Canon 24mm f2.8 vs kit 18-55 @ 24mm

[ROCKMORE]

Both originals were shot at 5184 x 3456 and I cropped the selected frames at 300%.
The top "A" picture of each pair was shot with the 18-55 kit lens set at 24mm view, and the bottom "B" picture was shot with the Canon 24mm 2.8.

This test was shot at full resolution 5184 X 3456 and the difference is slight. If it were shot at 1920 x 1080 the difference would be less.

If you only have an 18-55mm kit lens to work with right now, work with it!

 

[PerroneFord]

Photo son the right have more color and contrast. Just goes to show how silly people are for just throwing away these kinds of lenses. Good optics in a cheap housing still make good pictures. And it is FAR cheaper for manufacturers to make lenses of the same design but without some of the more expensive processes (like special multicoatings or aspherical glass) than it is for them to design entire new lenses.

 

[Jordan_S]

As Barry Green has said, "Video is the great equalizer." Of course, the Canon 24mm f/2.8, although a fairly good lens, would never make an appearance in a photographer's lust list.

 

[ROCKMORE]

Canon 24mm f/2.8, although a fairly good lens, would never make an appearance in a photographer's lust list.

I agree, but my point was really aimed at new buyers who spend all the money they have on a 550D with an 18-55 kit lens, and think they have to walk around in shame. They should just start shooting now, and collect better quality lenses when they can.

 

[Jordan_S]

I agree, but my point was really aimed at new buyers who spend all the money they have on a 550D with an 18-55 kit lens, and think they have to walk around in shame. They should just start shooting now, and collect better quality lenses when they can.

I'm agreeing with you, Michael, as far as video shooting is concerned. Hence, the quote from Barry. There will be other differences, but usually sharpness is not one of them.

The Canon 24mm f/2.8 is a very inexpensive lens but I don't see a reason to purchase it when a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 runs about $75 more. In video or in stills, differences between the two will be negligible. In fact, the Tamron may outperform the prime at its focal length.

I guess my point is that your point—a valid one—could have been made while using a better prime lens.

 

[ROCKMORE]

The Canon 24mm f/2.8 is a very inexpensive lens but I don't see a reason to purchase it when a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 runs about $75 more.

The Tamron 17-50 is a great lens. I ran some tests with one on my 550D and they looked good.
I needed a 24mm for a shoot on a 5D last weekend. I'm adding a 5D next model that comes out so the 24mm 2.8 is sharp and low cost FF lens which is my only option.
The 24mm 2.8 does have a disappointing cheap focus ring, so you get what you pay for.
You can really go through a lot of money quick on quality lenses. I need to make the most efficient choices as the need comes up. The 24mm 2.8 just got paid for out of the shoot budget.
The new 5D, 16-35L 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 which is what I'm looking at, will be too much at all at once, so having the 24mm in the bag already will soften the blow, and keep me shooting day one.