Best IQ non-L wide prime for 5D?

<p>I currently have the original 5D. My lenses are the 50mm f/1.4 and 24-105mm and 17-40mm zooms. I want to get a wide angle prime -- 35mm, 28mm or 24mm. I'm looking for something lightweight and relatively small; hence, no L primes. Leaving aside the differences in focal length, lack of USM and overall manufacturing quality, which of the available Canon wide angle primes do you think has the best IQ?</p>

<p>I'm also interested in an MF solution--maybe a Contax 35mm or 28mm with an adapter.</p>

<p>All opinions appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>John</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I used to own the Canon 28 f2.8 and it was an excellent lens stopped down to f5.6, almost as good as a friend's Leica 28. But I obviously had a good copy, as I've read of others who didn't like the lens at all.</p>

<p>Hey John, <br>

I have the 5D as well and I was in the same boat a while ago. I would rent/ try the EF 28mm f/1.8. I'm in the process of replacing my zooms for primes. When my 28mm comes in, I will have three non-L primes to round out my kit: 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, and the 100 f/2. In my opinion, as I discovered when I tried one out, the 28mm f/1.8 has excellent IQ for a non-L, decent build quality and its plenty fast for all kinds of light. It's also small, light, compact and It's no problem to carry around all day. </p>

<p>24mm f2.8. Highly recommended. Very small and inexpensive. Useable at all apertures. 24L is better in the center at equivalent apertures, but from what I have seen not by much and not noticeably better at the edges/corner. Some distortion, but not bad at all (although I wish it had none) better than the zooms and about the same as the 24L. I have the 28/2.8 too and it is not in the same league as the 24mm from 2.8-4, but is fine at f5.6. I use on 5D MKII.</p>

<p>Canon 35mm f2 is marvellous, very small, sharp even wide open, though I wouldn't think it was wide enough for landscapey stuff. Good combination for street pictures though, <a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/researchphotography/sets/72157623713248582/">http://www.flickriver.com/photos/researchphotography/sets/72157623713248582/</a> , works much better than a 24mm Sigma f1.8 I have (too slow in the dark to focus and had to be recalibrated back in Japan because of back focus). Small lenses have a lot to offer in my opinion since my L-series lenses tend to put people off because they are monsters in size and people see you coming ( equals contrived or grimacing).</p>

<p>If sharp corners and edges are important to you, consider enduring the pain and inconvenience of old manual focus wides via adapters. I like the Olympus OM 24mm f 2.8 and the Nikkor 28mm f 2.8 AIS. Both are cheap, very compact and light. See <a href="http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/pentax/24mm_groupc1.html">http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/24mmcup/pentax/24mm_groupc1.html</a> Check around in this site for other MF wides. Be careful on the Contax 28 f2.8. There are known mirror clearance issues. Consider also the old Frankenstein lug Leica R 28. Th newer megabucks 28R with the built-in hood is sharper at wider apertures and is said to be distortion-free.<br>

Informed opinion here at pnet is leading me to get my hands on an EF 35 f2. It is reviewed on the Canon full frame page at www. photozone.de and it seems to hold its own vs. the 35 settings of the L zooms.</p>

<p>I own the 35 F2, 24-70 F2.8 and 16-35 F2.8 II. All three produce very similar results and none are perfect. They all suffer from vignetting, slight distortion and some lack of sharpness at the edges. Of the three I find the 24-70 the best compromise as it produces the best Bokah. The downside of the Zooms is their price and size. The 35 F2 is not a bad lens but I find that if I need a 35mm lens I just use my Mamiya M645 35 F3.5 on a Mirex Tilt shift adaptor. The Mamiya is a very good performer and delivers more pleasing images than the 35 F2 for me. I suspect other MF lenses will also work well ( I use a Contax 50mm lens) but on the old 5D the lack of live view may be an issue as focusing is harder with confirmation or live view.<br>

In terms of best image quality I was staggered by the 24 TS MkII and came very close to buying it - in the end I bought the 17 F4 which is also an amazing performer. Obviously the TS lenses do not meet your size / price needs but I mention them for others who may be looking for a wide angle landscape lens. My next lens will probably be the 24 F2.8II as I do not need the F1.4 of the L series lens but like TS lenses.</p>

<p>There are older adaptable prime lens in other mounts, but for wide angles and the EOS 35mm sensor cameras, it's a good idea to check a compatibility list like that at http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/ . Not all wide angle lenses will clear the mirror, even if they do work on the APS-C Canons.</p>

<p>I personally am a big fan of the EF 35mm f/2, although I found the EF 28mm f/2.8 to be good also, but kept the 35mm. Both are among the great bargains that Canon has provided for the faithful- starting with the EF 50mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>I agree the 28mm 2.8 and the 35mm f/2 are great bargains, as is the 24mm 2.8. Choose the focal length you like and it would be a good choice. The rather unloved 28mm 2.8 is very sharp at 2.8 and extremely underrated.</p>

<p>Of the 3 listed (24/2.8, 28/2.8,35/2) the <em>best</em> WO performer is the 28/2.8. Of course, WO is f2.8 (vs. f2 for the 35). By f4, they are vrtually indistinguishable (except for focal length).</p>

<p>Frankly, the 24/2.8 is pretty miserable until beyond f5.6.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd advise the 28/1.8 USM - WO@f1.8 the edges are miserable, but by f2 are well under control, and by f2.8 (and beyond) is better than the 28/2.8 across the frame. It still is small, about the same as the 50/1.4, but IME vastly more useable than any of three suggested.</p>

<p>The EF 35mm f/2 is a fine little (and I do mean little) lens - a great optical performer, a low price.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I can't say enough about the 35/2. Even though I have the 35L, I kept the 35/2 because I don't always feel like carrying around something that heavy and I don't always need the aperture, build of the 35L. It's my favorite non-L lens after the 17-55.</p>

<p>OK, guys, I get it. I pick up an EF 35 f2 from the C-list at lunch today. </p>

<p>I have the 35mm f/2 Canon. For the money it is hard to beat. Small, very sharp, nice colors, focuses pretty fast (but a bit noisy). Bokah is acceptable under most circumstances. Not as good as the 35mm L, but pretty close--especially when you factor in the huge price difference between the 35mm and the 35mm L. I think you'll be happy with it.</p>