Current thoughts on best option for a std lens on a 1.6X body

<p>I been reading reviews and surprise surprise they don't all agree.<br>

When talking a APS-C sensor body with a "32mm" std lens (approx a 40 degree horizontal angle of view)<br>

What are the current contenders?<br>

I have read up on the</p>

<p>Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM</p>

<p>Canon 28mm f2.8 <br>

Canon 35mm f2.0<br>

Canon 35mm f1.4L</p>

<p>And I know good = $$$$$ I have also learned over the years that lens tests tend to test the sample they have in hand not always the lens you will have in hand.</p>

<p>So for those of you useing something on your APS-C sensor bodies to simulate the view of a 45-55mm lens on a Full frame camera what do you like or dislike about your choices?</p>

<p>We've got the 35mm f2.0 on a 1.6 crop body:</p>

<p>Pros: Cheap, very sharp (at least in the midish zone, and the edges aren't as much of a factor with crop bodies), very compact, decent speed.</p>

<p>Cons: Older focus type, pentagon aperture, aforementioned soft corners, a little long for standard focal length on 1.6 crop.</p>

<p>It's also a fun lens on full frame, moderately wide, and very light/compact.</p>

<p>I have a nice 17-55/f/2.8 lens that covers that focal length, and it's certainly my more common tool because of the flexibility when I don't know what I'll be shooting. But I also have that Sigma 30/1.4, and truly love it. When I know I won't need to shift between a bit shorter or longer, or know that I'll need that big aperture, it's the go-to. Of course, I'm a Nikon guy, so what do I know!</p>

<p>I don't have a Canon anymore, out of the 35 f2, the sigma 30mm, and the 28mm 1.8, I liked the 28mm 1.8 the best. it wasn't as good center as either fo the other 2, but the corners were better than the sigma, and I liked the build and focal length more than the 35 f2. Buy the L if you don't mind the size and cost (or buy a used 5D and a 50mm 1.4=). btw, 24L (mk1) is my favorite canon lens.</p>

<p>Quite likely, any of the lenses you listed would be just fine. In this day-and-age we are "blessed" with far too many choices. I will comment on two that I use on my 40D - one in that range and one that is a little longer.</p>

<p>The EF 35mm f/2.0 is a great lens. Don't let all the talk about AFD focus motor scare you off. It works very well. The lens is very sharp and lightweight. Even with the hood fitted, it is quite compact. It has decent magnification (MFD about 10"). The only negative thing I can say is that background blur can get a little rough if you are not careful. The 35/f2 is one of the truly "great value for cost" lenses in the Canon EF line-up. It is a lens I would never part with and I would quickly replace if it were lost or damaged.</p>

<p>The EF 50 f/1.4 is only a "couple of footsteps" longer than the 35. I very quickly acclimated to that angle of view on my 40D and I use it quite often. I love the effect it gives me at f/1.4 and it is very, very sharp stopped-down (even at 2.8). It is not too heavy and not too big and the price is right.</p>

<p>I should also mention (even though you didn't ask about zooms) that, until I got my 35/f2 I used my EF 17-40L as my APSC-camera "standard" lens. If I am going out with only one lens and no specific purpose in mind, the 17-40 is the one. If you can get by with f 4.0, the 17-40 is a super lens on an APS-C camera.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p><div></div>

<p>You should add to the list: Canon 28/1.8 and Sigma 28/1.8 full-frame wideangles</p>

<p>My $0.02 on the Sigma 30/1.4.<br>

Pros: large aperture, decently sharp center even wide open, good colors, incredibly smooth bokeh, okay flare resistance, silent AF, good build quality, warranty.<br>

Cons: edges are not sharp even when stopped down (not a big deal if you intend to shoot selective focus only). Minimum focus distance is not so good, I wish it focused closer. Heavy. AF needs calibration on one of my cameras (7d) but strangely not on the other (XTi).</p>

<p>I don't think that there's a real clunker in any of these suggestions. The cheapest, by a little, is the 28mm f/2.8. It's very good and exactly right for the traditional focal "normal" focal length as we know it. I have had one and liked it, but I prefer the 35mm f/2.0 that I have now, but I am a big fan of 55-60mm 'normals' on old 35mm cameras, so...<br>

The cheapest of all Canon lenses, of course, is the 50mm f/1.8, but it is a short tele on APS-C, although it is great for street shots in dim places like the Khan el-Khalili خان الخليلي‎ in Cairo. ;)</p>

<p>Here's a night shot at Luxor with the 35mm f/2</p>

<div></div>

<p>Why not a zoom?</p>

<p>I'm in the deciding and shopping mode. Later this year I am going to sell off a pile of older camera gear and reduce my 45 cameras and near 80 lenses down to a couple smaller but highly capable 35mm film systems and then. Buy into a APS-C based DSLR system that gives me the range of my current Film system 17mm to 500mm on full frame so 10 to 300 + 1.4X on a APS-C body.<br>

And since I already know what I shoot and what focal lenghts I "see" in I'm looking to cover those focal lenghts. Granted some I have no choice but a Zoom (the super wide to wide) but in the mid range I'm hoping to be able to find some suitable primes to retain how I work now.<br>

I know there will be things I have to give up as well as things I gain I never had before. So I'm shoppin. I have maybe 4-5 months to decide.<br>

So far the only lenses I know for sure are at either end of the range.<br>

the 10-22mm f3.5/4.5 and the 300mmf4.0L are for sure.<br>

the 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM is almost certainly the other long lens I'll buy.<br>

it's all the stuff in the middle where so much of my work is done with I'm still working on.<br>

if the damn things didn't go backwards I'd buy a few Nikon MF lenses to use around the middle but 35 years of Canon FD I'd never be able to adapt.</p>

<p>35 f2 if yoiu want prime. However the EF 35f2 aint no FD 35f2.0 in quality of workmanship, just so you're not too disappointed.</p>

<p>I have the 28/1.8 USM that I have used on both my EOS 10D and Rebel XSi. It has served the purpose well. I do think the 24/2.8 is sharper with better contrast, and provides a slightly wider perspective that I prefer. Both are good choices!</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

<p>WT you have summed up my concerns in a nut shell. Granted EF mount zooms are better then the older FD zooms (with the exception of the 80-200mm f4.0L possibly) But the tests I read so nothing to make me warm and fuzzy about the Primes in the middle of the range. I mean to go from a 50mm f1.2L nFD to my choices in APS-C is a depressing thought. And when I see comments in tests performed with a 8mp sensor and the testers are talking about the lens not being able to exceed the sensors resolution. What will I see on a 18mp Sensor!(insert multiple exclamation points here LOL)</p>

<p>If you are going with a cropped sensor body and doing high quality work, I'd recommend at least considering the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. IQ is excellent, the focal length range is very useful and versatile and fits into your other zoom plans, IS will give you great low light performance in situations in which camera stability is the limiting factor, especially in combination with the f/2.8 maximum aperture. (I note that you already have one non-IS f/2.8 lens on your list.)</p>

<p>Aside from the lens being larger and more expensive than the individual primes, it is hard to think of what you would give up with zoom.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(Who shoots both zooms and primes, including one of the lenses in your original list. The 35mm f/2 is, indeed, a fine performer.)</p>

<p>I've paid attention to the 17-55mm f2.8 IS I like it's speed F2.8 obviously the IS and it's reveiws in Resolution and CA. the distortion while not great is still margenianlly better then the 17-40mm f4.0 IS but then again at $350.00 more + what ever a hood costs .I would expect something optically superior when the build suffers in comparison.</p>

<p>But this thread is an attempt to find a Prime for that all important 40 degree field of view.</p>

 

<p><strong>Jay F: </strong>OT, but what's the story on the dagger in the photo you posted? It looks like it screws into its (very hefty) scabbard--intriguing!</p>

<p>Mark - I have the 35 F2 and while it is not a bad lens it is not a great one. It is probably optically on a par with the FD 35 F2 but not built the same (mind you I rarely use my FD 35 F2 and generally opt for the impressive FD 24 F2 when I take an FD body out).<br>

One thing I have found with digital (I have a 5DII, 7D and 1DIIN) is that you have a lot less need for primes. While I realize that your post is looking for a prime I do want to echo Dan's comments on zooms.<br>

I only have full frame lenses (except the 18-135 that was bundled with my 7D and is a lens I let the kids use) but find that I rarely need a wide angle prime as the zooms are so much better than in the old days. I actually use the 16-35 F2.8 II and the 70-200 F4 IS as my main travel lenses with the 7D and rarely take a prime. In EF lenses I only have a few primes (Sigma 8mm F3.5, EF 35 F2, EF 50 F1.4, EF 85 F1.8, EF 100 F2.8L IS Macro and EF 300 F4 IS). Of these lenses the EF 100 F2.8 L IS Macro and the 300 F4 IS are the primes I use the most. This is completely different from my FD situation where lenses like the 85 F1.2, 135 F2 and the 24 F2 get a lot of use. The top EF zooms are really good ( in addition to the two I ususally carry with the 7D I also have the 70-200 F2.8 non IS for sports and the 24-70 F2.8 which is great on the 5DII) and reduce the need for primes that are not outstanding. My own theory is that I will at some stage sell the 35 F2 and the 85 F1.8 and replace them with the EF 85 F1.2 and either the 24mm or 17mm TS lens.<br>

I know this is not answering your question dirctly but I beleive that you have only recently gone digital and just wanted to make sure that you had carefully considered the zoom options. I cannot comment on the EFS 17-55 F2.8 as I have never used it but I own the 16-35 F2.8 II and the 24-70 F2.8 (and used to own the 17-40 F4). The 24-70 is probably slightly sharper at around 30 -35mm than the 16-35 II as I think the 16-35 is more optimized for the wide end. Before you buy a prime I suggest you test the zooms just to make sure you will not buy one later and end up with a $300+ paper weight as the prime never goes out. On my 5D I find I carry my 50mm F1.4 quite often but rarely get it out of the bag.<br>

I have used the 28 F2.8 (on full frame) and found it was a fairly poor performer - much like the FD 28 f2.8 so if the choice is 35 f2 or 28 F2.8 then get the 35 F2. I have also never used the Sigma.</p>

<p>Mark, the EF 35/1.4 L is the best wide angle prime I've ever used, but it might be wasted on an APS-C sensor. </p>

<p>I'm a little surprised that you're considering a crop body rather than either version of the 5D. I guess it has to do with effective reach, but full frame images can always be cropped.</p>

<p>I'm going with a crop body as I'm looking for the same reach as my 500mm f4.5L and the only affordable way I see to do that is with a APS-c body and a 300mm lens.</p>

<p>Since I shoot birds with a 1.4X-A on the back of my 500mm f4.5L S.S.C. that is a f6.3 14X lens on a full frame.<br>

Mark to answer your question<br>

On full frame my current FD long lens is:<br>

500mm f4.5L S.S.C. + 1.4X-A = 700mm f6.3 or a 14 power lens. this weighs approx 7.2lbs! and is over 17.5" long<br>

On APS-C<br>

300mm f4.0L IS USM + 1.4X II = 420mm f5.6 = a 13 power lens weighs approx 3.1 lbs and is 9.8" long.</p>

<p>So if I go with a APS-C body my bird lens becomes 1/3 stop faster 4.1lbs lighter and 7.5" shorter and 1.75" smaller in Diameter. PLUS I gain 2-3 stops with IS and the advantage of AF for shooting moving critters and I loose 1 X in power.<br>

With a 18Mp Sensor with a 5,184 x 3,456 file can crop clear down to 3600 X 2400 (about 9Mp and I can still pull out a 300dpi 8 X 12 print. This will put the image size past what I could get with a 2X on the back of my current 500mm f4.5L</p>

<p>A smaller lighter brighter faster AF/IS packed lens combo that as I age will be a nice change from humping a 500mm f4.5L around in a back pack.</p>

 

<p>Mark you will like the 300 F4 IS and 7D combination - this is what I now use to shoot ski racing. he is one of my kids racing slalom - the photo is uncropped to show you how good the AF is. Obviously it is highly compressed to display on the screen. The 1.4x does slow the AF on the 300 f4 IS down quite a bit.</p><div></div>

<p>35 mm f/1,4 L</p>

<p>BR.</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland<br>

http://esakivivuoriphotography.ning.com/</p>

<p>Mark, I can certainly endorse your choice of system components so far: 7D, 10~22, 70~200/4L IS, 300/4L IS, Extender 1.4x II. Coming from film and the FD system, it's very natural that you should be asking about prime lenses. That may indeed be what you want, but just pause a little to think about the differences between film and digital, and between zoom lens performance in the FD era and now. Why prime lenses? I can think of a number of reasons, and you may find it helpful to use this as a check-list for your own analysis of your needs.</p>

<ul>

<li>Very wide aperture to give very narrow depth of field. Tricky specialist stuff in its extreme form, by which I mean working at f/1.2 at 50/55mm or 85mm, rather than just throwing the background decently out of focus at f/2.8. If you are really into this, you are going to need a FF body as well as some very expensive glass.</li>

<li>Very wide aperture to allow low-light work. Here's where the digital world is totally different from film, because you can crank the ISO up successfully to levels undreamed-of with film, and whilst it may be nice to go to f/2 on occasion, the need for anything faster simply for low-light work is now a very specialist requirement.</li>

<li>Compact and light compared to zooms. If you know you are not going to be changing lenses too much, and you like the camera+lens combination to be light and compact in the hand, then primes can be nice to use, but you don't need ultimately fast ones for this style of working.</li>

<li>Image quality. Here again things have changed dramatically. The very best zooms, although slower than primes, are comparable in resolution aperture-for-aperture, and the EF-S 17~55/2.8IS is by all reports an excellent example, as is the 70~200/4L IS already on your list, and its new big brother the 70~200/2.8L IS II. In part, this has been made possible by the introduction of capabilities into digital post-processing software that have no film-based analogues. You can't get high resolution from a low-resolution lens, but with very little downside you can correct for distortion, peripheral illumination fall-off, and lateral CA after the event, and I am convinced that many modern les designs deliberately have a different trade-off between different aberrations as a result, with the emphasis on achieving sharpness in each colour channel.</li>

<li>Finally, of course, there are special-purpose primes like macro lenses and TS lenses, but that's rather a separate issue.</li>

</ul>

<p>I'm not going to speak for or against specific lenses, but I hope that these thoughts may be helpful to you in working out why ou need primes at all, and if so, what you need them for. </p>

<p>Regarding some of the advantages of primes:</p>

<ul>

<li>Cost: While a single zoom can cost more - e.g. the 17-55 at around $1000 - the comparison breaks down if you need two or three primes as your alternative to the zoom.</li>

<li>Weight/bulk: A single prime (unless you get one of the very large L primes) will certainly be smaller/lighter than a typical zoom. But, again, a <em>set</em> of primes will not necessarily be smaller/lighter than a single zoom.</li>

<li>Image quality: In general many primes are capable of somewhat better resolution and may be less susceptible to barrel/pincushion distortion. However, in most cases the resolution from either can be excellent, such that the differences are essentially irrelevant. (The differences may be more significant at the largest apertures.)</li>

<li>Low light performance: If you need the extremely thin DOF of f/1.4 or f/1.2 you'll need a prime to get it. If you need camera stability in low light, IS and a f/2.8 or even a f/4 lens can be as good or better. (Some like the combination of the versatility of the f/4 zoom plus a larger aperture prime.)</li>

</ul>

<p>Again, I shoot both primes and zooms. I feel that there are places for both in much photography and that neither is necessarily always the better choice.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

<p>Mark, so you're going to be cropping your APS-C images to further extend your effective reach, all with a much lighter and more compact set-up than you're using now. Makes perfect sense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Very wide aperture to allow low-light work. Here's where the digital world is totally different from film, because you can crank the ISO up successfully to levels undreamed-of with film, and whilst it may be nice to go to f/2 on occasion, the need for anything faster simply for low-light work is now a very specialist requirement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Robin, there's at least one respect in which the "digital world" is the same as film, and that's that the lower the ISO is, the better the resultant image quality. And while it is true that 800 ISO, say, on a good digital body produces better images than 800 ISO film does, it's also true that a digital image shot at 100 ISO will be better than the "same" image shot at 800 ISO. The image capture technology may change; the laws of physics do not.</p>

<p>Well in my Canon FD system I currently have zooms that cover from 24mm to 200mm and except for the 80-200mm f4.0L nFD I use a lot. I do the majority of shooting with:<br>

24mm f2.0<br>

35mm f2.0<br>

50mm f1.2L<br>

85mm f1.8<br>

100mm f2.0<br>

In my Leica/Canon Rangefinder system I shoot with:<br>

24mm f2.0 (canon FD using an adapter and zone focus)<br>

25mm f3.5 Canon<br>

35mm f1.8 Canon<br>

50mm f1.2 Canon<br>

100mm f2.0 Canon<br>

135mm f3.5 Canon</p>

<p>So while I fully understand the New zooms and the new "way" of doing things I also know that over 35 years I have developed a style in my hobby I would like to continue at least to the point of wanting a Prime lens that is the same field of view as a 45-55mm lens on full frame.</p>

<p>Hence the question about what do people use and think about the current possibilities for this on a 1.6X crop body.</p>

<p>Every Sigma lens I have ever bought, I have resold.<br>

They have quality/focus issues.<br>

I now use the Canon 35f/2 instead of the sigma 30f1.4 and I'm happy again.</p>