I have never owned the 17-55, but I will vouch for the claims of distortion and CA on the wide end of the 24-105.
Please disregard this comment if you are interested in or bidding on my 24-105 on eBay.
I was thoroughly impressed with it on the normal to telephoto side though.
You know, if I was going for a walk around on a 1.6x body, and I had no full frame compatability requirements, I would probably go for the 17-55 too....
However, the tests you're referencing, just to be a pain, knowing only what you're referencing, seem a bit unfair.
They're all done at 24mm focal length, which is the absolute edge of the zoom range of the 24-105. Why not at 35 or 55mm?? My guess is that the 24-105 would do significantly better compared to it's 24mm performancein these ranges. That's not to say that the 24mm tests are irrelevant, but they seem like a worst case scenario. I like having the 24mm range on the 24-105, though if I needed a really high quality 24mm shot, I wouldn't be using that lens. I'd go with my 16-35mm zoom, or eventhe 24-70 would do better, or if I was lucky enough to have one a 24mm f/1.4 LUSM (or II like yourself).
Anyway, nits picked.... [:P]
I know it is the difference between a fixed and zoom, but my 24 1.4L mkI blows the doors of my 16-35 mkII at matching apertures. Thus making it very difficult for me to sell the 24. I've never tried to compare flare. I can only imagine how spectacular the 24 mkII is.
Originally Posted by Keith B
Similarly, my 35mm f/1.4L blows my 16-35mm f/2.8L (non mkII) out of the water at 35mm...
But I don't have a 24mm f/1.4L []...
We could trade![]
We could trade![img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
*scratches head*
I'm bound by my fear of making a mistake. I can't imagine not missing my 35... At least I've never had a 24...
How about you just give me yours? [:P]
We could trade![img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]
<div style="CLEAR:both;"]</div>
*scratches head*
I'm bound by my fear of making a mistake. I can't imagine not missing my 35... At least I've never had a 24...
How about you just give me yours? [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]
*scratches head*
I don't think I make out to well on that.
Tough thing for me is, I bought the 24 when my only body was a 40D and I loved the focal length (38.4) on the crop and now my 24 just isn't my sweet spot on my 5DII. I'm sure I'll miss the 24 if I sell or trade it. I think I'm going to start saving my pennies for the rumored 35 1.4 mkII. Or maybe I'll come to my senses and just be happy with my 16-35mkII.
When used on a crop body as a walkaround, I would think that 24mm would be one of the most widely used focal lengths, especially because it can't go anywhere near as wide as 17mm.
Only because photozone didn't test any of the same focal lengths in that range. If you're OK with comparing different focal lengths, how about the extreme of the 17-55 (55mm) vs mid-range on the 24-105 (70mm)?
For resolution/contrast on a 8 MP camera, the results are pretty similar to 24mm:
1661 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 24-105 at 70mm f/4 border
1712 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 17-55 at 55mm f/4 border
1840 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 24-105 at 70mm f/4 center
2088 LW/PH MTF-50 for the 17-55 at 55mm f/4 center
Looks like the same difference as at 24mm.
For chromatic aberration:
0.51 for 24-105 at 70mm f/4 border
0.44 for the 17-55 at 55mm f/4 border
Vignetting:
0.31 for the 24-105 at 70mm f/4
0.37 for the 17-55 at 55mm f/4
Distortion:
0.64% for the 24-105 at 70mm
1.15% for the 17-55 at 55mm
It's really should be no surprise that a $1030 3.2X kit lens that covers only a *small* image circle can beat a $1090 4.4X professional kit lens that must cover a *large* image circle.
Ha! Awesome.
I wasn't trying to argue that point for a 1.6x body... []
But thanks for making sure that I didn't get any silly ideas!
My inner pedant says "you're welcome!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote