Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 vs Sony 16-50PZ Kit Lens & Nex6

Go to last post
Makaan

Makaan

Member
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Location
Izmir, TR
I have been following DPReview almost for 2 years and it is my first post.



I purchased Canon FD 50mm F/1.4 last month to try focus peaking and manual focus system. I was really curious about if I can handle & enjoy with manual focus system. As a result I really love to use manual focus system indeed I like it much more than AF.



So I did smal comprassion between 50mm & kit lens and I impressed the result then I decided to buy another prime lens for wide angle, I had 2 option 28mm and 24mm and luckly I found 24mm F/2.8 in local store for 110 USD, it is FDn with no breech lock.



It is not sharp as 50mm F/1.4 but the results shows still better than kit lens.

I did comprassion with ISO 200, F/5.6 with the focus chart.

Please let me know if the test condition can be better.





Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 Lens. ISO 200 F/5.6

Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 Lens. ISO 200 F/5.6



2ec72c96a51148b096492d6a82432428.jpg




And below ones are % 100 crop



Canon FD 24mm

Canon FD 24mm



Sony 1650PZ

Sony 1650PZ





--
Sony Nex6 + 1650PZ, Canon FD 24mm f/2.8, Canon FD 50mm f/1.4
 
I have owned that same Canon lens for some time and have always liked it.

However, I'm surprised you interpret this test as that it beat the 16-50, because I don't see it that way. Can you tell me why you think that?

I would say that this test shows that in this "middle zone" the kit is pretty good, which is what I've been thinking also.

Thanks for posting.
 
The edges of the lines look sharper to me in the FD24 shot, but the 16-50 did pretty well, too.

I would expect the FD24 to do much better in the corners, and also better for vignetting at wider apertures.

--
 
Your 100% crops of the middle zone don't show much, none of your resolution markings are fine enough to tell a difference.

Most lenses perform well in the center. Difference might be more noticeable towards the edges. The 16-50mm has some field curvature which might give unfavorable results at 24mm in the corners, but field use might not be that different.

Looking at your samples the Canon 24mm f/2.8 is much better in the corners.

For doing your own comparisons I would rather see an infinity focus scene with some corner detail to get a better idea how lenses perform. It is quick and less error prone than shooting charts.

Eric
 
viking79 said:
Your 100% crops of the middle zone don't show much, none of your resolution markings are fine enough to tell a difference.

Most lenses perform well in the center. Difference might be more noticeable towards the edges. The 16-50mm has some field curvature which might give unfavorable results at 24mm in the corners, but field use might not be that different.

Looking at your samples the Canon 24mm f/2.8 is much better in the corners.

For doing your own comparisons I would rather see an infinity focus scene with some corner detail to get a better idea how lenses perform. It is quick and less error prone than shooting charts.

Eric
Click to expand...


You're right Canon FD 24mm is much better in the corners.



Canon FD24mm, upper left corner

Canon FD24mm, upper left corner



Sony 1650PZ, Upper left corner

Sony 1650PZ, Upper left corner



--
Sony Nex6 + 1650PZ, Canon FD 24mm f/2.8, Canon FD 50mm f/1.4
 
Makaan said:
viking79 said:
Your 100% crops of the middle zone don't show much, none of your resolution markings are fine enough to tell a difference.

Most lenses perform well in the center. Difference might be more noticeable towards the edges. The 16-50mm has some field curvature which might give unfavorable results at 24mm in the corners, but field use might not be that different.

Looking at your samples the Canon 24mm f/2.8 is much better in the corners.

For doing your own comparisons I would rather see an infinity focus scene with some corner detail to get a better idea how lenses perform. It is quick and less error prone than shooting charts.

Eric
Click to expand...
You're right Canon FD 24mm is much better in the corners.
Click to expand...
 
cxsparc said:
Makaan said:
viking79 said:
Your 100% crops of the middle zone don't show much, none of your resolution markings are fine enough to tell a difference.

Most lenses perform well in the center. Difference might be more noticeable towards the edges. The 16-50mm has some field curvature which might give unfavorable results at 24mm in the corners, but field use might not be that different.

Looking at your samples the Canon 24mm f/2.8 is much better in the corners.

For doing your own comparisons I would rather see an infinity focus scene with some corner detail to get a better idea how lenses perform. It is quick and less error prone than shooting charts.

Eric
Click to expand...
You're right Canon FD 24mm is much better in the corners.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Makaan said:
I have been following DPReview almost for 2 years and it is my first post.

I purchased Canon FD 50mm F/1.4 last month to try focus peaking and manual focus system. I was really curious about if I can handle & enjoy with manual focus system. As a result I really love to use manual focus system indeed I like it much more than AF.

So I did smal comprassion between 50mm & kit lens and I impressed the result then I decided to buy another prime lens for wide angle, I had 2 option 28mm and 24mm and luckly I found 24mm F/2.8 in local store for 110 USD, it is FDn with no breech lock.

It is not sharp as 50mm F/1.4 but the results shows still better than kit lens.

I did comprassion with ISO 200, F/5.6 with the focus chart.

Please let me know if the test condition can be better.

Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 Lens. ISO 200 F/5.6

Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 Lens. ISO 200 F/5.6

2ec72c96a51148b096492d6a82432428.jpg


And below ones are % 100 crop

Canon FD 24mm

Canon FD 24mm

Sony 1650PZ

Sony 1650PZ

--
Sony Nex6 + 1650PZ, Canon FD 24mm f/2.8, Canon FD 50mm f/1.4
Click to expand...
Hardly a fair test - one of the better film-era primes against a budget software-corrected zoom. When you shoot test charts, the lens axis need to be absolutely perpendicular to the chart. Also - at 24mm, the distance difference between the center of the chart and the corners is too great to tell anything about either lens

I own the 24mm f2 Canon FDn, and it's my favorite lens on my A7, where its size isn't a joke as on my NEX-6. It is brutally sharp.



e5bfc2a0e8134b14a45a5923ca54623d.jpg
 
Mel Snyder said:
Makaan said:
I have been following DPReview almost for 2 years and it is my first post.

I purchased Canon FD 50mm F/1.4 last month to try focus peaking and manual focus system. I was really curious about if I can handle & enjoy with manual focus system. As a result I really love to use manual focus system indeed I like it much more than AF.

So I did smal comprassion between 50mm & kit lens and I impressed the result then I decided to buy another prime lens for wide angle, I had 2 option 28mm and 24mm and luckly I found 24mm F/2.8 in local store for 110 USD, it is FDn with no breech lock.

It is not sharp as 50mm F/1.4 but the results shows still better than kit lens.

I did comprassion with ISO 200, F/5.6 with the focus chart.

Please let me know if the test condition can be better.


Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 Lens. ISO 200 F/5.6



And below ones are % 100 crop


Canon FD 24mm


Sony 1650PZ

--
Sony Nex6 + 1650PZ, Canon FD 24mm f/2.8, Canon FD 50mm f/1.4
Click to expand...
Hardly a fair test - one of the better film-era primes against a budget software-corrected zoom. When you shoot test charts, the lens axis need to be absolutely perpendicular to the chart. Also - at 24mm, the distance difference between the center of the chart and the corners is too great to tell anything about either lens

I own the 24mm f2 Canon FDn, and it's my favorite lens on my A7, where its size isn't a joke as on my NEX-6. It is brutally sharp.

e5bfc2a0e8134b14a45a5923ca54623d.jpg
Click to expand...
Love that pic Mel!

I agree but remember he says this is his second legacy lens (or so I understood) so I can relate to his reaction as I too was shocked when I got hooked with legacy lenses and how awesome they perform.
Even a lowly FD 70-210F4 I got at a pawnshop was sharper than my SEL55210 (which I ended up selling).
I am addicted to FD lenses myself which is why I bought the Lens Turbo 2 for FD :)



--
www.flickr.com

Gabriel Gerena

Explore Gabriel Gerena’s 13 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
Welcome to the forum, and thank you for this post. This demonstrates (again) how a very modest investment, even in an older lens, can produce better results.

I agree that manual focus is very enjoyable, and it makes me shoot more thoughtfully and deliberately. For the kind of shooting that I do, that is a good thing. Of course there are also situations and subject matters where speed is of the essence.
 
jtr27 said:
Welcome to the forum, and thank you for this post. This demonstrates (again) how a very modest investment, even in an older lens, can produce better results.
I agree that manual focus is very enjoyable, and it makes me shoot more thoughtfully and deliberately. For the kind of shooting that I do, that is a good thing. Of course there are also situations and subject matters where speed is of the essence.
Click to expand...
However, with the availability of dirt-cheap Sigma 19-30 primes one can also consider to get one of those with similar IQ on APSC, but also with AF, low weight and no need for an adapter . I got my FD primes either as a present of in the range of 30-70 Euros. Seeing a FD24/2.8 for 130 Dollars is too much money when used on APSC, IMHO.
 
cxsparc said:
Before making any statements, yu should better get the test chart aligned properly. In both cases it is visible that you are not in the center and at an right angle, so the corners will differ. Since the tilt is the opposite way when you use the 1650 compared to the FD24, comparing the same corners will end up showing very different results.
Click to expand...
^^^ this

i've experimented with a cheap bubble balancer across the lens hood, or on the camera flash mount.

once you get that right, you can measure the distance from the sides of the chart, to the front side edge of the hood, or whatever.

you can't eyeball that stuff, it has to be measured.

distance to the chart is also a factor; mtf can vary over distance, and you need to be at some minimum distance, i think that it's something like 40x the focal length.
 
cxsparc said:
jtr27 said:
Welcome to the forum, and thank you for this post. This demonstrates (again) how a very modest investment, even in an older lens, can produce better results.
I agree that manual focus is very enjoyable, and it makes me shoot more thoughtfully and deliberately. For the kind of shooting that I do, that is a good thing. Of course there are also situations and subject matters where speed is of the essence.
Click to expand...
However, with the availability of dirt-cheap Sigma 19-30 primes one can also consider to get one of those with similar IQ on APSC, but also with AF, low weight and no need for an adapter . I got my FD primes either as a present of in the range of 30-70 Euros. Seeing a FD24/2.8 for 130 Dollars is too much money when used on APSC, IMHO.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top