Canon 2.8L 24-70 vs. F4L 70-200--Which is sharper?
TheCheesehead
Registered Users Posts: 249 Major grins
Hi,
I recently purchased the 2.8L 24-70 for my Rebel XSi. I notice that it's very sharp, say withing 10-15 feet, or if I'm zoomed in on a subject, lets say a person, and they fill most of the frame, or outside in good light. It seems beyond 15 feet or so, or inside with available light it's not so sharp (I probably couldn't tell the difference between it and my 18-55 kit lens). The other thing I notice is that my F4L 70-200 (non IS) has great sharpness and color, compared to the 24-70....just wondering if others concur that the 70-200 is better glass than the 24-70, or if I need to take a closer look at the lens or body. Thanks again!
I recently purchased the 2.8L 24-70 for my Rebel XSi. I notice that it's very sharp, say withing 10-15 feet, or if I'm zoomed in on a subject, lets say a person, and they fill most of the frame, or outside in good light. It seems beyond 15 feet or so, or inside with available light it's not so sharp (I probably couldn't tell the difference between it and my 18-55 kit lens). The other thing I notice is that my F4L 70-200 (non IS) has great sharpness and color, compared to the 24-70....just wondering if others concur that the 70-200 is better glass than the 24-70, or if I need to take a closer look at the lens or body. Thanks again!
0
Comments
At f2.8 the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM still has plenty of detail but you need to use some sharpening and maybe even a little extra contrast and vibrance or saturation to make the image "pop" (compared to the 70-200mm, f4L wide open).
By f5.6 both lenses will be splendid in both global and local contrast and sharpness.
If you are getting much different results I would be interested to see links to full resolution examples, preferably with full EXIF as well.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
you can check the MTF sharpness resolution comparisons at www.photozone.de You will find the 70-200 (non-is) is much sharper than the 24-70 2.8L at 70mm. The 24-70 is really meant for full frame models and is not nearly as sharp on crop models as the EF-S type lens like the Tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-55
Tamron Pros:
Light Weight
Small Size
Low Cost
Great images
Front cap is better than canon's
Comes with hood
Tamron Cons:
Slower focus (though it's not bad)
No distance info provided to E-TTL
Feels cheaper (I used to own two in case one broke. After 2 years of usage without any problems, i sold the spare)
The rear cap sucks. Replace any Tamron lens rear caps with standard canon caps and throw that junk away.
Doesn't have say Canon or have a red 'L' on it if you care about that stuff.
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Shoot...maybe would have been better off with the 2.8 17-55....
Sorry for the late reply...thanks for your help!
Whenever I feel that my images aren't very sharp. I send them over for 39cents a print to Walmart.
Once I see them in print at a normal size I remember how amazing my camera system is!!
I suggest you take a couple bucks and do the same it always reminds us not to pixel peep too much since print media can be so different than the 100% loupe on Aperture/Lightroom/Photoshop
http://stridephoto.carbonmade.com
You know what, that's very good advice...I don't do that enough...I'll try it!!
You have to take this tool with a grain of salt. You might look at that and think the 24-70L was a bad lens. It's not, it's wonderful, but on a crop body the 17-55/2.8IS is the only proper choice.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Why is it that a crop sensor affects the image quality of the lens? Sorry, I know I'm a noob, but I just don't get it. Is this only the case with the 24-70, and not the 70-200 range? I'm looking at getting a second body...would the 5D MK1, which I can get around $1200, show better results with the 24-70 than my Rebel, or even a 7D? I think in this case I may have been blinded by the red stripe...lol.
It's just that 17-55 is a way more useful focal length range on a crop body. It ends up at 27-88 after the crop factor. 24mm is not wide enough on crop often enough.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.