Which? Fastest, most compact canon lens for 1D MKII

[tommy_baker]

My 24-70 is a bl**dy huge b*tch. I want a compact fast lens. And it looks like

thats the primes. The 50/1.4 and the 35/2.0 look the fastest/smallest and most

compact. which would you recommend. Just wondered whether the 35/2.0 is

good enough for the sensor. I notice the 50/1.4 isnt L glass but must be good

enough. Heard the 50/1.8 is much better value but slower focussing and not

optically as good. the 35/1.4 is too big.

 

Is there like no pancake lens made by Canon?

 

Also the 50/1.4 would effectively be a 65/1.4 with the crop/mag factor, but

concerned the 35/2.0 is too slow as it doesnt have USM (is this a big deal?),

and would be 45/2.0 equivalent.

 

Actually the 28/1.8 USM or 24/2.8 may be contenders as they are closer to the

30/35mm focal length. and the 28/2.8 is as compact as the 35/2.0 any

experiences with these lenses..

[Greg M]

The 50/1.4 is not a "true" USM either. It has a micro USM motor with some unique gearing to allow for full time focusing, so the 50/1.8 will not be that much slower, if at all, than the 50/1.4. For the price they sell for, I don't find the 50/1.4 to be worth it for the use I would get out of it.

 

The 35/2 should be fast enough as far as focusing speed goes. I want, and eventually plan to get a 28/1.8 but it's a little bit bigger than the 35/2- they're all tiny though compared to your 24-70!

[jon_austin]

"My 24-70 is a bl**dy huge b*tch."

 

And heavy. Which are precisely the reasons why I haven't bought one. It's really a shame that Canon hasn't produced an f/4L zoom in this range.

 

I only have one non-USM lens, the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. It's probably a little slower than USM, although I really don't notice it, and it's not silent, but the whirring noise it makes while focusing doesn't bother me in the least.

 

The lack of USM wouldn't impact my purchase decision substantially for any prime lens.

[jim_larson1]

35/2 is good. The 50's are all good.

 

But if you really want light. . ditch the 1D-II body!

 

And yeah. . sign me up for a 24-70/4L (Are you listening Canon?)

[grant g]

50/1.4 and 28/1.8 are great lenses when I'm thinking fast and compact.

 

About the 24-70/2.8L...I'd use it if it weighed another pound or two.

 

Jim, I doubt a 24-70/4L will ever be made when Canon already makes the 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM lens for about $310. f/4 is a consumer speed in that focal range. Heck, I'd rather they work on a f/2.0 version or the 2.8IS that I've been wanting. :)

[tommy_baker]

You'd use it if it weighed ANOTHER pound or two? -- you must be kidding. its

like an anchor already.

 

the 28/1.8 didn't get a great rating on mirandas site. issues with softness wide

open, vignetting, abberations..

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=22&sort=7&

cat=2&page=1

 

the 35/2.0 too slow? but compact

[joe_r1]

The 35/2 is an "OK" performer, and the 50/1.4 is great past f/2, but I wouldn't want a 65mm equivalent as my standard lens. The 24-70/2.8 outperforms the 28/1.8, 28/2.8, and 24/2.8 - it offers the convenience of a zoom, and an excellent focal length range of approximately 30-90mm. Hit the gym, people, it's not that big. Have you ever shot with a 70-200/2.8? THAT is a big lens.

[jon_austin]

"... I doubt a 24-70/4L will ever be made when Canon already makes the 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM lens for about $310. f/4 is a consumer speed in that focal range..."

 

There's considerably more distinction between the consumer-grade and low-end L zooms than just maximum aperture; build quality, sharpness, fixed length, etc. And the existence of the 24-85 doesn't obviate the market opportunity for an f/4L zoom in the same FL range. Consider the 17-40 f/4L between the 20-35 and the 16-35 f/2.8L, as well as the 70-200 f/4L between the 75-300's and the 70-200 f/2.8L's.

 

Besides, both Jim and I have stated numerous times in this forum that we'd each buy one if Canon produced it. Surely, guaranteed sales of at least 2 units is enough to induce Canon to invest in the R&D!

[steve santikarn]

keep the 24-70 L lens and trade the 1DMII for a 20D, you'll save on weight and have photos just as good as you'd get with the 1DMII and a "pancake" lens (if not better).

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have the 50/1.4. As others have noted, it has the smaller, less powerful, cheaper micro USM, and due to its optical design, that little motor has to move all seven elements, plus the diaphragm assembly, in and out to focus. So you will definitely notice that its AF speed is slower than that of your 24-70.</p>

 

<p>It's not terribly sharp wide open, but you don't have to stop it down much for it to improve; it's better at f/1.8, significantly better at f/2. I typically use it between f/2.8-f/8, and it's very, very sharp anywhere in that range. I'm not afraid to use it as wide as f/2 if I need the extra speed. Wider than that and I start to worry. And if I'm going to need a 50mm lens slower than f/8, I might as well just keep the 28-135 on the body and use that, or use the long end of the 17-40 if that's what's mounted.</p>

 

<p>As others have pointed out, given that you're already lugging a pretty substantial body around, there will be very little difference in size and weight between (say) the 1D II + 50/1.4 and the 1D II + something a bit bigger than the 50. Other than the ultrafast L wide lenses, any of the primes which fit in the 24-70 range ought to be small enough to be quite comfortable, and I think you should pick based on speed, optics, and focal length rather than simply trying to get the smallest of the lot.</p>

[pto189]

If I decide to keep only one lens, that will be Canon 24-70.

[digitmstr]

>>Besides, both Jim and I have stated numerous times in this forum that we'd each buy one if Canon produced it. Surely, guaranteed sales of at least 2 units is enough to induce Canon to invest in the R&D!<<

 

Let's add to that my guaranteed buying a 50mm f/1.2L USM and we can entice Canon with a sale of no less than THREE lenses made just for us!

[anna yu]

What about the Canon 50 macro? I get a little tired of the heavy 24-70L sometimes too but

it is the most useful lens I have.

[grant g]

"You'd use it if it weighed ANOTHER pound or two? -- you must be kidding. its like an anchor already."

 

Dead serious. I think it's totally worth it. And I do carry a 70-200IS too. I'd never take either hiking though.

 

I completly understand why a 110 pound person wouldn't want to heft one for very long, but I repeat that it's totally worth it. I even started using it for street photography and hold it for a couple hours on end. For a wedding, it's on my neck for 6 or more unless I have the 70-200.

 

Jon, I thought it was just Jim. But yeah, I see how they could make an f/4L that would be in the $600-800 range. I still doubt it as I patienly wait for my 18-55/2.8 EF-S.

[andrew robertson]

The most compact fast lens in the EF lineup is the 50mm f/1.8 II.

 

The fastest compact lens in the EF lineup is the 50mm f/1.4.

 

When shooting indoors, I often feel the need for a slightly wider lens than the 50 (on my

10D). I would have bought the 35mm f/2 AND the 50mm f/1.8 II if I were to do it over

today. I don't consider an f/2.8 lens to be a particularly fast lens unless it's also shorter

than 200mm.

[tommy_baker]

Canon 50/Macro sounds interesting. but too slow at f2.5, and long at 63mm vs

only 50ish mm for the 50/1.4. can you shoot normally with this macro lens ie

into infintiy as well. thought it might have been a specailty close-up lens only..

 

the 35/2.0 I have read reports has poor bokeh and not well-built

[jbq]

Really small: loreo lens-in-a-cap. Not many other lenses will let you hit f/64.

 

Seriously: 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are fine. 28/2.8 and 35/2 focus fast even without USM.

[beauh44]

<I>can you shoot normally with this macro lens ie into infintiy as well. thought it might have been a specailty close-up lens only</i><P>

 

It'll shoot to infinity just fine - in fact, it stops down to f/32 - I'm not sure if the other 50mm's do. I've used the 50mm Compact Macro for portraits and it does great. I'll see if I can find a pic. Good luck!<div></div>

[west_cork]

I have both 35/2.0 and 50/1.4 - they are both very good optically. The 35/2.0 is very under-rated by people who haven't owned it.

 

It's one of my favourite ever lenses, after the 135/2.0.

 

It's cheap enough that you wouldn't lose much if you resold it.

[tommy_baker]

Thanks for the responses..

 

35/2.0 have researched further, porb. the most compact lens, but reports that

the bokeh is not great, and thats the nail in the coffin for me. And deep down I

really want at least 1.4 speed.

 

The macro is a good suggestion, but just too long for me and slow. Nice pic

Beau. woof!

 

The 28/1.8 not great reports, and 28/2.8 too slow/so looks like the 50/1.4 is it.

Maybe be a bit limiting wide sometimes, but the speed and slight tele at

65mm could be a nice combination at 1.4... will see..

[pto189]

Canon 35 1.4

[yakim_peled1]

First and foremost, decide which focal length you want.

 

Second, all primes in that focal length range are much smaller and lighter than the 24-70/2.8 (f/1.4 ones excluded).

 

Third, I am a bit surprised that a guy with 1D Mk II complains about lens weight.

 

Forth, I have the 35/2 and while it's optically excellent, its poor AF performance drive me nuts every time I use it. If I had the money I'd get the 35/1.4 just to get better AF performance. When I go digital it will be the first one on my sale list.

 

HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.