Wide angle zoom or Wide Angle primes ?

[gilou]

Hi all,

 

At this time I 've an old EOS5 with the following different lenses :

- 19-35 f:3.5-4.5 Tamron

- 50 f:1.4 Canon (I love it)

- ....

 

In fact I would like to replace the existing 19-35 by something else.

 

First I wanted to go with two Canon primes :

- 24mm f:2.8

- 35mm f:2.0

In that cases the color rendition and resolution as well as

distortion looks to be very good.

 

My second option would be to buy a zoom :

- 17-40 f:4.0

 

Of course a zoom is much more versatile than primes, but image

quality is not as good.

 

1. What would you recommend to me ? knowing that in a near future (1

year), I will certainly change my analog camera into a Digital one.

I prefer to mention this point because I don't know if there is an

issue in changing many times lens on a DSLR (Dusts on the sensor).

2. What about the real difference in term of image quality between a

Zoom and a primes (in this specific case)?

 

thanks in advance for your feedback. Brgds -Gilles

[michael_peters1]

If you are going to be going digital then definitely get the primes - unless you are going to spend $$$ on digital, you will have a crop factor - making the 24/2.8 and 35/2 much closer to normal lenses, in which case you want the speed of primes - and may in fact want a sigma 12-24 zoom to cover your wide angle needs.

 

That's my opinion anyway.

[david_lau3]

I personally use 24/f2.8 and 35/f2 on my film body. Since you will go digital soon I would suggest you go for the 17-40/f4 instead. It still gives you a 28-64mm zoom on 300D. (I hope the cropping factor will be less for future Canon consumer DSLR) The 2 primes are much less useful on the 300D.

 

The quality of this lens is excellent, definitely very close to the primes. The only drawback is the speed. Whether it matters depends on what you are shooting.

[psoriano]

Certainly, 24 mm f/2.8 and 35 mm f/2 are optically better than 17-40 f/4

 

The problem with digital is that 24 mm is not wide enough (38 mm equivalent), and that I

doubt 20 mm f/2.8 will be better than 17-40 f/4.

 

So, with only good Canon primes you can't go as wide as 17-40 f/4 does. As low cost

alternatives we have the Tokina 17 mm and other zooms as Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4

[johannes_minkus]

Before you spend lots of money, check if its worth to replace the 19-35mm. Take a picture with your old lens and then with the new one. Compare the pictures. See any difference? Is THAT difference really worth hundreds of dollars?

 

In my experience lots of money is spend on expensive lenses - which are used for very average pictures.

 

Johannes

[gilou]

In fact, before having the 50mm f/1.4 I had a 28-70 EX f/2.8 Sigma.

By changing from the zoom to the prime, the differences were so obvious that I decided to change the wide angle zoom.

On top of that the 28-70 I had was considered as pretty good, but that is not the case for the 19-35.

By changing this lens, I hope that the change will become as obvious as the change from 28-70 to the 50f/1.4.

 

Brgds -Gilles

[panos_voudouris]

Check out the Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di. I bought one and at f/4 or below I couldn't see any real difference with my 28mm f/2.8. Of course, that is all subjective and in my very unscientific tests (i.e. overall feel after 4-5 rolls of film). My 28mm f/2.8 is now on some happy ebayer's hands.

 

All the reviews I read say that it is close to the 17-40L in performance, it is lighter, smaller, a bit faster and 40% cheaper. And you can still use it a standard zoom on your digital SLR.

 

BTW, any performance loss at the edges will disappear on a digital body like the 300D or 10D, unless you go for a 35mm sized sensor.

[michael_peters1]

"My 28mm f/2.8 is now on some happy ebayer's hands."

 

I wish more people would be dis-satisfied with the 28/1.8 USM.

Very rarely does that lens show up on eBay. I really don't want the 2.8 - the 1.8 supposedly isn't really optically better, but it's front element doesn't rotate (allowing a petal hood) and it has FTM. Petal hood is the primary reason I want it.

[jim_larson1]

A few thoughts:

 

one => I shoot wide primes. I do not have dust problems. A little thought (ie, don't change lenses in dust storm, take a little care when changing) goes a long way. Generally, I swap between two lenses. Not all that daunting once you realize the lens that is not on the camera should reside in your pocket (assuming you don't have a hood on it)

 

two=> The "L" zooms are pretty good. Close to prime quality. BUT the fair comparison of the primes is to the $1300 16-35/2.8. The F4L is a full stop slower.

 

Three => My experience is that F2.8 is not as critical on a dSLR, since ISO can be readily changed. So F4 is more viable. (that says go zoom).

 

Four => My experience is that primes are more forgiving on a dSLR, since it is very easy to crop digital images, far easier than cropping film (duh). (that says go prime)

[yakim_peled1]

I had the exact same dilemma last year and ended up with these primes. Optically, they are head and heals above my previous 17-35/2.8 L. However, I fear that for a DSLR they would just not be wide enough. That is why I suggest that you go with the zoom, though more expensive, slower and possibly somewhat inferior in some areas. I suspect it will be less resistant to flare and have more distortion.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[whayne_padden]

I wish more people would be dis-satisfied with the 28/1.8 USM. Very rarely does that lens show up on eBay. I really don't want the 2.8 - the 1.8 supposedly isn't really optically better, but it's front element doesn't rotate (allowing a petal hood) and it has FTM. Petal hood is the primary reason I want it.

 

Well known that Sigma 20/24/28 f/1.8 are all superior to the Canon offerings. The Canon 28 f/1.8 does not seem to rate highly, whereas the Sigmas especially the 20 f/1.8 are highly praised.

 

I would get a 17-40 f/4L and one fast prime to compliment it. For me it will be either the Sigma 24 f/1.8 or Canon 35 f/2. The zoom is as good as a 24 f/2.8 from what I've seen.

[lumiere photo productions]

I have heard alot of people praise the sigma trio of 20/24/28, but I sugest you handle them first. I did and I could not see buying them because their build quality was very sub par. So bad that no matter how good they are I would not use them because of this. I went with the 20mm 2.8, the 24mm1.4L and the 35mm1.4L, the latter are expensive but I got a good deal on them used. I have used them on a 10d and my eos3, optically they are great plus they handle beautifully. I just purchased the 28mm1.8 used and I do not see why people put this lens down, I love It. Good canon lenses just give a look that I love. Sharpness, MTF graphs or shooting test patterns are not always key to the greatness of a lens. color rendition,contrast and handling also are also a factor.

 

bottom line get the canon 17-40 or 16-35 If you need the wider angle and Convenience of a zoom. But if you like primes then do not hesitate to get wide angle primes. 20/24/28/35 I have used them all including the non L versions of the 24/35 and they are very good lenses for both film and digital.

 

ps. do not be afraid of buying the 17mm tokina atx pro lens or the tamron 17-35 xr di lens. these are good alternatives.

[gavinbell]

I just went through a similar thought process, I've borrowed a 17-35 f2.8L from a

generous friend and have been enjoying using it quite a bit, but I found myself a lot

at 24mm on a film body, so looking at price purely I went for a second hand 24mm

f2.8. <br>

I'd keep the Tamron 19-35 and get a 24mm, it is a lovely lens and well rated see

fredmiranda and comments on photo.net. <br>

If you want contrast and colour now, the the 24mm prime will give you wide angle

look which is easier to use than 17, 19 or 20, and you already have the wide

zoom.<br>

Next year when you get a digital body the 10D might be a 10Dii and have a 1.3 crop

factor, which will make these decisions a lot easier.<br>

Only you know how wide you need, look at which focal length you are on the tamron

each time you shoot, if you are constantly at 19 then consider the 17-40. The 24mm

has a real benefit of being light and cheap and only 58mm in filter size.<br>

Hopefully this is of some use...<br>

Gavin

[citizensmith]

I've a variety of lenses including an ultrawide for my RebelD. However the lens that most frequently finds itself stuck to the front of the camera is my canon 24 f/2.8. It's just such an easy lens to use and I find the focal length (effectively 38ish) to be great for walkaround.

 

I do of course use other lenses (I normally carry the 24 and a 100 f/2) and have never noted a problem with frequent changes causing dust issues.

[chris_carroll]

Gilles, if I were replacing a 19-35 zoom with one prime, it would

be the 24/2.8.

 

Wayne, regarding the 28/1.8, I once felt like you but found the

lens to be better on paper than in reality (and it actually isn't that

good on paper.) Wide-open sharpness was really an issue, and

I am not an obsessive resolution tester by any means. With my

EOS 5, I sometimes questioned whether I was AF'ing accurately,

not something I ever had to worry about before. Part of the

problem, I think, was the decreased DOF compared to what I've

long been used to from a 28. But part of it was that the lens was

just somewhat soft. I sold mine, although not on Ebay.

[chris_carroll]

Sorry bout the Wayne, Whayne.

[lee_shively]

Both the primes you mention are excellent. I use them both. I also have the 20-35/3.5-4.5 and it's pretty damn good. I don't know squat about the 17-40 but I'm sure it's a good lens. Why not get the zoom and the primes as well? It's okay to have some duplication in focal lengths and there are times when convenience will outweigh optical quality.

[rodolfo_negrete]

if you can afford the 24mm 1.4 would be great and the 35mm 1.4 otherways get the 35mm 2Fstop and the 28mm 1.8