How does 35mm sound for one's widest angle lens?

[robert_thommes]

Is this a ridiculous thought? Does anyone use a 35mm lens with thier DSLR, and

that's their widest lens? I know. I know. It all depends what you shoot and

the kinds of photography that is your style.

I have a 28-105mm, but tend to use the long end. I also have a 50mm f1.8,

which happens to be my sharpest lens so far. I know that the 35mm f2 is a good

performer. I've just been cruising the pbase images of this lens,and I really

like what I see. The lens is affordable and appears to produce images of the

quality that would make me happy. But can I get by calling it my widest lens?

Having the 50mm, would I be better served with a 24mm or 28mm?

I really would appreciate your comments before I go any further with this.

Thanks so much.

 

Bob

[bueh]

Robert, if you don't need to shoot wide, it will be perfectly okay. I am a short-telephoto guy myself, and shoot most of my pictures with the normal or a short telephoto/portrait lens. However, having absolutely no wide angle might make you miss opportunities and makes some shots much more difficult (like group shots). So after I tried and didn't like the 24mm I got a nice 20mm f/2.8 prime. On my 20D that's still not that wide (equivalent of 32mm in 35mm format), but enough for me. Alternatively, you can always use your 18-55mm kit lens (if you have a EF-S-compatible camera) for those rare occasions when you want a wide angle perspective. I am under the impression that the 35mm f/2 is not that much different from the 50mm f/1.8, and I rather want to avoid getting tons of expensive lenses with too similar focal lengths.

[gdanmitchell]

The answer all depends on how you shoot - and on what camera you use; you didn't

specify that.

 

If your DSLR is a crop sensor camera, most people would likely find a 35mm lens to be not

wide enough. It is equivalent to about a 55mm lens on a 35mm or full frame camera, so it

is in the so-called "normal" range - not wide at all.

 

If you are the kind of photographer who would have been happy using a 55mm normal

lens back in the "olden days" of film SLRs, this lens should give you much the same

experience on a crop sensor body like the 20D/30D/XT/XTi, et al.

 

Dan

[m_barbu1]

Why can't you get both the 35 and a 24 or 28?

[robert_thommes]

Can't afford two lens.

[vinke]

i've got a virtually new 24/2.8 w/ OEM Hood for sale in classifieds here. it might suit you

well? it's a great lens, but i've no use for it any longer.

[bruce_stenman2]

With a 20D the two best choices for wide angle would be the 17-55mm f2.8 IS and the 10-22 f3.5 lenses. It just depends how wide you want to go.

For landscape and other fine art photography you would be better off with prime lenses that are 24mm or wider. Choices from Canon and Sigma.

[m_barbu1]

Not if he said he can only afford one of the inexpensive primes. ;-) Both of the zooms you mentioned are consierably more than any one of the primes mentioned.

[denisgermain]

Lock your 28-105mm at 35mm for a day - and walk around your favorite subjects and see if it's for you... you may not have the same dof... but the "angle" of view will be the same.

[oceanphysics]

Well you've already got the 28-105, so it wouldn't be your widest lens. I guess I don't understand the question. But anyway, on a crop camera I'd want something in the 17mm range at least. On such a camera a 35mm is really a (very) short telephoto.

[stephen sullivan]

To carry on with what O.P. mentioned... You said that you've got a 28~105mm lens. Maybe you didn't notice, but you're already covered in the 28mm, 35mm, 50mm to 105mm with your 28~105mm lens.

 

What you're missing is an EF 20mm & EF 24mm.

 

How wide of a lens do I use? EF 15mm Fisheye. It's fun on my EOS 1 and on my 20D, it's pretty cool as a 24mm equivalent.

 

Mostly, if I want a wide angle lens, I'll use my EF 28mm USM f/1.8 I'd love to own the EF 35L, but it's a little $$$. Besides, I have a strange feeling, that will be the next lens that Canon gives an update to.

[stephen sullivan]

Last Night.

 

20D w/ EF 28mm USM f/1.4 1/400th @ f/7.1<div></div>

[Spearhead]

If that's the widest lens you would use, then that should be the widest one you buy. There's no need to have a range of focal lengths, it doesn't make you any better of a photographer. I don't have a lens longer than 85mm, I work professionally and personally and have never bothered with a longer lens because it doesn't fit with my style.

[mwaks]

I don't use my 10-22 zoom too often on my 20D, but in comes in handy for any special project or idea that requires it.

[mars c]

do you mean the ef28mm 1.8? :)

 

"Last Night.

 

20D w/ EF 28mm USM f/1.4 1/400th @ f/7.1"

[yakim_peled1]

Well, it all depends what you shoot and the kinds of photography that is your style... :-)

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[roger.a]

The 35mm/2.0 is one of my favourite lenses. Equals a 50mm standard lens when used on a crop frame camera (e.g. 400D).

 

You could do a lot with the 35mm/2.0 and the 50/1.8 lenses. Makes a nice small lightweight kit. Like a modern version of a Leica rangefinder kit.

[William Michael]

Looking at the question another way: the 35mm F2 is not a very expensive lens, is it realistic to buy it, use it: and if worst case sell it six months later.

 

WW