morten_jespersen Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>Hi all, <br> I am looking for my first prime for my 1.6 crop camera (EOS 60d). I would like a speedy all-round lens, and my upper price limit is around the canon 28 mm 1.8. Among the candidates are:</p> <ul> <li>Canon 28 1.8</li> <li>Canon 28 2.8</li> <li>Canon 35 2.0 </li> <li>Canon 50 1.4</li> <li>Canon 50 1.8 </li> <li>Sigma 30 1.4</li> </ul> <p>Specification-wise, I find the 28 1.8 one of the more interesting, but I am a bit nervous about some bad reviews – Photozone.de being the most negative. Both the 50mm have close to spotless reputation, but are they too tele-lens-like on my crop cam to go? 35 seems to have a very good rep too, and cheap too, but it is the slowest and also old and noisy. Please don’t say “buy the L lens” because I can’t – I would love to, but I just can’t. <br> I hope you can help me. <br> Regards, <br> Morten</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Taylor Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Can't go wrong with the fifty one four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanuk Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>Hi Morten 50mm i.8 Save the rest for an l lens ?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danield Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>Morten, I'm afraid you hit a raw spot with the crop camera bodies. There are no normal or moderately wide prime lenses for crop cameras that would be good and affordable like in the film days. There are only poor substitutes and awkward matches.<br> You'll have to go full frame to get a decent prime set.<br> Yes, the 50mm f/1.8 is good but just not that useful on a crop body. I'd probably recommend the 35mm f/2 but it doesn't offer a lot more than a good f/2.8 zoom.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morten_jespersen Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>@Mike, <br> Naughty You! I told you no L lenses ;o) L primes are way down my list. First upgrades to my zooms (17-85 and 70-200 f4 Non-IS), then ultra wide like tokina 11-16, then more primes, then flash, then a full frame and thin I finally might consider L primes. We are talking years of photography. Should I still take the 50 1.8, given this priority?</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morten_jespersen Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>@Daniel, <br> So you are saying that upgrading my 17-85 to the 17-55 2.8 would give me more quality than any of the available primes?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>What are you using it for? a 50mm on a 60d is a bit long for my taste to be, say, a walk around lens...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morten_jespersen Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>@Leslie, <br> As I said all-round, which means in-door low-light, outside night shots, walkaround with narrow DOF.I am also thinking that 50mm is maybe too long, but I don't know. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newmanuk Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Sorry,didnt realise you were aiming at other lens as well,agree with Daniel, but the 1.8 is a giveaway price Wish you well ,notice the two ll s in well ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulo_fonseca1 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>I have long hesitated before getting the 28mm f1.8 myself because of the not-so-enthusiatic reviews. I finally took the risk and bought a second hand copy. As it turns out, it has been perhaps my most used lens for the year or so since I got it. I take it everywhere. I also bought the 50mm f1.4 at the same occasion and I rarely use it because I often find it too long, but of course this is all a matter of taste and style.<br> I find the 28mm f1.8 to be a fine and very useful lens, specially mounted on a crop sensor. I am very pleased with the results. I think it is more useful to look at image galleries to see what results are achievable in real life rather than looking at MTF charts. For the anecdote, I bought this lens from a professional photographer who has done some exquisite work for the likes of the Royal Opera House and Shakespeare's Globe and who seemed to amuse himself as I shot a focus test chart as he never had took the trouble to perform such test and actually seemed unaware of the procedure.<br> Finally, I'd suggest that If you think a lens (or any other thing for that matter) is for you, then don't be put off by online technical reviews. Get yourself a copy from a reputable dealer with a decent return policy and try it for a few days to form your own first-hand opinion. Then if you don't like it, return it. It's no big deal.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morten_jespersen Posted January 9, 2012 Author Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>@Mike, <br> I'll pretend that I didn't see those L's :o) But yes, I have made quite a detailed plan for the expansion of my equipment bag, I should probably have let you in on that. Damn, forgot new equipment bag -- the L primes just got pushed another 6 months back!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JosvanEekelen Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>Perhaps you can have a look at the focal length you use most with your present lenses. That may show a preference for shorter or longer focal lengths. Apart from that the 35/2.0 would be my choice as a general walk around lens. It's lightweight and small. Another option is the 50/2.5 macro because of the close focus possibilities.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Ian Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>I would suggest a 50/1.8 & a 35/2 as both can be had for the price (or less) than a 28/1.8. I wouldn't say their IQ is better, as they are about the same (or worse) on the crop.<br> <br> Remember, even though the 28/1.8 does have edge sharpness issues WO, those mostly impact the IQ on full frame units. The APS-C sized sensor eliminates most of the troublesome edge area for that lens. By f2.2 on the crop, you are already getting near 'L' level image quality. By f2.8, you're there.<br> <br> Of course you already stated that 50mm is too long for you, so perhaps bothering w/ a 50/1.8 isn't necessary, but at ~$100, it's a bargain hard to ignore.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danield Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <blockquote> <p>So you are saying that upgrading my 17-85 to the 17-55 2.8 would give me more quality than any of the available primes?</p> </blockquote> <p>I wouldn't say more quality, but quite close - and with 3 to 4 stop IS it does allow for shots even some primes can't take. The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is also an alternative, without IS but cheaper.<br /> If you need f/1.4 or f/1.8 however, then a prime is the way to go. Except there are no such affordable primes in the convenient focal lenghts for crop factor. Have I said that before? :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbas_haider Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Without any doubt 50 mm f1.8 Cheap price, light weight, superb IQ & finally it is the perfect match to natural look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthijs Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Since you have a zoom I'd say just experiment to find your preferred focal length. After that's chosen look at the options. Note: if you're not sure about why you want a prime you might enjoy a fast zoom. On a personal note: I like primes and zooms both. Prefer primes for "art" and zooms for events. In your range I have 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4. They're all fun to use and yield good results. (for perfection wide open I'm afraid you'll have to save for more expensive lenses) The field of view a photographer prefers is entirely personal. Some nitpick each millimeter others just shoot with what's mounted. (Within limits I'm more of the latter kind.) Hope this helps, Matthijs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 The 28mm is softer in the corners but if it is for low light use this is generally not that important. Having said that it will be fine for 10X8 prints. It is sharp in the centre with fast and accurate AF. The other weak area is chromatic aberation, however this is easy to correct for, DPP does this for you for more recent bodies. The important thing is how you will use the lens and what sort of quality do you need. I find it is a great lens for ambient light people shots of half to full body, one of the 50mm lenses would be better for closer head shots. Note the 50/1.4 and 28/1.8 have USM and FTMF which some of the other lenses do not, this may be significant to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_nelson3 Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>If compact carry is as important to you as it is to me, consider the semi-wide crop sensor coverage of the EF 24 f 2.8. See<br /><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> to see how it stacks up against some other 24's. It's not a bad lens; it's just that some others are better. This test measures full-frame corner performance. Crop-sensor should be considerably better at the edges and corners. Or, consider, eventually a prime kit of an EF 24, an EF 35 f2, and a 50 macro. Shopping carefully, you might get all three for $700.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>What zooms are you currently using? If you look at your EXIF data, what focal length do you typically shoot at?</p> <p>50mm ends up being a portrait length lens on a 1.6 crop. if you "must" have a prime, then go for something in the 28mm-35mm range to get closer to the approximation of a "normal" lens.</p> <p>Next, question your own motives for a prime lens. Would you be better off with an L-series zoom. Remember, competent softares, like Lightroom, DxO's Optics Pro and others, compensate for most of Canon's zoom lenses' geometric, chromatic aberration, edge softness, etc. at every possible focal lenght and aperture combination. If you're not availing yourself of those capabilities, then you should look into your software's capacities first.</p> <p>These days, with error correction and the improved quality of zoom lenses, the reasons to by primes are for focal length, reduced size or increased speed. My kit is a 24-105mm, 70-200mm and a 500mm prime. If I were a street shooter that wanted to reduce my profile, I might buy a 35mm. If I shot buildings a lot, then I might go for a 17mm TS-E lens. Don't buy a lens simply to "get a prime", but have a well considered reason. Your shooting digital now, so don't get caught up in "rules" that were applicable back when we shot Kodachrome 64.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_trostad Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>I started out with a 40D. My first prime was a 50mm (f1.4). I loved that combo. Later on I found a 85mm (f1.8) which was easily the best $$$ spent for image quality - but it was just too tight. Then I tried a 35mm which pretty much lived on the camera for a couple of years! When I switched to FF the 35mm focal length was even better (for me) - way more versatile (if restricted to primes). If I could go back and do it over again, I would have purchased a 35mm first and then something around 20-24mm. Nowadays the 50mm or 85mm are used all the time for any shots of people but the 35mm is almost always on the 5D2!</p> <p>Given your statment: </p> <blockquote> <p>As I said all-round, which means in-door low-light, outside night shots, walkaround with narrow DOF.I am also thinking that 50mm is maybe too long, but I don't know.</p> </blockquote> <p>...I would recommend starting with something a bit wider than 35mm - if you can. Since 28mm is equivalent to 45mm, I think you will still find that a bit tight especially for general purpose indoor use. You said no 'L's so the 24L is out (bummer). So, perhaps you should research the 24mm and 20mm offerings a bit more before making your decision. However they tend to be f/2.8 and in that case you might as well get the wonderful non-VC Tamrom 17-50 f/2.8! </p> <p>I think it is very important to see where you use your 17-85mm lens the most. If you never go below 28mm then start with the 28mm f1.8 - a nice lens. If you are going below 28mm quite often then the question is whether you need something faster than f2.8? If you can live with f2.8 then you might as well get the Tamrom 17-50 and sell your 17-85. If you must have glass faster than f2.8 (below 28mm) then your options are quite limited - especially if you want auto aperture and auto focus. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatelephant Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 What are you going to use it for? If it's for taking portraits of little kids/people or single flowers, 50/1.8 is incredible value for money or rather incredible bokeh for money. If you are more of a purist and more interested in getting better at composition, you want to get the 28/1.8 since it is so close to being a normal lens. If you are a gear head like me, you will get both :-) I enjoy them immensely, even though my results are nothing great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>The prime lenses that work fine on a so-called "full frame" camera are just as good, often a little better on the "crop" bodies (example: the 50mm f/1.8). The only thing is that they <em>function</em> differently. You are quite right that the 50mm will be a short telephoto on your 60D. That's not necessarily a drawback, however.<br /> In your list are two of the great bargains of the Canon EOS EF lineup- the 50mm f/1.8 and the 28mm f/2.8. You can get both of them for just about the same as one EF 50mm f/1.4. Used are cheaper.</p> <p>Then you will have a nice prime normal lens (the 28mm) and a nice 'portrait' short telephoto prime - and f/1.8 is not much slower than f/1.4 (however, the 'bokeh' is not so fine,)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
link Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 35mm 2.0 is a fine lens. Sharp, simple, reliable. I use mine on full frame, but should be swell on a crop frame as a normal lens. Noisy focus? Nah...don't worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcstep Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 <p>We used to put 50mm lenses on 35mm film cameras and shoot Kodachrome 25 or 64. That was to achieve a "normal" in-camera view, similar to the eyes' perspective. Digital crop-sensor users need to realize that the tide has risen and if they want to buy a lens that more closely emulates what their eye sees, then go with something around a 35mm.</p> <p>17mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm 100mm, 500mm, etc., etc. lenses all have their purposes, but a 50mm lens is NOT a "normal" lens on a crop-sensor camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 9, 2012 Share Posted January 9, 2012 Without knowing what you like to shoot, what distances, etc, it's impossible to make a good recommendation. When I shoot with a full frame dSLR (which has been awhile), for *me*, and for what/how I like to shoot, it's a 35mm. For you? No way of knowing without more information. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now