I have a FD 24 2.8 that takes great pictures.
Sigma made a nice 28mm f1.8 apo that runs the 24 closest for sharpness and tone.
I have the 24mm f2.8 and 24mm f/2; the same; I have the 28mm f/2.8 and the 28mm f/2. All required for different situations; that's all.
I have the 35mm f2, 28mm f2, 24mm f2 and 20mm f2.8 FDs and I find them all to be good performers, but reading through this thread it makes me wonder how much variation there can be between different lenses of the same focal length and aperture and if my 24mm f2 is giving the same performance as yours, and how valid these comparisons are after about twenty five years since they were manufactured
I have a 17mm Tamron and love it.
I have the Canon 17mm f4 that is great. No noticeable vignetting, sharp with good color contrast. I have not noticed flare or chromatic aberration in any of the pics I have shot with this lens so the coating must be excellent. As a point of comparison, I used the 16-35 f2.8 L for my EOS extensively for over 8 years and this FD lens has not left me wanting.
I have the 28mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 24mm f2, and 17mm f4.
The 28mm is good but I much prefer the 24mm focal length.
The 24mm f2.8 is wonderfully sharp and is not lacking anything other than speed over the f2.
The 17mm f4 I'm not impressed with but lenses this wide take skill to use properly. Hostly I just havent picked up the knak of shooting that wide yet. So my opinion is biased.
The 24/2.8 was my "normal" lens for years - I absolutely love everything about it. (The 24/1.4 is even better, if you can find one that's affordable!)
The 20 and 17 are OK if you need an angle that wide. I've found the 17 to be a little vignette-y plus there's that awfully dim max aperture (4 ?!)
The 14 is spectacular, though you have to work pretty hard to find something to shoot that isn't made grotesque by its effects. "rectlinear" sounds so much better than "barrel distortion" but in fact the things it does to subject matter at the edges are just weird... whereas I find the barrel distortion of the wider-view 15 lens easier to make look natural.
The 15 and 8 take really nice pictures, if you can find subjects that work with them.
But in general, nothing should be wrong with a 25 year old lens, unless it's picked up haze, fungus or has been physically damaged (or are Canon lenses so delicate that they wear out so quckly.. :whistling: )
General observation on wides: if you have and use a 50mm, a 28mm is a classic first wide.
I prefer a 35mm as a normal, so my wides are 24mm or 19/20/21mm.
A cheap but very good ultrawide is the Vivitar/Tokina 17mm (usually much better than the equivalent Tamron, but apparently with lots of sample variation, with the Vivitar branded ones doing better), but I'd only consider that after one of the focal lengths mentioned above.