[mike22doyle]

Hello,



I have recently purchased a 50mm 1.4 and 24 mm 2.8 (both Canon) for my Canon 5D Mark II. I have not been blown away with the results. I get better results from my 24-105. I thought by purchasing prime lenses, that I would have sharper images. I find the results on either lens wide open to be mediocre at best. I have now started shooting the 24 at f4 and the 50 at 3.5. This seems to help.



I recently spoke to someone who said that these two lenses are older designs and not suitable for a full frame sensor because of the angle of the light coming to the CCD. He said that more current designs refracted the light so it hit the sensor more perpendicularly. This person was a salesman, so I'm not sure how to take his comments.



Does anyone have experience with these lenses on a full frame sensor? Is this refracted light story a load of BS or is it true? I can see that it may be true for the APS sized sensors, but I'm not sure if it makes any sense otherwise.



Any comments would be appreciated.



Mike

[Rover]

24/2.8 was tested by SLR Gear on 5D to be pretty underwhelming (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu.../82/cat/10) but I think this has more to do with the fact that it's a bargain bin lens so the poor results are unsurprising. I think a good modern zoom like 24-105 slays it every day of the week for everything except maybe distortion.

Guess a recently tested Sigma 24/1.8 might make more sense.

[mike22doyle]

[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1342630221' post='19462']

24/2.8 was tested by SLR Gear on 5D to be pretty underwhelming (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu.../82/cat/10) but I think this has more to do with the fact that it's a bargain bin lens so the poor results are unsurprising. I think a good modern zoom like 24-105 slays it every day of the week for everything except maybe distortion.

Guess a recently tested Sigma 24/1.8 might make more sense.

[/quote]



Thanks Rover. I agree with you on the 24-105 and must admit I am a little miffed at having spent money I didn't need to spend. I'll take a look a the sigma.

[wim]

Before you come to any hasry conclusions, I suggets you check whether any of these two lenses need MA.



The 50 F/1.4 should easily beat the 24-105L, and the 24 F/2.8 should be as good if not better. Yes they are fairly old designs, but they certainly aren't bad at all. Their major "flaws" are the focusing mechanisms, the micro-USM of the 50, and the Arcdrive of the 24, plus the relative slow max. aperture of the 24, but other than that, they should really stand their ground.



Compared to the 24-105, the 24 should have less distortion and less vignetting, and it also is a very transparant lens due to its low number of elelments (5), and hence it should be more contrasty than the 24-105, even wide open.



Because of coatign differences, I would expect the 24-105 to render colours warmer than the two primes do. In case you're loooking at jpegs, I'd suggest you up the saturation level in-camera a bit, one or two points or so. It should get very similar in that case.



BTW, if you really want the best, I'd suggest you'd try and save up for a few L-primes. Those will be distinctly better than the 24-105. Considering the 24 F/2.8: you might consider a 24L Mk I (used), which should be about the price of the two lenses you got now together, for a good copy. If you like the 24-105 at 24, that lens will suit you well, I would think.



HTH, kind regards, Wim

[mike22doyle]

Thanks Wim. I appreciate your suggestions, although I don't know what MA stands for in your first sentence. I have noticed the warmer colours in the 24-105, however I shoot raw using the neutral picture style and modify in Lightroom. I think I'm probably headed for L-Primes although in the photography pastime, one can get over enamored with the hardware and forget the joy of shooting. I think I'll poke along with what I have for a bit and see how far I get.



Mike

[Rover]

[quote name='Mickeybob' timestamp='1342644201' post='19466']

Thanks Wim. I appreciate your suggestions, although I don't know what MA stands for in your first sentence.

[/quote]

That would be Micro {Focus} Adjustment. But for the people using older bodies (like your 5D and my 1D Mark II N) it's irrelevant as the cameras just don't have it.

[wim]

[quote name='Rover' timestamp='1342646707' post='19467']

That would be Micro {Focus} Adjustment. But for the people using older bodies (like your 5D and my 1D Mark II N) it's irrelevant as the cameras just don't have it.

[/quote]

Yes, Micro Focus Adjustment.



BTW, Rover did mention a 5D II in his original post, otherwise I wouldn't have brought it up <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[Brightcolours]

Mikeybob, what the salesman told you is silly nonsense. New optics do the same thing with light as older ones. But that is very (VERY) often that way... salesmen have almost never any idea what they are babbling about, be it audio, computer, camera, bbq or whatever else equipment.



The 24mm f2.8 is actually quite a nice lens (kinda a hidden gem in the Canon line up), and should give good to very good results. The 50mm f1.4 is quite a nice lens too, it is a mainstay lens of many a 5D.

Like Win says, they should have little trouble at equalling or bettering your 24-105mm f4 L USM.



Without seeing any samples, it is hard to guess at what is plaguing your results.