Best Main Prime Lens?

<p>Hello everyone, <br>

I'm been getting more and more into photography, thanks to my girlfriend, and I am looking to buy a wide prime lens that would become my main lens. My gf has a 35mm f/2.0 with which I played for a week and I loved it, except that I would love to have a bit more angle to capture more. I have a Canon Rebel XSi, so cropped body. <br>

I've been looking at several lenses (all Canon): 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/1.8. I believe that the 20mm would be a bit too wide to be my main lens, and I'm leaning toward the 28mm because it appears to be a good all-around lens, and the f-stop is quite seducing. <br>

I like to take pictures of...mostly everything that grabs my attention. Groups of people, portraits, close ups, landscapes, architecture, indoor....<br>

So my question today is: what lens would you recommend to be my main lens? Of course, I have a basic zoom lens (20mm-90mm I believe) and my gf is getting the 17-40mm L f/4.0. <br>

Thanks in advance for your advices! <br /><br />Vincent. </p>

Why does it need to be a prime?

 

For my crop-body XSi I use a Canon 10-22 and a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Both have served me well allowing me to

take loads of nice photos.

<p>It looks like you've narrowed down the range to between 20-35mm with each end not meeting your needs, which leaves you with 24 or 28mm. Since you already have a kit lens covering 20-90mm, the answer should be easy. Look over your saved photos and see how many were taken at either of these focal lengths, and whichever the winner is, go with that for your prime.</p>

<p>Given the wide variety of subjects you listed and the relative inflexibility of a single wide angle prime, why a prime? A zoom would provide a great deal more utility, and unless you are shooting with a tripod, MLU, manual focus, and printing very large... you'll never see the small differences in resolution.</p>

<p>As to which of the primes you mention might be "better," that is entirely a personal decision that you would make after becoming thoroughly familiar with the different focal lengths you mentioned... which is a task most easily accomplished by, you guessed it, shooting with a zoom first.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>apology - double posted.</p>

<p>I assume you're shooting crop frame? You might have a look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.</p>

<p>The Canon 24mm f/1.4 L is very nice, though expensive.</p>

<p>Thanks for your answers. <br>

I would like to go for a prime because I like how I shoot with a prime compared to how I shoot with the zoom ones (I shot with my GF's 17-40 and my own basic zoom lens and preferred shooting with the 35 all the time). Some of my friends who are professional photographers advised me to go with a prime lens as a main lens...so I'm confused now!<br>

I like doing artsy-blurry types of pictures most of the time which is also one of the reason why I want to go with a prime that has a high f-stop.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have just got both the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 for my 7d. I think they make a great combination on a crop sensor. I find the 28 to be great as a walkabout lens, for indoor shots at available light and for group portraits. It is not really wide though. The 50 is fabulous for half-body to close-up portraits with shallow DOF. I am discovering the joy of photography with fast primes... and loving it. </p>

<ul>

<li>EF 20mm f/2.8 USM -- Optically so-so (very flare-prone!), but renders a very nice moderate wide angle perspective on APS-C. My favorite.</li>

<li>EF 24mm f/2.8 -- Very decent lens, but no FTM/USM and not really wide on APS-C. My current favorite on full-frame, but not that useful on crop-factor dSLRs.</li>

<li>EF 28mm f/1.8 USM -- I would rather go for the faster and better Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM.</li>

</ul>

<p>If you really want wide angle photography on APS-C, you need a dedicated wide angle zoom. Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 and 12-24mm f/4 are my favorites, but pretty much every lens maker has a very good super-wide zoom in their line-up.</p>

<p><em>"I have a basic zoom lens (20mm-90mm I believe)..." </em></p>

<p>i) Is that a <strong>28</strong>-90mm lens? </p>

<p>ii) Re: the choice between a fast zoom and a prime, you may find <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00P46V">this thread</a> helpful ... I settled on the Tamron at the time and added the 35 f2 later. </p>

<p>If you want to shoot primes, then shoot primes. If you want/need an aperture faster than f/2.8, primes are the only option anyway.</p>

<p>I'm going to second the recommendation of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I have this lens and I think it's great. But definitely check out the length on your zoom lens and see if it's wide enough for you...if not, and the 20 is too wide, you may prefer the 24mm. 28 mm is so close to 30 that the difference is negligible.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the additional answers! <br>

My zoom lens is not wide enough for me...and yes I believe it is 28-90mm, I don't have the lens in front of me to check :) </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My zoom lens is not wide enough for me...and yes I believe it is 28-90mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even the 20mm prime is not really wide on APS-C... It is only 32mm equivalent. I don't understand how people can say that is too wide -- it is even "longer" than the 18-55mm kit zoom. As I said before, for <em>real</em> wide angle photos you need a super-wide zoom. Unfortunately, wide crop-factor primes are not a forte of the Canon EOS/EF system. Now, Pentax on the other hand...</p>

<p>You can't beat the quality of a basic prime lens. Go for the work horse the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, a 28mm 2.8 or a 8.5mm.<br>

Back in the day before kits, the standard was the 50mm. It taught you how compose.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-50mm-f-1.4-usm-lens-review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-50mm-f-1.4-usm-lens-review.aspx</a></p>

<p>I looked at the 50mm 1.4 and it seems to be quite a good lens...probably something I will add to my kit very soon :) </p>

<p>I'd add one other 'normal' lens for APS-C to Bueh's list. The nice, but cheap, EF 28mm f/2.8. The 35mm f/2 is one of my personal favorites for a prime on APS-C bodies, but 28 is fraction more 'normal'.</p>

<p>As pretty much everybody has already said, to get anything that by 35mm-film standards was "wide" you need to go to 18mm and shorter -- there are very few primes in that territory, so one of the 10-something to 20-something zooms is more practical than a prime.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If I want to go very wide I'd add a 20mm 2.8 to my kit one day, tho the 10-22 mm zoom lens seems pretty cool too although I am looking for a high f-stop, hence the wide angle primes. </p>

<p>35mm</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If I want to go very wide I'd add a 20mm...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>But on crop, the angle of view of the 20mm lens is equivalent to the angle of view of a 32mm lens on 35mm film SLRs or full frame DSLRs.</p>

<p>I know that some of you will, with justification, point out that this point has already been made. Several times. But it seems to bear repeating since people keep suggesting that such focal lengths are "very wide" on APS-C cameras. </p>

<p>They are not. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>although I am looking for a high f-stop, hence the wide angle primes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For wider angles get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens. No prime with an equivalent angle-of-view (even on full-frame) is faster, except for the very expensive EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM.</p>

<p>As long as we're in the "very expensive" territory, I would simply note that there is a very nice EF 14mm f/2.8 L lens that would serve nicely. (ca. €/$ 2000).<br /> Not to mention the even more expensive heart of my own desire, the MF TS-E 17mm lens.</p>

<p><em>"Groups of people, portraits, close ups, landscapes, architecture, indoor.... I would like to go for a prime because I like how I shoot with a prime... My zoom lens is not wide enough for me...and yes I believe it is 28-90mm..."</em></p>

<p>So you're looking for a prime that is wider than 28mm. Canon has two general-purpose 24mm lenses (the third is a tilt-shift lens). The 24L is f1.4 and expensive (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html">$1574</a>). The 24 2.8 is small (<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_24mm_f_2_8#Specifications">67x48mm, 270g</a>) and affordable (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12091-GREY/Canon_2506A002_Wide_Angle_EF_24mm.html">$319</a>) but has the same aperture as the Tamron (or Sigma) 17-50mm zoom lenses and restricts you to a single focal length.</p>

<p>The Tamron is surprisingly compact (<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1750_diII_a016.asp">74x81mm, 430g</a>), inexpensive for a fast zoom (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423714-REG/Tamron_AF016C700_17_50mm_f_2_8_XR_Di.html">$459</a>) and gets good reviews:<br /> <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx</a> <br /> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review">http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/289-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28-sp-xr-di-ii-ld-aspherical-if-canon-test-report--review</a></p>

<p>There's also a VC version which is larger (<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/prod/1750_vc_b005.asp">79x94mm, 570g</a>) and costlier (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/652136-USA/Tamron_AFB005C700_SP_AF_17_50mm_f_2_8.html">$649</a>) but has the advantage of image stabilization.</p>

Hi Songsten,

 

I looked more closely at the 14-22mm suggested earlier by a couple of people. It seems to be taking pretty sharp

pictures but the f/stop being 3.5 at 14mm and 4.5 at 22mm, I wouldn't be able to do the blurry effects that I really like

to do. Even tho I am shooting different kinds of things, I like to do close ups and blur the background.

 

I've been using the 35mm f/2.0 for a while and I love how I can play with the backgrounds to focus on the subject and

do close ups, but I am lacking the possibility to have a wider point of view on the subject to give it more substance.

 

The 24mm 2.8 seems seems interesting too. Tho the f-stop is not that high, but the angle would be better. I was

interested in the 28mm because of the high f/stop, which would make the lens more versatile because I could make

low light pictures without having to use the flash.

 

I don't know if I'm making any sense anymore....:-)

<p>Vincent -- you will not really be able to "do the blurry effects" that much on regular photos with any wide lens on APS-C (smaller background magnification means more details visible even in out-of-focus areas). Close-ups and Macro is different, even with slow apertures the depth-of-field will be very shallow. So don't disregard a lens because it is one stop or so slower when the focal length range is much more useful (again, I am talking about super-wide zoom vs wide prime on APS-C). If you lust after a super-wide prime, you have to switch to Pentax where they have an (excellent) DA 14mm f/2.8 lens with incredible close-up capabilities. Or get a full-frame camera where all the wide primes show their original, uncropped angle-of-view.</p>