Which 50mm FOV equivalent lens if you take the L's out of the equation

[goran1]

PREFACE

I've solved the ultra wide end question with the 10-20mm solution. The tele end

was also relatively easy to figure out. Now I cannot delay the most troublesome

lens choice question: what should I decided on as my 50mm 1.4 replacement on a

1.6 sensor.

 

I've read just about everything one can find on the internet in this regard.

I've looked at my pictures and reflected on my style of shooting. And I've also

tested the L grade zooms many choose over a prime as their walkaround solution.

 

THE ZOOMS

Although I really liked the 16-35L, I decided against it for two reasons: the

speed, which is just not high enough for low light conditions, and the EU price

tag of $2.000 that I'm not prepared to fork over. The 17/40L is out on account

of low speed. Now I don't appreciate zooms much and if any I would be picking

between the two mentioned above, but I decided against them.

 

THE IDEAL

Now I would buy a 35 1.4L in a heartbeat and I wouldn't never again login to a

web forum feeling like Special Agent Mulder seeking answers to unknown mysteries

in order to find his long lost sister. I'd sleep easy knowing I have the best

and would spread the gospel to anyone feeling the way I do now, that the 35L is

the only real way to go. BUT....it's out of my designated budget, especially

since I'm not a pro.

 

THE CHOISES

Now...after I removed the tempting goods from my list of choices, I ended up

with a selection of lenses that are all interesting, but somehow not designed

for the part I with to cast them for. These would be the canon 28 1.8 and the 35

2.0, although I think f2 would be too slow for evening walks around town and

indoor gatherings without a flash, hence bye bye to the 28 and 24 2.8.

 

I've read a lot of comparissons between the 28 1.8 and the 35 f2 and it appears

there are great fan bases for both. My impression was, especially after

reviewing images on pbase and flickr that the 35 f2 is a touch more popular and

higher regarded in terms of optical quality. But then again, I couldn't find a

clear verdict, every test you read swings the vote in favour of one or the

other. The same can be said about user reviews.

 

If choosing between the two, I have more confidence in the 35 f2, but would miss

the extra stop. However here's my most troubling dilemma; none of the two were

designed for being a 50mm FOV 1.4 lens on a 1.6 crop dslr. I wont go into that,

but like with everything, the intended use is always reflected in the output of

a design process.

 

THE DILEMMA

AND then came along the lens that was designed just for this purpose. The sigma

30mm 1.4. Yes, it's an ef-S mount, but so is my camera. It's a touch cheaper

then the 28 1.8 and has that extra stop that I find extremely handy (one of the

key reasons I find the 35L so alluring). It has a better focusing system then

the 35 f2 and is probably on par with the USM on the 28 canon. There are many

reports of great optical output and examples thereof on the aforementioned photo

sharing websites.

 

THE DOWNSIDE - quality control issues with Sigma, but I suppose testing a few

copies at the store and having the option of returning it if it should make

weird noises or front-focusing issues is reassuring enough.

 

THE QUESTION that it all comes down to is weather it's as sharp, contrasty and

does it have the natural color reproduction of the canon 50mm 1.4. I don't need

a lens with superior qualities that my 50 1.4 and if the Sigma 30 would be on

par, I would sleep real easy and spend my days taking shots and not searching

for the truth on the internet.

 

 

THE ANSWERS - how bout we put it to a vote?

 

 

I don't blame your for clicking the back button half way through this post:)

[mars c]

I cant solve your problem for you,

 

But I'll get the Canon 28mm 1.8, because of FF compatibility and Canon reliabilty on products and services.

[jcolwell]

If you're considering 28 and 35mm focal lengths, and you want an AF solution, then you should also consider the 24-70L; it's expensive, but it covers a lot of useful focal lenghts and provides excellent results. The 35L may be the best 35mm AF lens, but there are some better 35's in the alternative world of manual focus lenses. This is especially true of 28mm focal length, where the Contax Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2.8 provides probably the best image quality available (period) for about $300. I use the 17-40L and 24-70L for most of my wide to normal shooting either handheld or with a monopod for lower light. When I set up the tripod, then I reach for the Zeiss 28/2.8 or 35/2.8.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> I had both 35/2 and 28/1.8 USM and if I'll have to buy one of them again I'd choose the later without hesitation. See my comment on <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00G9o7&tag=">this post</a>. </p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>

[rainer_t]

I tried quite a few copies of the Sigma 30/1.4 on my 300D. Not one would focus properly. (While my other lenses focus ok on my 300D). Nevertheless, the tested lenses would focus ok on other cameras in the store.

 

I had already given up on this lens, and have settled for a EF 28/1.8 USM, which I prefer over the EF35/2 for faster and more reliable focussing in low light.

 

Now, I got a friends Sigma 30/1.4 for some days. The first of them to focus ok. I'm seriously considering swapping my EF28/1.8 for it.

The Sigma (given your copy focusses ok on your camerabody, that is) is a very fine lens within its limits. Very sharp center even wide open, poor borders wide open getting better when stopped down but never getting really good.

 

If you decide for the Sigma, test it on YOUR camerabody. Check if focussing on near objects is reliably, and test if focussing on infinity is ok.

 

Rainer

[drew_para]

From what I have heard the 28 f1.8 has 2 weaknesses CA and flare. The 35 f2 doesn't have USM and has a 5 bladed aperture, so out of focus highlights would look like pentagons. (wide open the highlights are round, they go 5 sided as you stop it down ~ >2.8)<br>

<br>

I think the 28 would match up better with your 50 f1.4, if only from the perspective hardware. The 35 f2 is relatively cheap, so perhaps you can save up for the 35L...<br>

<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx<br>

<br>Good Luck...

[taner]

I remember typing up at least two posts like this (although not quite this long...) myself.

 

There is nothing like the 35mm/1.4L - A pro-camera gear store (around the corner from my house) rents this lens, and I played around with it in the store. Just awesome. I am going to rent it for the holidays...

 

When I finally buy this lens, it will serve me as my fast lens, and when I go full-frame, I will have reached my street photography nirvana (I will be chasing the decisive moment like you know who...)

 

I actually am not a fan of the 50mm (full frame) perspective - as far as I am concerned it is a short-tele. My normal perspective is the 35mm, and a fast 35mm lens is the ultimate lens for street photography in my view. I actually had a set up like this with my manual focus Minolta system in my film days. The incredibly wonderful XD-11 body (that is as close as I will ever get to a Leicaish shooting experience), Kodak TMY pushed one-stop, and a fast 35mm/1.8 lens . What a pleasure that was...

 

As for the Sigma 30/1.4, I have decided to buy that lens for one reason: when I get a second full frame body, my XT will go to my partner, and she is used to using a fast 50mm lens (perspective) with no flash, and nothing else. So the Sigma will live on the XT until the day the XT dies...

 

So, no I do not have an answer for you other than this: save for the 35/1.4 if you do not intend to go full frame. Finding out about others' thought processes has helped me in the past, so now, you know mine.

 

Cheers.

[gdanmitchell]

<p>One thing to think about... the difference between f/1.8 and f/2 is only 1/3 of a stop.

While that <i>could</i> make a difference in a truly marginal situation, most of the time

they are pretty equivalent apertures. I'm not suggesting that the difference between f/1.8

and f/2 is completely inconsequential, but it does need to be considered in light of other,

possibly more significant differences, such as field of view, performance at differend

apertures, size and weight, build quality, and so forth.

 

<p>I don't own any of these lenses at this point. The only prime I use is the f0mm f/1.4

and my other lenses are L zooms. However, I also have spent some time considering the

characteristics of these various options since I do intend to get a couple wide primes at

some point. The reviews are confusing, though most speak positively about the 35mm f/2

lens. The reviews seem more mixed on the 28mm, but it certainly has its fans and I've

seen great photos made with it.

 

<p>All of that said, you do say that you "don't need a lens with the superious qualities" of

the 50mm. I have a hunch that most any of these lenses could meet that standard - so it

may be more about which has the operating characteristics and size/weight you are

looking for.

 

<p>Good luck,

 

<p>Dan

[goran1]

James C:

The 24-70 is very interesting, but it's also HUGE, at least in comparisson with the primes. I tugged one around on a weekend trip and I at times I felt like the tourist attraction:)

 

Yakim, Drew:

The 28 1.8 sounds like a sure thing, thanks for confirming that. Although saving up for the 35L sounds like the big master plan.

 

A. Taner:

So the image quality of your Sigma 30 isn't anywhere near the 35L?

 

Rainer:

Why would you swap it exactly? Colors, speed?

 

Dan M:

The difference in stops is considerable if you compare 1.4 and 2.0. That's what I was doing and when working in low light conditions, I feel that when under 2.0, I can still use ISO 800 and hold the camera steady enough. BUT I'm willing to give up the 1.4 for 1.8 without sweating about it. But let's say the f stops beetween these lenses aren't the deal- maker or breaker.

 

I had a typo in the original post. I'd like a lens that can match the 50 1.4 in terms of speed, colors and sharpness. I'm not entierly satisfied the 28 1.8 does that. The Sigma sounds like it can, however I would like some peace of mind after the purchase that I do have a top of the line product in my hands, not something I need to test extensively in order to ascertain weather it works or not.

 

 

Maybe I should be asking if the potential rewards of experimenting with the Sigma are worth the risks?

And I suppose the second question should be: can you live with a 28 1.8 or the Sigma after being spoiled by the 35L? I rather buy it tomorrow then go on through months of mediocre satisfation with it's cheaper siblings.

 

Thanks for your replies. They are very helpful.

[rainer_t]

"Rainer: Why would you swap it exactly? Colors, speed?"

 

I would consider the swap (my EF28/1.8 for a Sigma 30/1.4) because

it suits my needs a little better. The Sigma's center sharpness at f/1.4 is the same (if not better) than the Canon at f/1.8. Along with that,

you gain 2/3 f-stop (which is good for low-light AF). Also, I don't loose quality at the borders (in the range I use the lenses ... f/1.4 - f/4). The border quality of both lenses isn't great in this range.

 

My main issue with the Sigma was poor AF, which is solved with the actual copy.

 

Rainer

[marknagel]

I had this problem until a few weeks ago. I solved it by buying a 5D and keeping my 20D as backup. Now my 16-35L is perfect wide angle, my 24-70L is a perfect for 95% of time, and my 50/1.4 is no longer too long for indoors. My tele's stay long on the 20D or I can crop on the 5d for the same effect. With the double rebate (also got the 85/1.8), and selling my 10-22EFs (redundant FL with 16-35L on 5D)it brought the 5D down to $1500 net cost.

 

Mark

[dogbert]

The Canon 28 1.8 USM has it all over the 35 f2.0 in terms of build quality. The 35 f2.0 has a slight edge of the 28 f1.8 in terms of optical quality. (I have used both, but settled on the 35 f2.0 because the focal length suited me more.)

 

What are you planning to shoot? I ask this because if it is people shots the soft corners of the 28 f1.8 may not be much of a concern and the USM would be a definite plus. On the other hand for landscape and travel, the size and edge to edge quality and contrast of the 35 could make it a good choice.

 

It is also worth trying out both for yourself. The focal lengthh difference is not insignificant, at least it was the deciding factor for me. BTW the difference between f1.8 and f2.0 (and f1.8 and f1.4) is only half a stop, not a full stop as you seem to imply.

[yakim_peled1]

I just wanted to point out the obvious: When you're on a budget, no lens is perfect. You must look closely on the particular pros and cons of each lens to see which "package" of traits fits you - and your needs - best.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[rainer_t]

"BTW the difference between f1.8 and f2.0 (and f1.8 and f1.4) is only half a stop"

 

Actually, from f/1.4 to f/1.8 its 2/3 f-stop, and from f/1.8 to f/2 its 1/3 f-stop.

 

Rainer

[goran1]

"What are you planning to shoot? I ask this because if it is people shots the soft corners of the 28 f1.8 may not be much of a concern and the USM would be a definite plus. On the other hand for landscape and travel, the size and edge to edge quality and contrast of the 35 could make it a good choice."

 

I wish to use it as a general walkaround lens, one that'll be most on my camera. I have the 50 for people shots, so I suppose it's street photography, low light indoor events and such.

 

Shouldn't the sharpness of the 28 1.8 match the 35 2.0 when stopped down a bit?

 

The math regarding the difference in F stops is relative. For me there is a difference between 1.4 and 2.0. It's the difference between a blurry mess and a more or less ok shot in low light:)

 

...I'm guessing that the colors and contrast of the 28 1.8 should be more or less similar to that on the 50 1.4. I wonder how similar the Sigma 30 is in this regard.

[William Michael]

PREFACE: I do a lot of Available Light, have a 20D. 50mm F1.4 and 85mm F1.8

 

I want value for money hence the two non L lenses: I think they are both good value for money, especially the 85mm compared to its 85mmL brother.

 

SIMILARITY: I have the same lens question at the mid wide end and have considered every Canon lens available: including zooms.

 

MY ANSWER: I am saving for the 24mm F1.4L and I don`t care that some pixel peepers have found it not as crisp as the 35mm F1.4L.

 

MY 2nd OPTION: 28mm F1.8.

 

REASONS TECHNICAL FOR 2nd OPTION: 35mm mostly is too narrow for candid low light street work. 28mm has a better focusing mechanism than the 35 F2.0. The extra third stop is useful. 35mm F2.0 has poorer Out of Focus Background due to 5 Blades.

 

REASONS SUBJECTIVE: 28mm `feels` better and more robust in my hands and looks better through the 1.6x viewfinder than the 35mm F2.0

 

Regards WW