Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?
PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
 

Go Back   PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > Cameras and Lenses > Canon

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-03-2019   #1
Dromedary
 
Oleg2010's Avatar
 
Location: Russia,Kursk
Posts: 1,040
CamelKarma: 948550
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Question Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

Hello all!

What's the difference CANON EF 24mm f/2,8 IS USM and Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM?

The only difference is 4mm ? Everything else will be the same?

What do you think?

__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
__________________
Best wishes, Oleg
Please, excuse my poor english...
Canon EOS 700D
Canon 18-55STM, Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro,Canon Speedlite 430EX II
Canon PowerShot S120.
Oleg2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2019   #2
Camel Breath
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 10,113
CamelKarma: 1469207
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

A difference of 4 mm on a pair of longer lenses, such as a 50 mm vs. a 55 mm - okay, that's 5 mm, but you would be very hard-put to find two prime lenses that differed by 4 mm in that particular focal length range - isn't much, but it is the ratio rather then the apsolute difference you should be looking at. Truth be told, you probably wouldn't need both focal lengths in a set of primes, but the 24 mm has about 17 percent wider field of view than the 28 mm. On your 700D, or any other camera with an SPS-C sized imager, the 28 mm focal length would closely approximate the diagonal of your imager, so would be considered a "normal" focal length. By this standard, a 50 mm lens on a full-frame camera would tend a wee bit toward telephoto and would definitely be telephotoish on your camera. The 24 mm lens would act a bit more like a semi-wide angle, such as a 35 mm lens, more precisely, a 38 mm lens, on a full-frame camera. Back in the days before decent zooms were readily available, street photographers, landscape photographers, and others who liked to get in close or preferred a wide-angle-is field of view. My guess is that, price and quality being equal, you would prefer the 24 mm lens, with perhaps a 35 mm prime in your future for a 55 mm equivalent "normal" lens.
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2019   #3
Dromedary
 
Oleg2010's Avatar
 
Location: Russia,Kursk
Posts: 1,040
CamelKarma: 948550
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel1728 View Post
A difference of 4 mm on a pair of longer lenses, such as a 50 mm vs. a 55 mm - okay, that's 5 mm, but you would be very hard-put to find two prime lenses that differed by 4 mm in that particular focal length range - isn't much, but it is the ratio rather then the apsolute difference you should be looking at. Truth be told, you probably wouldn't need both focal lengths in a set of primes, but the 24 mm has about 17 percent wider field of view than the 28 mm. On your 700D, or any other camera with an SPS-C sized imager, the 28 mm focal length would closely approximate the diagonal of your imager, so would be considered a "normal" focal length. By this standard, a 50 mm lens on a full-frame camera would tend a wee bit toward telephoto and would definitely be telephotoish on your camera. The 24 mm lens would act a bit more like a semi-wide angle, such as a 35 mm lens, more precisely, a 38 mm lens, on a full-frame camera. Back in the days before decent zooms were readily available, street photographers, landscape photographers, and others who liked to get in close or preferred a wide-angle-is field of view. My guess is that, price and quality being equal, you would prefer the 24 mm lens, with perhaps a 35 mm prime in your future for a 55 mm equivalent "normal" lens.
Thanks! Such good advice

But in a few days, and perhaps sooner, I shall have 10-18STM,

useful ,will have 24 мм 2/8? What do you think?
__________________
Best wishes, Oleg
Please, excuse my poor english...
Canon EOS 700D
Canon 18-55STM, Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro,Canon Speedlite 430EX II
Canon PowerShot S120.
Oleg2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2019   #4
Camel Breath
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 10,113
CamelKarma: 1469207
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

Your imminent acquisition puts a new spin on things. The 10-18 mm lens, which, with your existing 18-55 mm lens, will give more than adequate coverage of the wide angle end as far as focal length goes. There is a point at 18 mm, which corresponds to about 28 mm, where you will need to change your lens to get through the transition at that point, but this isn't a big deal. If you have not been greatly coming up short, so to speak, at the long end of your focal length, you are now pretty much set for outdoor shooting in daylight.

That said, your equipment would usually be struggling when shooting indoors in available light. That is how I do a lot of my own shooting, with an occasional nighttime shot. Your gallery doesn't give me a good feel for whether such shooting is important to you, and my guess is that you are watching the kopeks. I would still go for the 24 mm f/2.8, then go for a 35 and/or 50 mm f/2.8 (or faster) when you can afford it. Or you might choose to go third-party and get something like a Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8. That is the first lens I ever bought for my system and, in my part of the world anyway, they are going for cheap right now. I warn you though, that it has broken down twice. I shouldn't count one of the times because it fell from a meter or so onto a concrete surface that time. I also got a sour taste in my mouth for Tamron's build quality when I bought a 17-50 mm f/2.8 and the front element broke loose and rattled inside its mount. I have since retired that one. However, this was a period during which Tamron was having quality control problems generally.

You might also take a good look at Sigma lenses, which seem to hold up better. They also build stuff that no one else does, and I have had zero problems with my own Sigma lenses, aside from having to close my Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 EX down to f/1.8 to control the coma when shooting at night. Then again, I also have to close my Canon 50 mm f/1.4 down a bit to get full contrast from it, and I have no such problems with my Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 (!) Art lens, which I use a lot, taking over most of the applications of my Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 and pushing it into into semi-retirement and totally replacing the Tamron 18-50 mm f/2.8. Even though the Sigma f/1.8 zoom might be a steal at the price I paid for it, you might have trouble finding one and finding the money to get it if you did. Nevertheless, I expect something like 24, 35, and 50 mm f/2.8 - possibly 50 mm f/1.8 - lenses in your future.
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2019   #5
Camel Breath
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 10,113
CamelKarma: 1469207
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

Sample from Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.8 at 10 seconds on Canon 40D, a camera with an image area of 3888 x 2592 pixels. Results on your camera, particularly the field of view, will be similar. Top: pixel crop of top right corner, showing some residual coma. It's a lot worse when the lens is wide open. Bottom: Full image.


MtHermon2014IMG_3238rPixlCropTopRt.jpg
MtHermon2014IMG_3238rFs.jpg
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2019   #6
Dromedary
 
Oleg2010's Avatar
 
Location: Russia,Kursk
Posts: 1,040
CamelKarma: 948550
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Thumbs up Re: Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel1728 View Post
Your imminent acquisition puts a new spin on things. The 10-18 mm lens, which, with your existing 18-55 mm lens, will give more than adequate coverage of the wide angle end as far as focal length goes. There is a point at 18 mm, which corresponds to about 28 mm, where you will need to change your lens to get through the transition at that point, but this isn't a big deal. If you have not been greatly coming up short, so to speak, at the long end of your focal length, you are now pretty much set for outdoor shooting in daylight.

That said, your equipment would usually be struggling when shooting indoors in available light. That is how I do a lot of my own shooting, with an occasional nighttime shot. Your gallery doesn't give me a good feel for whether such shooting is important to you, and my guess is that you are watching the kopeks. I would still go for the 24 mm f/2.8, then go for a 35 and/or 50 mm f/2.8 (or faster) when you can afford it. Or you might choose to go third-party and get something like a Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8. That is the first lens I ever bought for my system and, in my part of the world anyway, they are going for cheap right now. I warn you though, that it has broken down twice. I shouldn't count one of the times because it fell from a meter or so onto a concrete surface that time. I also got a sour taste in my mouth for Tamron's build quality when I bought a 17-50 mm f/2.8 and the front element broke loose and rattled inside its mount. I have since retired that one. However, this was a period during which Tamron was having quality control problems generally.

You might also take a good look at Sigma lenses, which seem to hold up better. They also build stuff that no one else does, and I have had zero problems with my own Sigma lenses, aside from having to close my Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 EX down to f/1.8 to control the coma when shooting at night. Then again, I also have to close my Canon 50 mm f/1.4 down a bit to get full contrast from it, and I have no such problems with my Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 (!) Art lens, which I use a lot, taking over most of the applications of my Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 and pushing it into into semi-retirement and totally replacing the Tamron 18-50 mm f/2.8. Even though the Sigma f/1.8 zoom might be a steal at the price I paid for it, you might have trouble finding one and finding the money to get it if you did. Nevertheless, I expect something like 24, 35, and 50 mm f/2.8 - possibly 50 mm f/1.8 - lenses in your future.
Thanks for your advise!!

Quote:
I also got a sour taste in my mouth for Tamron's build quality when I bought a 17-50 mm f/2.8 and the front element broke loose and rattled inside its mount. I have since retired that one. However, this was a period during which Tamron was having quality control problems generally
. I also have these problem
__________________
Best wishes, Oleg
Please, excuse my poor english...
Canon EOS 700D
Canon 18-55STM, Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro,Canon Speedlite 430EX II
Canon PowerShot S120.
Oleg2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2019   #7
Dromedary
 
Oleg2010's Avatar
 
Location: Russia,Kursk
Posts: 1,040
CamelKarma: 948550
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Thumbs up Re: Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel1728 View Post
Sample from Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 lens at f/1.8 at 10 seconds on Canon 40D, a camera with an image area of 3888 x 2592 pixels. Results on your camera, particularly the field of view, will be similar. Top: pixel crop of top right corner, showing some residual coma. It's a lot worse when the lens is wide open. Bottom: Full image.


Attachment 272186
Attachment 272187
Full image Super! Thanks scoundrel1728
__________________
Best wishes, Oleg
Please, excuse my poor english...
Canon EOS 700D
Canon 18-55STM, Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro,Canon Speedlite 430EX II
Canon PowerShot S120.
Oleg2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2019   #8
Camel Breath
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 10,113
CamelKarma: 1469207
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

Now, if I can only figure out which constellations I've got. Horizontal angular field of view = 40.6 deg, generally westerly direction, angular elevation somewhere around 45 degrees. Shot about 37 deg N, 121 deg W, October 18, 2014, 22:06 Pacific Time. I have a suspicion that I have managed to capture magnitude 8 stars and perhaps even fainter with this setup. I have a 30-second exposure also, but that mainly lightened the background without showing many more stars. That image also shows slight motion blur from the earth's rotation. That's the problem with my star shots: unless I have an easily recognizable constellation in the image itself, there are so many stars not on the chart that I have trouble identifying constellations in the image.
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #9
Camel Breath
 
scoundrel1728's Avatar
 
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 10,113
CamelKarma: 1469207
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

Here is one from Orion, a constellation I have no trouble recognizing, and taken under better conditions with no moon and less light pollution, hence with more visible stars even though the exposure was less. Taken with a Sigma 50 mm f/2.8 EX macro wide open, 8 sec @ ISO 1600. You should be able to look up these stars on a star chart and determine the magnitudes.

In the full frame, you can see Orion's belt represented by three stars in a nearly straight line of about equal spacing and brightness, the leftmost star being a bit below the center of the image and just about at the vertical center line. Orion's sword, hanging below the belt about two thirds of the way from the top of the image, also near the vertical center line. Orion is depicted as facing toward the right, doing battle with Taurus the Bull. The stars Betelguese (Orion's right shoulder) Meissa and the surrounding star cluster (Orion's head) Bellatrix (Orion's left shoulder) Rigel (Orion's left foot) and Saiph (Orion's right foot) are also clearly visible. Betelguese is near the center line, perhaps 1/6 of the way from the top; Meissa, about the same height as Betelguese and about 1/6 of the way from the right edge of the image; Bellatrix, 1/3 from top and 1/8 from the right edge; Rigel, about 1/8 from bottom and 1/3 from right; and Saiph, 1/5 from bottom and 1/6 from left.

The pixel crop shows the three stars forming the belt near the top of the image and Orion's sword near the lower left corner. One of the objects in the swords is clearly not a point source and has some fuzziness and shape to it and is a nebula rather than a star. Besides this nebula, Orion has several other interesting (to a budding astronomer) in it that show up with even modest astronomical equipment.

Waldruh201102_5868rs.jpg

Waldruh201102_5868rk.jpg
scoundrel1728 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4 Weeks Ago   #10
Dromedary
 
Oleg2010's Avatar
 
Location: Russia,Kursk
Posts: 1,040
CamelKarma: 948550
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Thumbs up Re: Canon 24mm f/2,8 IS USM vs Canon 28mm F2.8 IS USM ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by scoundrel1728 View Post
Here is one from Orion, a constellation I have no trouble recognizing, and taken under better conditions with no moon and less light pollution, hence with more visible stars even though the exposure was less. Taken with a Sigma 50 mm f/2.8 EX macro wide open, 8 sec @ ISO 1600. You should be able to look up these stars on a star chart and determine the magnitudes.

In the full frame, you can see Orion's belt represented by three stars in a nearly straight line of about equal spacing and brightness, the leftmost star being a bit below the center of the image and just about at the vertical center line. Orion's sword, hanging below the belt about two thirds of the way from the top of the image, also near the vertical center line. Orion is depicted as facing toward the right, doing battle with Taurus the Bull. The stars Betelguese (Orion's right shoulder) Meissa and the surrounding star cluster (Orion's head) Bellatrix (Orion's left shoulder) Rigel (Orion's left foot) and Saiph (Orion's right foot) are also clearly visible. Betelguese is near the center line, perhaps 1/6 of the way from the top; Meissa, about the same height as Betelguese and about 1/6 of the way from the right edge of the image; Bellatrix, 1/3 from top and 1/8 from the right edge; Rigel, about 1/8 from bottom and 1/3 from right; and Saiph, 1/5 from bottom and 1/6 from left.

The pixel crop shows the three stars forming the belt near the top of the image and Orion's sword near the lower left corner. One of the objects in the swords is clearly not a point source and has some fuzziness and shape to it and is a nebula rather than a star. Besides this nebula, Orion has several other interesting (to a budding astronomer) in it that show up with even modest astronomical equipment.

Attachment 272274

Attachment 272275
Hi scoundrel1728
very interesting


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
__________________
Best wishes, Oleg
Please, excuse my poor english...
Canon EOS 700D
Canon 18-55STM, Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro,Canon Speedlite 430EX II
Canon PowerShot S120.
Oleg2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

« PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > Cameras and Lenses > Canon »


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes