I wanna wide prime

<p>So. . .I have been contemplating wide primes.</p>

<p>I already have the 24/2.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and all the 4L-ish zooms. (10-22, 17-40, 24-105).</p>

<p>I can't justify the 24/1.4L or the 35/1.4L.</p>

<p>So. . .reading reviews of the 20/2.8, 28/1.8 and Sigma 30/1.4 . . .I am not impressed enough to buy. I mean. . if I have to stop down to F4 to get decent shots -> I already HAVE 4L glass.</p>

<p>So the only lenses I haven't mentioned is the 35/2 and the 28/2.8. I figure the 28/2.8 is basically close to my 24/2.8. . .and the 35/2 <em>sounds</em> nice. . .but considering that I have a <strong><em>broken 35/2</em></strong> in my closet -> I can't bring myself to buy another copy of this non-USM dinosaur.</p>

<p>Ok. . .what have I missed (except fisheyes and tiltshift)?</p>

<p>(I should probably get my rear off the keyboard and outside with the camera instead, right?)</p>

<p>I keep hearing rumours about a new Canon 35mm f/1.8. I've been holding off on a 35mm 1.4L because I'd like to see if it's true. Here's to hoping for more lens news in 2011!</p>

<p>with the APS-C sensor, none of the lenses mentioned will be "wide" with the exception of the 20mm f/2.8, which is approaching wide. If you have a 24mm, a 28mm doesn't make sense. There's the 14mm f/2.8L, ut it comes with a hefty price tag. Other than that, I'd say your 10-22mm has you pretty well covered. And as for having to stop down to f/4, well that's not a big deal with wide lenses as anything less will have blurred edges. You may even want to stop to f/8. I'd be happy with the 10-22mm, deal with the f/3.5-4.5 aperture, which isn't all that bad, and spend money on either some flashes or a photo trip.</p>

<p>I think it depends a lot on what you shoot. I love my 16-35mm (I shoot a FF camera) for some things, but wouldn't think of using it for others, like landscape (but have on occasion). The 17mm TS lens is supposed to be incredible, but if you don't need a TS lens, consider the Zeiss 21mm, supposedly the best wide lens made, or the Zeiss 18mm. Both are manual focus lenses and can be rented, with the rental applying to purchase, from Lensrentals.com.</p>

<p>These are incredible lenses and take some time to figure out how to focus them properly (generally from close out, not infinity in, at least on the ones I tried).</p>

<p>Spendy but really nice lenses.</p>

<p>If you shoot full frame, Jim, consider picking up a <em>used</em> 24/1.4 L or 35/1.4 L. They really are very fine lenses, particularly if you like to shoot wide open or close to it.</p>

<p>Need to try the 20mm, it is not as bad as some people make it out to be and it is the widest lens made by Canon (exceptions 17TSE and 14mm). I have the 20mm lens but do not use too often as I prefer my Tokina 17mm f3.5, it is smaller and lighter. The 20mm is an excellent low light lens, the corners are soft (fixable) on a full frame but barely noticeable if used on a crop camera. Since you have zooms that cover the 24mm and up zones I am not sure why you would consider a prime in that area as the zooms especially the 24-70L is a superb lens with very little distortion on the wide side.</p>

<p>The Tokina 17mm is no longer in production but occasionally can be found used.</p>

<p>There's also the Voightlander 20/3.5.</p>

<p>Pro's: really tiny, decent image quality, exclusive<br>

Con's: manual focus, weak corner performance, exclusive</p>

<p>Anyway, going out to shoot pictures seems like the best plan. Then, if you find you need a lens for a shot you cannot otherwise take, post the question again with a description of what you currently don't like.</p>

<p>Me, I just ordered a 28/2.8. Not because it's better than my 17-40/4L but because it's very small and light. That way I have a nice lightweight walk around combo with my digital rebel and a wide lens for my full frame when I primarily use my 70-200 but want to have a wide lens in my pocket...</p>

<p>Have fun,</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

<p>First of all: Wide primes for APS-C cameras is really the weakness of the Canon system. There is no decent solution and if you want to shoot wide, you need a superwide zoom (which you already have). Only the Pentax system has 14mm f/2.8 and 15mm f/4 prime lenses (which are, as you can see, also not terribly fast).</p>

<p>The fast Sigma 30mm is a great lens. I can highly recommend it, even with large apertures it is very good. But like the 24mm, 28mm or 35mm lenses it is not really a wide angle -- just a regular normal lens.</p>

<p>The EF 20mm f/2.8 is indeed optically not so great... it is rather "soft-ish" wide open and amazingly flare-prone. Still I love the overall handling and it is one of my favorite lenses for APS-C cameras. But it, too, is not very wide and not that fast.</p>

<p>Yes, there are older super-wide primes for film camera like the Tokina 17mm, Tamron and Canon 14mm... but the Tokina is pretty much covered by the standard 18-55mm kit zoom and the 14mm lenses are highly expensive and/or optically so-so. These primes do not really make much sense for crop-factor dSLRs. Sigma has an older collection of f/1.8 primes (20mm, 24mm, 28mm IIRC), but these are considered very poor optically.</p>

<p>The best solution is probably getting the f/2.8 Tokina 11-16mm lens (although if you are happy with your 10-22mm, this is not really necessary) -- or upgrading to full-frame. Otherwise try the Pentax stuff I mentioned.</p>

<p>My secret dream is a 5D paired with the groovy new 8-14 fisheye. YEEEE HAW. But that is a wee bit more throw money than I want to lay down. Besides. ..by the time they get around to putting out that naughty wide zoom, it will be <em>boating</em> season again - and then the spending REALLY begins.</p>

<p>The 14mm/2.8 is about $2K. Also a bit out of the budget. . . (I am also thinking about a telephoto) although. . I just now realized this guy is <em>not</em> a fisheye.</p>

<p>Hmmm. Must noodle I probably just need to fly to Italy for a week instead of buying more lenses :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jim</p>

<p>You have thought all the thoughts. The two best options in my opinion are the two Zeiss ZEs: the 18mm and the 21mm. The trouble is their high price and weight (also manual focus). The 21mm is also pretty close to the 24mm you already have in terms of field of view. In my opinion, the canon 24/2.8 is a really fine lens - it's only let down by its poor bokeh, but I am not convinced the 24L is any better in this regard. I have the 28mm/2.8 too, but it is not really in the same league as the 24mm for some reason.</p>

<p>I know that I will use an ultra-wide only rarely and so I don't want to pay out for the 18mm Zeiss. I don't want the 16-35mm as I already have an 24-70, 24, 35L and 50 primes and all of the latter are excellent.</p>

<p>Why not consider the excellent Canon 15mm fisheye? Currently that is on my list.</p>

<p>Why struggle with f/2.8 primes. Just get 17-55/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>As for Sigma 30/1.4. It's meant to be shot wide open. Stopping this thing down is pointless. The borders are filled with defocused stuff so don't pay attention to border sharpness figures. The bokeh this lens produces is exceptionally smooth.</p>

<p>I'm with Arie, why are you hung up on primes? Softwares like Lightroom and DxO's Optics Pro now correct for chromatic abberation, vignetting and geometric distortion at every focal length and every aperture. I'm thinking about the 16-35mm to supplement my own 24-105mm. The Zeiss 17mm briefly held my interest, but then I remembered how well my software corrects my existing lens and forgot that.</p>

<p>He's already got a host of zooms though, although I agree the 17-55mm would be better on an APS-C than the 17-40mm he currently has.</p>

<p>Jim, if you want to go as wide as 14mm, I'd highly recommend the new Samyang 14/2.8 (usually branded in the US as "Rokinon"). I agree with photozone's review (see <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/532-samyang14f28eosff">link</a>) that its resolution is stunning, even better than that of the uber-expensive EF 14/2.8 L, and it costs only $400. It's manual focus only, and its distortion characteristics render in unsuitable for architectural photography (but you'd want to use a tilt-shift lens for that anyway). And, perhaps best of all, it has an aperture ring and therefore enables you to shoot in Av.</p>

<p>Checking back in.</p>

<p>Personally, I do ENOUGH tweaking of my photos in post processing. I will not buy a lens KNOWING every shot needs to be tweaked for these things. Maybe I am chicken and don't yet know how to profile the lenses. . . .but that's where I am out.</p>

<p>So that rules out the really flawed ducks and the Fisheyes. Also, I am shooting a 40D. Manually focusing on a 40D is not where I am at!</p>

<p>I am currently hung up on primes, because I have all the zooms I need! Not sure what the 17-55/2.8-IS brings to the table that my other current lenses do not. Frankly, it is just not interesting to me.</p>

<p>If I was starting <em>over</em> today, the 17-40/4L is redundant to my other zooms, but I bought it before I had an EF-S capable camera. I am very happy with the 10-22 and 24-105 combination. The fast primes serve as "low light / portrait" special use lenses. Kept me from buying the 2.8 L zooms. ($$$$$). Which is why I am not considering one of the fast "L" primes.</p>

<p>Right now, truth be told, replacing my broken 35 F/2 with a working 35 F/2 seems the logical choice. The Sigma 30/1.4 seems to be a good runner up. A bit pricier, but it is a F1.4. . .</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Honestly, I wouldn't get the 35/2. I found it to shoot nice shots, but was so noisy- especially inside and for portraits- that I just had to sell it eventually. Why don't you sell your 17-40 and take the money for 35/2 and buy a 35 1.4? Then you'd have fabulous image quality for lowlight/ up close work, and your other lens for the rest. The 24 2.8 and 50 1.8 are excellent little primes, and your zooms cover the rest. Sounds like too many lenses will give you more of a headache, not less.<br>

My two cents.</p>

<p>I say bite the bullet and get a new EF 35 f2. It is the obvious lens to get because it is cheap, fast, and sharp enough wide open. Even though yours broke, it doesn't have a reputation for being unreliable.</p>

<p>The Canon 15 mm f2.8 fisheye is a spectacular lens if you are into fishy things. It even has a mostly metal outer skin.</p>

<p>Jim Larson said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I do ENOUGH tweaking of my photos in post processing. I will not buy a lens KNOWING every shot needs to be tweaked for these things. Maybe I am chicken and don't yet know how to profile the lenses. . . .but that's where I am out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lest anyone misunderstand, the lens correction is automatic on DxO. They create a profile for each lens with each body at each focal length and each aperture. The correction adds no time to the processing effort. You can turn it off to see the uncorrected image, but I just leave it on.</p>

<p>I don't know LightRoom, but imagine there's a similar interface to DxO's. I've read of people loading in lens profiles. (With DxO it's part of the basic program). Maybe someone that makes the corrections with LR will chime in to say how it works.</p>

<p>I see the solution. Buy a used 5d, and shoot full frame, <em>every single prime you have</em> will become instantly wider (by 1.6 times) I guarantee you'll love it. Once you've found that all your 'new' wider primes dont fill your needs, it'll be years from now and you can afford a 16-35/2.8</p>

<p>Plus, if you sell the 40, the effective difference in price will be about equal to the cheapest of new primes...</p>

<p>And (of infinite value here) you can join the ranks of us FF prime snobs... you've already got the 'prime snob' part down, you're most of the way there ;-)</p>

<p>I second the idea of getting a used 5D. :D</p>

<p>Jim, I also have a broken EF35/2. It won't even focus manually. I just got a call from the Canon authorized repair shop with a repair estimate of 17,000 JPY, or about 200 USD. No thanks. That's about half of what I paid for it new. Will I buy another copy? No. Including myself and two reviewers on the FM forums, you are the fourth person I know of to have this lens break. I can attest that I did not abuse my lens. Its untimely death seems to be a build quality issue, among other issues. </p>

<p>Optically, I had no complaints whatsoever. I loved the compact size, but I had problems with the flimsy lens hood, which takes fine micromotor skills to attach, but then won't stay on. I had mine fall off, bounce, and then roll across the floor of an auditorium during a graduation ceremony. My solution was to switch to a Nikon screw-on hood. It may have been this metal hood which, despite its light weight, might have taxed the focusing mechanism to death. </p>

<p>A major EF35/2 issue, and perhaps the best reason for me not to repair it, is the autofocus motor noise. When it turned heads on a loud commuter train, I had to switch it to manual focus. </p>

<p>My next lens in this range to replace my 35/2 will likely be either the Voigtlaender 40/2 (manual focus only) or the Sigma 30/1.4. Like you, Jim, I've already got the range covered with good zooms, so if it's not a fast prime, I don't really need it. On the other hand, while I lust after the EF35/1.4L, the price is prohibitive, and the weight and size are a turnoff, hence the attraction to the 40/2, which is a pancake lens. For your needs, if you ever do get a 5D, note that the 40/2 covers full-frame 35mm format, but the 30/1.4 does not. You've already got great lenses, so I vote for the Italy trip.</p>

<p>Hey, I just saw this thread. I have some more info to consider: I used to have the Canon 10-22 and I loved it. Until I bought a 5D it was my main lens. It has some fisheye to it. If you want more fisheye you should consider the Samyang 14mm 2.8. It has gotten very good reviews and seems to be a bargain, surpassing lenses that cost 3-4 times as much. I just ordered one yesterday from someone on EByay for $340. It does have the problem of "mustash" distortion, BUT I have seen some images from that lens that were processed thru PTLens software, also cheap at $25, and the processing removes the mustash and other distortion, although not the fisheye effect, after all it IS a fisheye. And it is manual focus, but from what I've read that is very easy to adapt to, as are ultra wide lenses in general.</p>