03-07-2012, 12:01 AM #1
Sharpness Test Canon EF 50mm 1.8 vs. Canon EF 24-70mm 2.8 L
a quick and dirty test just thought I'd share...
They are unedited intentionally and as you maybe able to see they are somewhat underexposed.
If you would like to see the uncompressed photo click the below individual photos...
EF 24-70mm 2.8 L vs. EF 50 1.8 Canon - Side by Side by Chris Adval, on Flickr
EF 50 1.8 Canon by Chris Adval, on Flickr
EF 24-70mm 2.8 L by Chris Adval, on Flickr
Last edited by ChrisAdval; 03-07-2012 at 12:03 AM.
03-07-2012, 12:16 AM #2
The 24-70 definitely seems like a sharper lens. It seems to handle light better as well? I'm not sure if that's a lens difference or environmental one. Was the lighting situation changing? If so, that could have an effect on the contrast differences as well. The background perspective seems to have changed too. I'm assuming the 24-70 was shot at 50mm, and that the camera was the same distance from the subject?
Definitely interesting test results
Last edited by ArmySoldier777; 03-07-2012 at 12:19 AM.
03-07-2012, 12:22 AM #3
03-07-2012, 12:33 AM #4
Gotcha, that explains the perspective differences on the background then lol. The bokeh on on the 24-70 definitely looks better too, with more blades.
It seems to have more of a flaring issue, but again, I'm wondering if that was a difference in environmental lighting between the two shots and not the lens itself. It does look like there's more direct sunlight in that example. I'm pretty impressed with the 24-70L though. I was looking at saving up and getting that lens next, but decided on the Tamron 17-50 instead.
03-07-2012, 01:19 AM #5
the OOF highlights would look round. Bokeh can change with aperture setting, background distance and subject distance. So, pronouncing on a lens's bokeh from a single sample shot may not be giving the whole picture.
You can also see that focal length does indeed affect DoF.
And the point of comparing a four-figure priced L zoom against a $100 consumer prime at different focal lengths with different lighting was...?
Last edited by inkista; 03-07-2012 at 01:42 AM.
03-07-2012, 08:56 AM #6
03-07-2012, 09:04 AM #7
I think one has to keep in mind two factors which are impressed on people again and again when reading lens reviews:
1) The extra money for L lenses are primarily for long lasting build quality and CONSISTENCY. If an L lens goes from f/2.8 to f/5 then those two apertures and all the ones in between will be consistently excellent. As I understand it, L's have ONLY sweet spots and are therefore worth the enormous prices, or not as you may so feel.
2) Lenses like the 50mm f/1.8 give you excellent performance FOR THE MONEY. Pay attention to the price/performance ratio on those cheaper lenses in order to find the best values. As for paying 10 times the price for an L, is the quality increase noticeable enough for most of us to justify it? Will you only really see the difference when printing billboards? I would estimate that for 75 percent of enthusiasts the non-L versions of lenses will do just fine and they will never know the difference.
03-07-2012, 11:16 AM #8
03-07-2012, 02:58 PM #9
I do believe that when shot wide open the 24-70 is sharper at f/2.8 than the 50 is at f/1.8, but when stopped down to f/2.8 the sharpness between the two is quite comparable.
03-07-2012, 04:54 PM #10