"Normal" prime for APS-C

[mark_brigham]

<p>Other options are out there if you can live with manual focus. Zeiss ZE lenses have electronic communication between the EOS and lens. I'm saving my allowance for one real soon. The ZE 35 f2 is about $400 less than Canon's 35 L f1.4--not as fast, but a fine lens. Having said that, the 35 L f1.4 is often described as part of Canon's 'holy trinity' of prime lenses (along with L versions of the 85 and 135). <br>

Take another step back in technology--no communication between body and lens--and some great Nikon F-mount lenses can be picked up used. With a fairly inexpensive adapter, these mount on EOS bodies. I've done this with good results, although focusing takes more care. Much lower cost than either ZE or Canon L lenses, though. </p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I have several Zeiss Contax/Yashica lenses and an adapter, and if you have time to use magnified live view they are amazing. The new Zeiss lenses are supposed to be at least as good. The problem is that manually focusing using the viewfinder is not very accurate. My Tamron 17-50 is good enough and has autofocus, so the Zeiss lenses generally stay on the film bodies. </p>

<p>My search for a small lens for my T1i ended in a G11. If I was going to spend a grand for a small lens I would get a micro 4/3rds camera with the Panasonic 20 1.7. </p>

[tdigi]

<p>Nothing is without it flaws and if you just read the reviews and focus on the weak points you may never purchase a lens.<br>

According to reviews<br>

The 24-105 has a lot of distortion at the wide end and not as sharp on the long end<br>

the 17-55 is not built well and is a dust vacuume.<br>

The 70-200 2.8 IS is the least sharp of this series, its big and heavy.<br>

As someone points out above of all the flaws of the 50 1.4 ( cheaper build, soft wide open, micro USM ) the 28 1.8 is a much better lens mechanically, has a better USM focus system. Its not perfect but I would not call it dreadful. I may one day upgrade to a 35 or 24 L but the 28 can do the job. I do agree about Canon needing some upgrades in the wide prime area, most of these are from 20 years ago or more. I would would love a new designed 35 1.8 Non L prime. What holds me back from a 24 or 35 L is as much the size as it is the price.</p>

[arthuryeo]

<blockquote>

<p>Another vote for nit picking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM- CA is completely dreadful, and like the Sigma, this lens shows really soft corners, even on an APS-C camera<br /> Canon 35mm f/2- Okay, now here's a cheap, sharp, fast, light lens. Too bad it's got a 5-blade uncurved diaphragm that produces pretty ugly out-of-focus backgrounds (bokeh).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if this is based on experience or hearsay?<br /> There's always the EF 35/1.4L for those who really want to nit pick and have a wallet that can support their habit - or is that another lemon?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Canon and Nikon forums in Photo.Net seem to be highly defensive these days. Any criticism of the brands seem to elicit a sarcastic and wise-ass response; to say the least, they are not at all friendly or helpful.</p>

<p>I have actually looked at the performance of the 24mm/1.4L and the 35mm/1.4L and they do not meet my requirements for wide-open applications. Center performance is respectable but once you position your subject away from the center, the resolution is not high enough. The MTF supports that experience as well.</p>

<p>Yes, I like to nit-pick; especially, when I am intending to spend $thousands. And, if I spend it and I find further dissatisfaction, I will nit-pick it to death --- it's my rights.</p>

<p>One more thing: if one is in a pissy mood, may I suggest not responding. The contents of your response tend to match things found in the toilet.</p>

<p> </p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>I have actually looked at the performance of the 24mm/1.4L and the 35mm/1.4L and they do not meet my requirements for wide-open applications.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just out of curiosity, what wide f1.4-2 lenses do meet your requirements?</p>

[alan_green4]

<p>arthur yeo</p>

<p>agree. totally. man i hate that kind of comment. and they always come from the same people</p>

[alan_green4]

<p>and yes. i'm aware of who bob atkins is. i don't think yeo is aware, but i am.</p>

[jon_erik_lido]

<p>Well, when I posted this message I didn't quite expect all of the passion in the responses I got. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but please, everyone, there's no need for personal attacks- we're just talking about camera lenses after all.<br>

At any rate, I'm glad I posted because gained some new perspectives. Here's some of what landed for me:</p>

<ul>

<li> Canon EF 35mm f/2 can be used wide-open when bokeh is important</li>

<li> Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM looks better as an option if I just clean up any CA in post</li>

<li> I can rent or buy (and later sell, if necessary) any of these options and see for myself. Low risk to try.</li>

</ul>

<p>For the record, I have a Rebel rather than some fancier body because I'm putting my money into glass. Apart from some metering issues, I have not regretted that decision. I realize that my lenses will probably stick around in my camera bag for a while, hence all of the scrutiny.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Just a thought, maybe Canon could come out with an EF-s prime "normal" lens, with a focal length of 31mm (50/1.6). Compact, medium quality (build and focus mechanism) and fairly fast, say at least f2.0. Would be nice ;)</p>