Who Made the 'Normal' Lens Choice so Difficult on a 1.6x Body?

[adam_tomaszewski]

This has to be one of the most painful things I've ever experienced.

And this has to be one of the most discussed things I've ever seen!

 

Ready for the novel of my background? Here goes!

I took the advice of this forum some months ago and worked with my kit lens: a 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens. I shot,

then I shot, then I shot and I shot some more. I racked up nearly 3,000 photos of anything that was considered to be

matter with my kit lens. I now know what I do most and looking at the history of P&S photos I have, it created a

pattern.

 

My shots are mainly between 28mm and 40mm. A distant second, 105mm to 120mm.

My f/ is almost always close to wide open. (f/3.5 to f/4.5ish on the kit lens)

 

My subjects are primarily still:

---> Buildings, rocks, tree's, flowers, and landscapes.

---> Followed by portraits. Followed by ... everything else

 

I print:

---> Generally with the 2:3 ratio sizes up to A4

---> With exceptional prints I plan on blowing up as large as I can (Maybe 24x36! Huzzah for RAW!)

 

 

I am looking at the prime's now to start a decent lens collection. I will one-day have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM for

anything over 70mm but that's not a priority.

I wouldn't need the 85mm L glass that's popular for portraits. And I don't really want to use the 50mm f/x because I

think it'd be too long for my taste.

 

I was hoping to go 'normal' lens. Between the 28/2.8 28/1.8 35/2 35/1.4L by Canon and the Sigma 30/1.4 ... my

head hurts. I think I have a turmor.

 

Everyone says everything about each one and I'm at a loss. I don't know if I'm looking for advice or consolation. Why

is this such a hard choice?! Is anyone else out there that fees the same? Do the reviews make you ill? Am I the only

one who spends time trying to determine the right lens.

 

And before you say it ... I've been to the store and tested each one for a few shots. I just don't have the capital to

blow each shot up to 24x36 and see which is best. *sigh* Thank you for letting me vent and any replies this post

receives. I will be watching if anyone has anything to tell me! I apologize in advance for my spelling errors.

[Hector Javkin]

<i>This has to be one of the most painful things I've ever experienced.</i><p>

 

Then you need advice not from photographers, but from family, friends who don't take photographs, etc., anyone

who can put your difficulty in making a lens choice into a broader perspective. Photography is not that important.

[bobatkins]

The truth is it doesn't really matter. Most of the primes in the 28-35mm range are pretty good. It's not a focal length range which requires extreme designs and the differece between a 28 and 35mm lens is a couple of steps forward or back for most subjects.

 

It probably comes down to cost. Both the 28/2.8 and 35/2 are good lenses. If you want something faster, just decide how much you can afford and go for it. Edge quality and vignetting isn't going to be much of an issue for most of these lenses as they are designed for full frame use, so used on a crop sensor they should be pretty sharp and uniform all the way out to the edge.

[adam_tomaszewski]

Hector --> I agree. This lens hunt has sucked some fun out of it! It's just hard. I feel crappy when making a mistake and don't wanna get the 'wrong' lens. But then again, when is a lens perfect for everything and everyone! =) I think I shall ask some family.

 

Bob --> Good to see you chime in. Always the voice of experience! =) I'm happy to hear some positive words for the 28/2.8 and 35/2. Many reviews are not so friendly. I gathered the same in the store. The lenses are so bad, aren't lound when focusing, and are fairly inexpensive. Perhaps some more decent bargin's in Canon's line up!

[William Michael]

If the purchase is to be used exclusively on an APS-C body I think any of the four lenses will work quite well, in most circumstances with adequate light.

 

I often comment that I did not like the 28F1.8, and I did not buy it, but also I mention that I have a 5D and a 20D: the 28F1.8 is quite OK on my 20D, but I seriously do not like it at all on my 5D.

 

I have not used the 28F2.8 or the 35F2.

 

However, I would like to, pick up on: ``mainly between 28mm and 40mm . . . f/ is almost always close to wide open``.

 

If you are mainly working the kit lens wide open, at those FL for ``Buildings, rocks, trees, flowers, and landscapes`` then you must usually have reasonably low light, or you do not like moving above ISO100, very much.

 

If it is the low light which defines the large aperture choice, then I think either of the two faster lenses would be a far better choice for you.

 

IMO, the EF35F1.4L is one of the finest optics Canon makes: it can be used at F1.4.

 

That might, or might not be of use to you.

 

WW

[terry_smith2]

The 35/1.4 L becomes equal to a 56/1.4 L on your camera. This is right in line with the fast primes that were around at the start of the SLR era like tha Canon 58/1.2 and 55/1.2. The first was introduced on the Canonflex around...1962 and carried foward into the FL line. The second replaced it as the fast FL normal prime and was in turn carried foward into the FD line where it evolved over the years. Other companies had similar lenses back then. I believe that Konica had a 57/1.4 Hexanon in the 60's. Nikon had a 58/1.2. I don't think you could find a better lens than the 35/1.4 L to act as a normal fast prime on your camera. The few extra millimeters will give you a slightly different look to everyone using 28 or 30 mm lenses to do this.

[songtsen]

<p><i>"Between the 28/2.8 28/1.8 35/2 35/1.4L by Canon and the Sigma 30/1.4 ... Why is this such a hard choice?! Is

anyone else out there that fees the same? Do the reviews make you ill?"</i></p>

 

<p>The 35/2 gets some interesting reviews:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/147/cat/10">'A true "best buy" in the Canon

EF lens lineup!'</a> ...</p>

 

<p><a href=" ">'a very good lens at a reasonable price'</a> ...</p>

 

<p><a

href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/157-canon-ef-35mm-f2-test-report--review?start=1">'the peak performance

at <b>medium</b> apertures is highly impressive'</a> ...</p>

 

<p><a

href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx">'corner sharpness is

really bad (even on a 1.6x FOVCF body through f/5.6 or so)'</a> ... </p>

 

<p>Are they all talking about the <b>same</b> lens?!</p>

[davidlong]

If you don't want to print 24x36's, crop out appropriate sections and print 4x6's of those.

[songtsen]

<p>Fixed the link:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=11">'a very good lens at a reasonable price'</a></p>

[ben_cops]

Sounds like an easy choice to me - 35mm for the focal length and the 1.4 L if you can run to it, otherwise the f2.

[tdigi]

The more I visit this site the more I realize that the "which lens" post will usually leave you more confused. Not because

the input is incorrect but usually because there is almost always more then just 1 correct choice.

 

Its most always a trade off in some way ( versatile but bigger zoom or higher quality smaller prime, price, size, build, , IQ

etc. ) Most any of the selections you have listed can do well in getting you a good photo, its up to you to decide which

factors are more important to you.

[sheygetz]

Adam, I do wonder why do you want >to start a decent lens collection<? I sometimes get the feeling that for quite a few people here - and elsewhere of course - half the fun is in the "collecting", the gear thing. Where is the photographic need to have that "collection" and do the shlepping that goes with it?

 

Now, take the 28/1.8 which is about 400USD I assume. Contrast this with the Tamrom 17-50/2.8 for about the same money. If you look at these two on slrgear.com you will find, that however far you stop down the 28mm it ain't ever going to be as sharp as that awful, 3rd party zoom. Distortion is slightly better on the prime, CAs on the zoom - the prime provides you with over a stop more brightness in the viewfinder, on the other hand you don't have to change lenses - duh, that was obvious - with the Tamrom. All, remember, for the same price. Just to add a different point of view.

 

Hendrik

[tdigi]

Great point S.Hen. For the first 2 years of my dslr life I owned my little 300D with a Tamron 28-75 and a Canon 20 2.8

and I shot many photos and had a lot of fun with it. Then, this past year, I got caught up in "getting a collection" of

lenses for the perfect kit and I spent the last year researching and looking for the perfect lens. I got a great set up now

but I shot about half as many photos this past year because I spent so much time doing research and questioning my

choices going back and forth. I am not going back to shooting and having fun and not getting caught up in the perfect

lens ( that does not exist anyway )

 

I do notice the posts that get the most responses is the what lens, what body followed by my photos look soft or is this

lens a bad copy as if the camera makes us all great photographers. Kinda funny if you think about it.

[alan_myers]

Hi Adam,

 

I think it's great that you've waited and put the kit lens through its paces first, to get a better idea what you might want to use along with it.

 

You seem to be most interested in the wide end of things with that lens, and in portraits. Two different areas you might want to explore more.

 

I'd not recommend you get one of the "normals" necessarily, but I chose the 28/1.8 personally because I really like it's angle of view on 1.6X crop cameras like ours. It's close to the focal lengths I've used as a "normal" lenses on full frame film cameras in the past. For me, a 30mm might do, too... But just barely and I'd definitely not want a 35mm as a "normal" on 1.6X crop. I'd be more likely to go the other direction, 24mm. In fact I have the tilt-shift in that focal length, and the 20/2.8... But for walk-around shooting the speed of the 28/1.8 is a better overall choice for me.

 

Here's another thought. You might want to compliment the lens you have and explore the directions that seem to interest you most.

 

To do that, perhaps a wider zoom (there are few very wide primes for 1.6X) like the 10-22 or Tokina 12-24 would be of interest to you.

 

For portraiture, I'd suggest a 50/1.4, or a 50/1.8 if your budget is tight. This would give you an opportunity to explore using shallow depth of field with portraits, which you can't do a lot of with the lens you have now.

 

These are just some alternative ideas and examples of choices I might make. Of course, you might choose quite differently.

[bobatkins]

"Are they all talking about the same lens?!"

 

Well no, they're not. They're talking about different samples of the same model, which is not quite the same thing.

 

They're also 4 different people using four different techniques and evaluating the lens based on four different personal

viewpoints.

 

You basically have to figure out who to trust!

[digitmstr]

>>Who Made the 'Normal' Lens Choice so Difficult on a 1.6x Body?<<

 

People who worry too much...

[g dan mitchell]

Worry a lot less about "the best" lens, and a lot more about selecting a lens with the features you need from among the

many excellent options. I've actually seen people think about buying two totally different lenses (let's say a 70-200

versus a 16-35) on the basis of which is "best."

 

This is way off the track.

 

The first questions are: What focal length ranges do I need? What maximum apertures do I need? What are the relative

advantages of zooms and primes in these categories? What is my budget? How do I think that I'll develop a set of

complimentary lenses?

 

Another excellent idea with your crop sensor body - stop worrying about this and just get the excellent EFS 17-55mm

f/2.8 IS. Reports and tests show excellent image quality; f/2.8 plus IS should give you enough low light capability in

most situation; the focal length range is very versatile.

 

Dan

[adam_tomaszewski]

I didn't want to be one of those 'what lens' guys. I see them all the time and am like ... wow is it really so hard?!

Well ........ Heh. Either way, at least everyone has been kind through another what lens post and I appreciate that.

 

Songtsen --> The links you posted certainly aide in my illustration of different review, different opinion, from a few of

the countless sources and whether or not the lens will be right for me.

 

S. Hendrik/Tommy --> For sure an excellent point. After shooting with the kit lens I'm ready to ... collect some

lenses for a decent general purpose set up. Since I started thinking 'Gee, what lens now that I've done all this

shooting' the 'what lens?' question has kept me out of the field. I truly didn't think of this until you mentioned it.

 

Alan --> Thank you! do agree. I made a cruel prime for awhile and had secured my zoom ring at 35mm and 28mm

with some delicate surface painters tape. 35mm was a bit tight but if I could afford the nearly USD1,100 price tag I'd

go with it for all it's glory. I think simply for speed and price the 28 f/1.8 is tough to beat and I should probably go that

route.

 

Giampi --> And that indeed would be me! Heh. I've been worried about this way to much. My simple forum post with

some great people responding tends to slap me around a bit ... =)

 

My concern was picking a wrong lens that was too soft or maybe if I chose lens 'B' this edge would've been sharper

or the speed could've made the shot that I missed or whatever the case may be. From what I've been reading on the

photo.net pages (and countless other sites) and the reviews and the opinions all the 'normal' lenses on a cropped

body seem to do well. I agree ... it seems to be a choice of price, and speed. Something to think about, but not to

much. I'll take the advice and run with it as I did before! I'll be ordering it this payday and let ya know what I think of

whatever I get when it arrives. Thanks again everyone. Really do appreciate your time and thoughts!

[arie_vandervelden1]

IMHO...

 

There's not much point in f/2.8 primes in the 20-50 mm range when you have zooms like Canon 17-55/2.8 IS and Tamron 17-50/2.8. This eliminates the 28/2.8 and the 20/2.8 from consideration. By all means shoot these lenses if they're legacy lenses from your film system, but no point in getting one of these now, get a zoom if f/2.8 is sufficient for your needs.

 

The real reason to get a prime within the normal range is low-light performance and the ability to to have thin dof. Are you on a tight budget, want a tiny lens, and do you need only one more stop beyond f/2.8? If so, get Canon 28/1.8 or Canon 35/2. Pick one, can't go wrong. Either one will get you sharp A4 prints. Do you want two more stops and seriously thin dof? Get Sigma 30/1.4 or Canon 35/1.4. Shouldn't be too hard choosing between the latter two, it's going to depend on how deep your wallet is and whether you're looking to go full-frame in the future. Sigma 30/1.4 is a crop-factor lens. Most folks who have a Canon 35/1.4 will tell you that this lens is much more fun on a full-frame camera.

 

There. Not so difficult after all.

[richard_crowe4]

I seldom used the "normal" lens on full-frame film SLR's. I would normally use a 35mm and an 85mm (I always used

at least two cameras when I shot with primes). The 85mm is a great portrait lens and the 35mm is IMO a great

general purpose focal length. Since I almost never used a 50mm on a full frame camera, I have never felt the need for

a "normal" angle lens when I shoot with a 1.6x DSLR.

 

On the other hand, both my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and my 24-70mm f/2.8L lenses provide such good image quality that I

no longer feel the need to shoot with primes. Both of these lenses come very close to covering my two previously

favorite focal lengths which I used on full frame cameras.

 

The advantage of a zoom is the critical cropping of an image in the camera. I seldom have to do any additional

cropping when I shoot with a zoom lens.

[mendel_leisk]

One of my main motivations in going to 5D was to get past the normal lens on 1.6 crop issue. I ordered the Canon

50mm f1.4 at the same time, and it is a very popular lens on my camera. I got a Canon 35mm f2.0 for a 1.6 crop

body we have: it's close to 50mm equivalent, 31.25 would be exact conversion. It would be nice if Canon came out

with a compact 30mm (slightly wide likely preferable to slightly long), compact, fairly fast, up-to-date focus

mechanism and decent sharpness.

 

An updated version of the Canon 50mm f1.4 would be nice too. They put it on their flagship 1 series bodies in ads,

and it looks a little dated.

[carbon_dragon]

Thank your lucky stars. If you were on the Sony platform, your choices would be considerably more limited. The unavailable 35/2, the sky-high 35/1.4, or the Sigma.

[digitmstr]

>>My concern was picking a wrong lens that was too soft or maybe if I chose lens 'B' this edge would've been sharper or the speed could've made the shot that I missed or whatever the case may be. <<

 

Well, if you want a SHARP and FAST lens...you have to PAY :) There is no way around that one. For primes, everyone points to the 50mm f/1.8 and with reason: it is a great lens for the money. But, it's a bit long if you are looking for a MAX of 40mm. That brings you to the 35mm focal lenght, in which case it's once again all about how much you can spend: Canon EF 35mm f/2.0, EF 35mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (which I can't comment on). I know the Canon 35mm f/1.4L is a superb lens but, it's not cheap.

 

Likewise, if you are looking for FAST and SHARP zoom the story is the same... $$$$$ is the key :)

[frolickingbits]

My lens array consists of a 20mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 macro, and a 28-75 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8. a lot of those lenses stay in the case for the majority of the time. The 50mm f1.8 is a lens I think everybody should have-it's $75, fast, and pretty sharp. I will admit I don't use it very much, though. The 28-75 usually stays on one body, and the 70-200 on the other for a wedding. When shooting products, the 100, 50 and 35 get most of the work. It's really all about what you are shooting-if you're a walk-about type of photographer, a good wide zoom is going to suit you much better than a bunch of primes, and I would bet 98% of people would not be able to tell the difference between a 24x36 shot with the 17-50 f2.8, and the same shot with a 50mm f1.4<br>

I'm not one to spend too much time or energy reading all the reviews on each lens-they too often seem to be written by people that spend so much time obsessing over CA, barrel distortion, and miniscule quality differences that they don't spend any time taking photos.

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

35 1.4L One of the sharpest I have used. Rent each one for one week and then make your decision.