12-21-2010, 05:25 AM
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292904348' post='5137']
I'm not looking for the maximum possible sharpness, just "good" sharpness. I'm not much into pixel-peeping but I had the chance to try the original 24L on an APS-C camera a while ago and was not really impressed by the sharpness of it, even comparing it to my "cheap" consumer primes. Maybe a bad copy... I don't know, but that's why I was curious about how the 24L II fares on a high-resolution APS-C body.
[/quote]
Well [url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/ef24mmf14lusm/"]I had the 24L[/url] (Mk I) before I got the 24LII. The main optical improvements between the two lenses are in the corners (FF). The Mk II has better sharpness and much less CA than the older one. So the center performance should be similar, but keep in mind that the Mk II's AF is noticeably improved (accuracy) over the old one so you'll get good shots like you're supposed to get with a lens of this rank.
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292904348' post='5137']
Tilt-shift lenses are interesting but that's not what I'm looking for at the moment.
[/quote]
Just thought of mentioning them because those two lenses also happen to be the best sharpness/landscape lenses, at the moment, for DSLRs at comparable focal lengths.
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292904348' post='5137']
I'm shooting quite a bit of motorsport and for that, I can get a 7D complete with a 160-640mm equiv. telezoom for ~2500€ new. That's the main reason for me not switching to FF.
[/quote]
In that case, you might also want to consider the Olympus 70-300 which is equivalent to a 100-600mm and when combined with a capable camera like an E-5, is only 1.4Kg and ~USD2100. The 7D + 100-400L combo will be 2.2Kg and ~USD3200... a difference of around 750€.
GTW
I'm not looking for the maximum possible sharpness, just "good" sharpness. I'm not much into pixel-peeping but I had the chance to try the original 24L on an APS-C camera a while ago and was not really impressed by the sharpness of it, even comparing it to my "cheap" consumer primes. Maybe a bad copy... I don't know, but that's why I was curious about how the 24L II fares on a high-resolution APS-C body.
[/quote]
Well [url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/tags/ef24mmf14lusm/"]I had the 24L[/url] (Mk I) before I got the 24LII. The main optical improvements between the two lenses are in the corners (FF). The Mk II has better sharpness and much less CA than the older one. So the center performance should be similar, but keep in mind that the Mk II's AF is noticeably improved (accuracy) over the old one so you'll get good shots like you're supposed to get with a lens of this rank.
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292904348' post='5137']
Tilt-shift lenses are interesting but that's not what I'm looking for at the moment.
[/quote]
Just thought of mentioning them because those two lenses also happen to be the best sharpness/landscape lenses, at the moment, for DSLRs at comparable focal lengths.
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292904348' post='5137']
I'm shooting quite a bit of motorsport and for that, I can get a 7D complete with a 160-640mm equiv. telezoom for ~2500€ new. That's the main reason for me not switching to FF.
[/quote]
In that case, you might also want to consider the Olympus 70-300 which is equivalent to a 100-600mm and when combined with a capable camera like an E-5, is only 1.4Kg and ~USD2100. The 7D + 100-400L combo will be 2.2Kg and ~USD3200... a difference of around 750€.
GTW