Canon 24 2.8 & Other Primes

ThatCanonGuy

Looks like soon I'll have some cash to spend on lenses (finally! ;~), and I'd really like to get the 17-40, but I'd have to wait quite a while in order to get that. I'm looking for something in the $300-$400 range, and while I could get a Tamron 28-75 2.8, I think I'm gonna go for more performance, AF- and IQ-wise, with a prime or two. I need a wide-angle more than a semi-telephoto, I think. So I'm mainly looking at the 24 2.8. It's better than the more expensive 20 2.8, and it's pretty affordable. It'd be 31.2mm on my 1DII. Not exactly wide angle, but better than a 35 prime or a 28 prime/zoom. I'd rather have it than the 20 2.8, which is not as good as the 24 2.8. Does anyone own this lens? Whaddya think? I'm also think of getting the 50 1.4/1.8, the 35 f/2, the 85 1.8, or maybe the 100 f/2, but not until after the 24.
Or a 3rd party lens?

run_kmc

I'm not 100% up on the various Canon third party lenses available. It looks like you've got some solid options already, and I can't think of any third party lenses that will be a better combo of performance/price. I've always thought Canon lenses are pretty competitive in that range.

If you're willing to give up autofocus, there's lots of legacy glass that will fit. Other than that, your list looks good.

Toshido

Used 17-40s can go pretty reasonable. There is one in the buy and sell forum at the moment for $550, which coincidently is what I paid for mine.
I know that is above what you are hoping to pay, but not by a rediculous amount.

Manfr3d

I own the 24mm f/2.8 and recently testeted it against the
17-40 and the 24mm TS II on a 5D II. Of course the TS came
out on top but what surprised me was that the 2.8 prime wasn't
as good (mostly sharpness) as the 17-40 @ 24mm all the
way from f4 to f11.

Interestingly I never tought or felt that the 24mm 2.8 wasn't
good enough, I've shot some of my best images with this little
lens. If light weight, size and f2.8 are most important to you I
would still recommend the lens. But make sure to test it before
you buy, quite possible that the lens can't deliver the goods on
a crop cam with more than 8MP. (5D II with 1.6x Crop == 8MP)

The Tamron 28-75 (and the Tamron 17-50!) 2.8 are very good choices as well.

ThatCanonGuy

I've narrowed it down to the 17-40 or the 24 2.8. I understand the 24 isn't quite as good with IQ as the 17-40, one's an L and one isn't. But it still oughta be pretty close, esp. at f/4. I would like the 17-40L more, definitely, not just the better IQ but also the flexibility of a zoom and the 22.1mm on 1.3 crop. The 1D2 is less than 8mp in APS-C terms. I don't mind the f/4, I don't need fast apertures at wide angle. And I'll probably be getting the 35/2, 50/1.4, and/or the 85/1.8 later on anyway.

Originally I was looking at Tamrons, both the 17-50 and the 28-75. But, the 17-50 is 1.6x only. You CAN use 3rd party crop lenses on 1.3 sensors, they fit and everything, you'll just have some vignetting; easy to correct in PP but do I want to bother with every single image? Seems like that might be a pain. The Tam 28-75 would be OK, but I'd like something wider and I doubt it even has the IQ of the non-L primes. I'm sure it's good enough IQ, but with that plus the not-so-wide-28mm, I'd rather go with Canons.

Manfr3d

I just reviewed my little test. Here is a comparison with 100% center crops.
You can alreay see a difference there. Corners are similar. Focal point is in
the center of the image (manual focus with 10x liveview, mirror lockup etc etc)

1.


2.


If you want I can give you a link to my raw files containing samples of all aperatures between f2.8 and f11 (~250 MB).

ThatCanonGuy

I can see the difference in IQ, the 17-40 is definitely better but the 24mm is not that bad, actually. I see some CA on the middle porch with the 24 @ 2.8 that is reduced at f/11 and is not present on the 17-40. The 17-40's obviously sharper, even at f/4 than the 24 is at f/11! (does anyone agree?)
Thanks for the helpful samples