I feel it's necessary. I'd be shooting mainly travel, landscapes, cityscapes and stitched panos, mostly on tripod, with these lenses.

Here the requirements:

• SHARP between f/5.6 and f/8
• Fast lens not necessary
• AF not strictly necessary but preferred *
• Brand doesn't matter, but needs to come in Canon mount (duh)
• Price tops around 1200 EUR (1700 USD) (new or mint used) per lens, but as long as the requirements are met I don't care if it's cheap

* After reading the recent MFDB focusing article on LL I would like to hear if it is feasible to manually focus with a 5D MkII

[Chris Pollock]

The Canon 50mm F1.4 would be an obvious choice. It's extremely sharp between F5.6 and F8, small and light, and cheap too.

Apart from that it's hard to make a definite recommendation. I have the 24mm F1.4L II, and can verify that it's far superior to the 24-105 @ 24mm. Unfortunately it's also extremely expensive. Similarly the 35mm F1.4 is said to be excellent (I don't own one), but will cost you.

Unfortunately Canon's non-L wide angle primes are old designs, and may not even beat the 24-105. I really wish Canon would design some modern F2.8 wide angle lenses, optimized for the maximum possible sharpness between F5.6 and F8. They could presumably be a lot cheaper than the F1.4 lenses, and would be just as good or better for most purposes.

[feppe]

The Canon 50mm F1.4 would be an obvious choice. It's extremely sharp between F5.6 and F8, small and light, and cheap too.

Apart from that it's hard to make a definite recommendation. I have the 24mm F1.4L II, and can verify that it's far superior to the 24-105 @ 24mm. Unfortunately it's also extremely expensive. Similarly the 35mm F1.4 is said to be excellent (I don't own one), but will cost you.

Unfortunately Canon's non-L wide angle primes are old designs, and may not even beat the 24-105. I really wish Canon would design some modern F2.8 wide angle lenses, optimized for the maximum possible sharpness between F5.6 and F8. They could presumably be a lot cheaper than the F1.4 lenses, and would be just as good or better for most purposes.

I'm with you; the 24mm f/1.4L has a lot of glass along with the price and weight to be that fast, speed which I won't be using much, if at all.

That's why I'm looking at non-Canons as well.

[budjames]

I have the 24-105 and it's an excellent lens. Assuming that you have a good copy too, I think that the next lens would be the Canon 16-35 MkII f2.9 L. I have this lens and I can attest that it far superior and sharper than the 16-35 it replaces and even the older 17-35 L lens (I've owned both of these in the past).

An alternative would be the Canon 17-40 L, but I've heard mixed reviews on this lens. I have never used it so I cannot speak firsthand of it.

The only downside the new Canon 16-35 MkII is that it requires 82mm filters which are very expensive. I think that I paid $225 for my B+W circular polarizer.

Good luck.

Bud

[feppe]

I have the 24-105 and it's an excellent lens. Assuming that you have a good copy too, I think that the next lens would be the Canon 16-35 MkII f2.9 L. I have this lens and I can attest that it far superior and sharper than the 16-35 it replaces and even the older 17-35 L lens (I've owned both of these in the past).

An alternative would be the Canon 17-40 L, but I've heard mixed reviews on this lens. I have never used it so I cannot speak firsthand of it.

The only downside the new Canon 16-35 MkII is that it requires 82mm filters which are very expensive. I think that I paid $225 for my B+W circular polarizer.

Good luck.

Bud

Thanks, but I've been burned too many times by inferior zooms. I had the 24-105mm f/4L for a year, and just couldn't get sharp photos. Earlier this week I finally did a sharpness test against my much cheaper 85mm f/1.8 (linked in my top post), and that was the last straw.

[Geoff Wittig]

As I recently concluded that the Canon 24-105mm F4L is too soft to my liking, I'm looking to replace it with primes. I have Canon's 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm F2L so I have the telephoto end already covered.

I'm looking for two lenses in the range between 25-50mm - I'll probably get the wide angle first, and a normal lens if I feel it's necessary. I'd be shooting mainly travel, landscapes, cityscapes and stitched panos, mostly on tripod, with these lenses.

If you're using the lens mostly for landscapes and cityscapes with stitched panos, I'd vote for Canon's 24-70 f:2.8 L zoom. This may be a bit contrarian, but follow the logic. At the wide end it's noticeably sharper than the 24-105 lens you're so dissatisfied with, and it lacks the vignetting the 24-105 has that makes stitching so problematic. By f:8 it's extremely sharp, with very little distortion. If I need anything wider than 24 mm I mount the camera on the tripod in portrait/vertical format and stitch multiple captures side by side. At least for me this is a lot more flexible and practical for landscapes than a fixed focal length with subsequent need for cropping to get the right framing. You could no doubt get a bit more sharpness from the 24 mm f:1.4 L at great cost, but the speed is essentially worthless for landscape work and it's a lot less flexible. Same goes for the 35 mm f:1.4 L and for the 50 mm f:1.4 of your choice. I actually own and use a Sigma 50 mm f:1.4 because it's terrific for 'available dark' environmental portraits wide open, but it stays home when I'm out shooting landscapes. Again, you can no doubt get a bit more nominal sharpness from something like the Zeiss 28 mm lens, but at this level of resolution, technique and accurate focusing start to matter more than absolute optical performance.

I also own a 16-35 f:2.8 II, and it's a big improvement on the original version, but still not in the same league as the 24-70 in terms of sharpness. I use it mostly when I want an extreme wide angle perspective with a single capture, where corner sharpness isn't my main consideration.

[feppe]

If you're using the lens mostly for landscapes and cityscapes with stitched panos, I'd vote for Canon's 24-70 f:2.8 L zoom. This may be a bit contrarian, but follow the logic. At the wide end it's noticeably sharper than the 24-105 lens you're so dissatisfied with, and it lacks the vignetting the 24-105 has that makes stitching so problematic. By f:8 it's extremely sharp, with very little distortion.

When I bought the 24-105 I did quite a bit of research, most of which contradicts what you say here about the 24-70 having better resolution. The comparison between these two lenses here on LL conclude that the 24-105 has the same or better resolving power.

While you have good points about the versatility of a zoom, I'm hesitant to go that route once again. I've owned three 35mm zooms, all of them disappointing. As I'm moving to FF, this should give even worse results since I'm using the whole image circle as opposed to the center with crop sensor. Also, vignetting is a non-issue with Lightroom's de-vignetting, and/or latest stitching software.

Therefore I really don't see a reason how and why the 24-70 would be a better lens for my purposes than the 24-105.

[Geoff Wittig]

When I bought the 24-105 I did quite a bit of research, most of which contradicts what you say here about the 24-70 having better resolution. The comparison between these two lenses here on LL conclude that the 24-105 has the same or better resolving power.

While you have good points about the versatility of a zoom, I'm hesitant to go that route once again. I've owned three 35mm zooms, all of them disappointing. As I'm moving to FF, this should give even worse results since I'm using the whole image circle as opposed to the center with crop sensor. Also, vignetting is a non-issue with Lightroom's de-vignetting, and/or latest stitching software.

Therefore I really don't see a reason how and why the 24-70 would be a better lens for my purposes than the 24-105.

I actually own both the 24-70 and the 24-105 Canon L zooms. The vignetting from the 24-105 is really a major pain if there's any sky in the images you want to stitch. Even with use of de-vignetting in software you're going to get all sorts of frustrating artifacts that can really make it a struggle to get a clean result. I sometimes stitch manually if there's a lot of distortion involved, and in that case the vignetting is a huge problem.

This may be an issue where specific examples of the lenses in question vary; but my 24-70 has really excellent sharpness across the frame, with the occasional exception of middle focusing distances about 10% of the way in from the left edge of the frame. I presume this is due to a de-centered element somewhere. By comparison the 24-105 is just a tiny bit less sharp when stopped down, though it does remarkably good job wide open. If I'm mostly shooting people or walking around with one lens and body the 24-105 is the way to go. For landscapes carrying a pack and tripod I find the 24-70 just that little bit sharper, and the 70-200 picks up at the long end.

Zooms per se are not necessarily all bad, though they can rarely compete head to head for pure resolution with an excellent prime lens. My copy of Canon's 70-200 f:2.8 IS zoom is absurdly good at basically every focal length.

[marcmccalmont]

DxO corrects any vignetting on the 24-105 so it is not an issue
If your 24-105 is soft send it to Canon for adjustment
Marc

[cmi]

When I bought the 24-105 I did quite a bit of research, most of which contradicts what you say here about the 24-70 having better resolution. The comparison between these two lenses here on LL conclude that the 24-105 has the same or better resolving power.

Hm, in the whole context, this sounds a bit like a bad sample on your side. Maybe all it takes is being persistent and getting a better one.

[budjames]

I use LR 2.4 with very few trips to PS CS4 these days. I have DXO installed as a 2nd editor, but I hate the work flow.

With most of my shooting, vacation, travel and family shots, the vignetting on the 24-105 has not be a big deal. It's a great walkabout lens on either my 5DMkII ( just got it) or my 1DsMkIII.

Good luck with it.

Cheers.
Bud

[ChrisJR]

I mentioned elsewhere that I also had the 24-105 and for me, or at least my copy, was no good. I also had a Sigma 12-24 for wide angle which was sharp but the barrel distortion wasn't to my liking.
<p>
I've now gone back to using entirely manual lenses (even for shooting weddings and other similar events) and my favourites are definitely those by Contax. The Contax 24mm f2.8, with the use of a focus-confirmation adapter by a number of companies is quite stunning, very sharp across the whole frame and as a bonus (in this time of recession) it costs a fraction of a L-series equivalent.
<p>
Fred Miranda's forum has some excellent info about these alternative lenses.

[Ben Rubinstein]

You can't compare zooms to primes eventhough the primes are much cheaper. That's just silly. That said my 24-105L is a very good copy, far better than the one I had previous or the three 24-70's I had. Pains me that it's such a lottery with certain canon zooms. It doesn't match the 50mm 1.4 though at a 1/4 of the price neither would I expect it to. The 85 1.8 is worlds better of course, it's an incredible lens.

Have you thought of waiting for the Zeiss ZE 21mm for canon? The canon 35L is much acclaimed.

One thing I've noticed when shooting pano's, and all my present work is stitched (www.studio-beni.net/jerusalem) is that there is not that much noticeable difference using zooms rather than primes when you're playing with that level of resolution. I've been using a 70-200L followed by a 100 f2 and I'm now using my 24-105L, I promise you that when you have so much more resolution than you actually need for print, the sharpness difference becomes far more negligeable and I'm quite happy to give in to convenience.

[feppe]

One thing I've noticed when shooting pano's, and all my present work is stitched (www.studio-beni.net/jerusalem) is that there is not that much noticeable difference using zooms rather than primes when you're playing with that level of resolution. I've been using a 70-200L followed by a 100 f2 and I'm now using my 24-105L, I promise you that when you have so much more resolution than you actually need for print, the sharpness difference becomes far more negligeable and I'm quite happy to give in to convenience.

That is indeed a valid and strong point. While I don't pixel peep, I go to 100% quite often when I view my panos, and they're just soft with the 24-105mm - but the prints are bound to be sharp at sizes I can fit on my walls.

Even then, I don't stitch even a majority of my shots, and just can't stand the softness.

Thanks for the tip on the Zeiss, I'll check it out!

[Ben Rubinstein]

Can I suggest sending your zoom to canon? Even out of warranty the cost of getting it tuned up should be less than an investment in primes and this zoom can be pretty much as sharp and contrasty as zooms get. Harsh even when you're talking about people photography but perfect for landscape type stuff. Seems a shame to own a good lens and not be able to use it for lack of respect for it's sharpness.

[feppe]

Can I suggest sending your zoom to canon? Even out of warranty the cost of getting it tuned up should be less than an investment in primes and this zoom can be pretty much as sharp and contrasty as zooms get. Harsh even when you're talking about people photography but perfect for landscape type stuff. Seems a shame to own a good lens and not be able to use it for lack of respect for it's sharpness.

I've grown increasingly frustrated over sub-par quality over the years (not only in photography), and I've found it's much better for my blood pressure to cut my losses rather than trying to shoehorn a mediocre product into my (perhaps inflated) expectations.

It's un-frigging believable my 30+ year-old Mamiya C220 produces far superior results than some of the best digital 35mm lenses and cameras for my purposes (except perhaps blended high dynamic range). Yes, I know it's apples to oranges. Considering seriously moving to 4x5 film for most of my shooting.

Done venting for now.

[Chris Pollock]

It's un-frigging believable my 30+ year-old Mamiya C220 produces far superior results than some of the best digital 35mm lenses and cameras for my purposes (except perhaps blended high dynamic range). Yes, I know it's apples to oranges. Considering seriously moving to 4x5 film for most of my shooting.

I noticed that the sample photos that you posted on the other thread were taken with a 450D, which crams 12.2 megapixels into an APS sized sensor, which only has about 40% of the surface area of a full frame sensor. If this is the camera that you usually use, I think you'd get a lot more bang for your buck by buying a used 5D, or a 5D Mark II, than you would by upgrading your lenses. With an APS sensor, you're only using 40% of the information that the lens provides.

For what it's worth, in January I compared my own 24-105 with a friend's one (bought a long time apart, so presumably from different batches) at 24mm and 105mm on a 5D Mark II, and didn't see any noticable difference in quality. The 24-105 is also similar in quality to my 24-70, which agrees with the reviews that I've read. The 24mm F1.4 II, 50mm F1.4 or 85mm F1.8 will beat either of them, although at F8 the difference would only be apparent in huge prints.

The only Canon lens that I'm really unhappy with is the 17-40. It was marginally acceptable on the 5D, but the 5D Mark II really shows its limitations. I've bought a Nikon 14-24 to replace it. Now all I need is the adaptor...

I was disappointed with the results that I got with my 24-70 on my old D60, but it works much better on newer cameras. I can only assume that the D60's poor focusing system was to blame.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I uploaded Photozone MTF data for both the 85/1.8 and the 24-105/4. Hope it helps.

[attachment=15482:Bild_19.png]
[attachment=15483:Bild_20.png]

Best regards
Erik

As I recently concluded that the Canon 24-105mm F4L is too soft to my liking, I'm looking to replace it with primes. I have Canon's 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm F2L so I have the telephoto end already covered.

I'm looking for two lenses in the range between 25-50mm - I'll probably get the wide angle first, and a normal lens if I feel it's necessary. I'd be shooting mainly travel, landscapes, cityscapes and stitched panos, mostly on tripod, with these lenses.

Here the requirements:

• SHARP between f/5.6 and f/8
• Fast lens not necessary
• AF not strictly necessary but preferred *
• Brand doesn't matter, but needs to come in Canon mount (duh)
• Price tops around 1200 EUR (1700 USD) (new or mint used) per lens, but as long as the requirements are met I don't care if it's cheap

* After reading the recent MFDB focusing article on LL I would like to hear if it is feasible to manually focus with a 5D MkII

[feppe]

I noticed that the sample photos that you posted on the other thread were taken with a 450D, which crams 12.2 megapixels into an APS sized sensor, which only has about 40% of the surface area of a full frame sensor. If this is the camera that you usually use, I think you'd get a lot more bang for your buck by buying a used 5D, or a 5D Mark II, than you would by upgrading your lenses. With an APS sensor, you're only using 40% of the information that the lens provides.

I paid for a 5D MkII in January, it still hasn't shipped - hopefully in a week or two (another long story increasing my blood pressure). I'm not sure how FF would make the comparative performance of the lenses different, or improve the performance of the 24-105mm. Isn't the crop sensor using the sharpest portion of the lens, thus moving to FF would make it even softer? Not to mention the much higher pixel count would reveal even smaller imperfections in the glass.

Thanks for all the input, guys; I will have to do some serious photographic soul searching after I get that to see which direction I should go to: fixed focal and/or zoom digital 35mm, MF film, or LF film.

[feppe]

I noticed that the sample photos that you posted on the other thread were taken with a 450D, which crams 12.2 megapixels into an APS sized sensor, which only has about 40% of the surface area of a full frame sensor. If this is the camera that you usually use, I think you'd get a lot more bang for your buck by buying a used 5D, or a 5D Mark II, than you would by upgrading your lenses. With an APS sensor, you're only using 40% of the information that the lens provides.

I paid for a 5D MkII in January, it still hasn't shipped - hopefully in a week or two (another long story increasing my blood pressure).

I'm not sure how FF would make the comparative performance of the lenses different, or improve the performance of the 24-105mm. Isn't the crop sensor using the sharpest portion of the lens, thus moving to FF would make it even softer? Not to mention the much higher pixel count would reveal even smaller imperfections in the glass.

I also used Live View AF for the test shots, which if I understand correctly is the most accurate way to focus since it reads sensor data.

Thanks for all the input, guys; I will have to do some serious photographic soul searching after I get that to see which direction I should go to: fixed focal and/or zoom digital 35mm, MF film, or LF film.