Small but sharp wide angle for a FF camera

[shadowcatcher]

<p>Just a quickie, I'd like a sharp and small / light wide-angle lens for my 5D MK I that I can fit in my work bag and can carry with me always. I have a 24-105mm IS L, a 14mm Sigma Prime and a 17-40mm L but they are all too heavy. I am not particularly bothered what make to be honest as I have a 5D MK II to use with my L series lenses, I just want a small / sharp wide angle I can carry with me everywhere and between the focal ranges 14-35mm). And preferably cheaper so my wife doesn't divorce me.</p>

<p>Many thanks,</p>

<p>Kev</p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>I seem to be one of the few that really likes the 28 1.8. I use it all the time on my 5D2 and its a great little lens. </p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>A few days ago, Cosina announced the availability of the 20mm f/3.5 FF manual focus lens in a Canon EF mount:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102005cosina20mm40mmefmount.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102005cosina20mm40mmefmount.asp</a></p>

<p>The Nikon version of the lens retails for $550:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/617109-REG/Voigtlander_BA295AN_Color_Skopar_20mm_f_3_5.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/617109-REG/Voigtlander_BA295AN_Color_Skopar_20mm_f_3_5.html</a></p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>And dude, you're a doctor. How have you not figured out how to a.) write your equipment off on your practice; and b.) convince your wife that your ability to practice medicine hinges on your photographic equipment?</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Among cheaper (<$350) choices are the Canon 35/2, 28/2.8 and 24/2.8. All are pretty decent lenses. I use the 24/2.8 quite a bit.<br>

Your cheapest choice would be an old manual focus Pentax M42 lens with an adapter. That would cost under $100 and there are lots and lots to pick from (on eBay).</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>I love this site, so many knowledgeable people and I hadn't thought of any of those lens. Many thanks. I am wondering which of the lens mentioned above are sharper wide open and/or have the better bokeh?</p>

<p>Eric, you crack me up, unfortunately I am a lecturer at UCL so poorly paid and poorly treated! I asked photo.net to take the Dr bit off but they can't unfortunately.</p>

[jim_a]

<p>Kev, if the 35mm FOV fits your eye get the 35/2.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Kevin - if you'd like a doctorectomy, I can easily remove the Dr. from your name. As an admin it's just a couple of mouse clicks for me to do it.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>Going way back with film cameras, I've owned numerous 20, 24, 28, and 35 primes. My preferencce always comes back to 24mm as being the ideal wide angle. I've used the Canon 24 2.8 with an EOS-3. Unfortunately (for landscape) I am currently using a crop body. I say that because my Canon 17-40 which I really like is just not quite wide enough on a 1.6 crop body. I don't find the 17-40 to be a heavy lens at all.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>If you can find one the Tokina 17mm f/3.5 is a superb lens on a full frame. The Canon 20mm f/2.8 is also a very good lens, not as good as the Tokina in my opinion and others, http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=233&sort=7&cat=41&page=1 The Tokina fits the small to a T.</p>

[aubreyp]

<p>Hi Kevin,</p>

<p>I recommend the Canon 35 f2, the Canon 28 f1.8 and the Nikkor 28 f2.8 AI-S (you will need adapter). Of the three the Nikkor is my favorite. It's small, but actually kind of heavy due to the great build quality. The 35 f2 is pretty great and v. light.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Kevin, I have the 35/1.4 L, the 24/2.8, and the 20/2.8 in EF wide primes. The 35/1.4 has the best IQ and build quality of the three; the 24/2.8 has the worst build quality but very good IQ, and is the lightest and most compact; and the 20/2.8 has excellent built quality but the worst IQ. Having said all of this, which lens I think you should get depends on your preferred focal length. Also, as Tommy has said, you should also consider the 28/1.8, as well as the 35/2 (as a much cheaper alternative to the 35/1.4).</p>

[shadowcatcher]

I've been looking at pixel-peeper to see which lens I'd like. The 35mm f2 looks sharpest with nice bokeh but the 24 mm

looks just perfect width wise. I am also being swayed by the Tokina 17mm though ahhhhhh! My friend has a 35 f1.4 and

that is so sharp it's untrue but that would be divorce time.

 

Bob what's you view on sharpness and bokeh of the mentioned lenses? If you could be so kind to remove my silly prefix I

would be eternally grateful Sir.

 

Many thanks,

 

Kev

[eric friedemann]

<p>Kevin, if I had a real doctorate of any kind, not just my Juris Doctor (American law degree), I'd not only tack it to my name on p.net, I'd have it on my license plates.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I have the 24 f2.8 and recommend it. Sharpness at all apertures is very satisfactory (although not up to 35mm L or 50mm standards at equivalent apertures). It's Achilles' heel is its distortion, but this is not uncommon in a lens like this and at this price. It's a good price and is compact and light with a good bayonet hood (helps when changing lenses).</p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>How do you feel about manual focus and manual diaphragm? An OM Zuiko 21/3.5 is very, very small and a nice wide angle lens. Adapters for OM to EOS cost about $20.</p>

[mark_poseley]

<p>Eric:</p>

<p>You do know that PhD stands for Piled Higher and Deeper, right?</p>

<p>;)</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>Or Professional Hair Dresser! </p>

<p>I don't mind size or manual focus, it's weight really and sharpness with preferably nice bokeh but that's not a necessity. </p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>This is one of Canon's real weak points now. They make wonderful bodies but so-so wide angles. They are working on fixing this, guessing from the 24mm MKII.</p>

<p>My smallish wide angle for FF (film) is an old Sigma 21-35 3.5-4.2 and a Contax 35mm f2.8. I use both on Contax bodies, but the 35mm does sometimes wind up on my T1i. The Sigma gets a little smeary in the corners wide open but is very sharp otherwise. If you don't mind manual focus and an adapter an old Contax 35mm 2.8 is small, costs very little, and is extremely sharp. The Contax 28mm 2.8 is also extremely good and not so pricey.</p>

<p> </p>

[chrise_boris]

<p>The Sigma 24mm superwide is a superb lens for a low price, but does it work on digital? I use it on a film EOS.</p>

<p>Chris</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>I thought the Sigma 24mm f1.8 doesn't fit full frame cameras?</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>I have gone for the 35mm f2 and it is SUPERB. What a bargain.<br>

Many thanks for all your help,</p>

<p>Kev </p>

[shadowcatcher]

I also bought a Sigma 24mm f1.8. I am very disappointed with it, too slow to focus, hopeless in low light, autofocus always

gets it wrong even outdoors. Shame I always rated Sigma.