Which lenses are the "Magic" wide-normal Canon primes?

[james_slanger1]

<p>I'm researching a new fast prime lens purchase and want to make sure I'm not missing any hidden gems.<br>

I tend to shoot available light candids and lean towards the wide-normal lenses mostly wide open or stopped-down a few stops. Currently I've got the 10-22, 17-55 2.8, and 85 1.8, and while I love each of them I'm missing the fast shorter primes I used when shooting film.<br>

I'll be renting a 35 1.4 next week and most people agree it's one of those lenses that have a little magic to them. I'd like to hear what you feel are some of the other 'magic' lenses in the wide to normal range? For me the magic is in the color, contrast, and bokeh more than tack sharpness, but don't let my opinions limit you. <br>

Thanks.<br>

/jim</p>

[focuslightstudio]

<p>"<strong>most people agree it's one of those lenses that have a little magic to them</strong>"<br>

You said it. The 35L is one of the "magic" three primes with the others being the 85L and 135L. The only lens I can think of that fits your requirements and it's an awesome one.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'd say that you should look first at the "bargains" that Canon has left in their lineup as a gift for their faithful. Not all of these are perfect in things like bokeh, but they are capable of producing excellent results all the same. The cheapest are the "good" ones, mostly very affordable:</p>

<p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="384">

<p></p>

<col width="119"></col> <col width="96"></col> <col width="87"></col> <col width="82"></col>

<tbody>

<tr height="12">

<td width="119" height="12"><strong>APS-C lenses</strong></td>

<td width="96"><strong>good</strong></td>

<td width="87"><strong>better?</strong></td>

<td width="82"><strong>best?</strong></td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12">short telephoto (portrait)</td>

<td>50mm f/1.8</td>

<td>50mm f/1.4</td>

<td>50mm f/1.2</td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12">long normal</td>

<td>35mm f/2.0</td>

<td> </td>

<td>35mm f/1.4</td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12">"normal"</td>

<td>28mm f/2.8</td>

<td>28mm f/1.8</td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

<tr height="12">

<td height="12">long wide angle</td>

<td>20mm f/2.8</td>

<td> </td>

<td> </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

<br />

</table>

</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>The good photographers I respect may use some of the high end, fast lenses but I think the magic mostly happens 4" behind the lens between their ears. Use of light, 'seeing' and vision, perspective, timing and anticipation, processing and technique count for most of the magic. I appreciate the feeling that if I just buy this camera or that lens good things will happen. We're none of us immune to that. Equipment can get in the way, I know I have way too much. I remember one fantastic photographer, a Leica user and absolute equipment freak who had a Noctilux way back when. He told me you go there and you take the picture with whatever you have and you try to make the best images you possibly can. At times a fine new piece of equipment can get the creative juices flowing. Good luck!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>24MM f1.4 L MkII, the 35 is well overdue the upgrade.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I would consider moving to full frame where you can actually get fast wide lenses. A 5D 1 or 2 with a 35 and 85 would be a good available light kit.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em>"I'm researching </em><strong><em>a new fast prime lens</em></strong><em> purchase and want to make sure I'm not missing any hidden gems. I tend to shoot available light candids and lean towards the </em><strong><em>wide-normal"</em></strong><br>

<br>

There is only one lens which fits these criteria for your APS-C Digital camera:<br>

<em><strong>EF24F/1.4L MkII USM.</strong></em><br>

<strong><em>FYI: </em></strong><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=911913">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=911913</a><br>

WW<br>

<br>

(Hello Scott) </p>

 

[james_slanger1]

<p>Thanks for all of the responses so far. </p>

<p>I only moved to DSLR this summer shortly before a once in a lifetime trip through the sunny Mediterranean. My knowledge of the current glass was limited but the kit I ended up with worked well, thanks to the insight of people here. Here's the previous discussion for those interested: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00TbQK</p>

<p>Now that I'm back in not-so-sunny Chicago the magician 4" behind the camera is missing those few extra stops. I'm not getting the best pictures I know I can. I'm happy with the number of hand-held shots that turn out with the 85 1.8 but it's often too long indoors. The 17-55 is great but even with me improving my hand-holding technique and noise-reduction skills, I still feel 2.8 is too small for the pictures I want to take. </p>

<p>I think I should rent the 24L as well.</p>

<p>Tommy- you're probably right, which is something you suggested in my previous thread. The 50D and zooms were the right choice for this summer and it's hard to imagine trading up so soon.</p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>I would not trade up, the 17-55 is a fine lens and with the IS it negates some of the advantages of a faster prime. Turn your ISO up 1 then 2 stops and see what you get, it may be a bit noisier but are you able to get correct exposure? if not you may simply need to use flash. Flash is not a bad thing when used properly, its simply controlled light and sometimes you need light.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em>"I think I should rent the 24L as well"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

I think I should rent the 24L<strong><em>MkII</em></strong> as well.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[alan_green4]

<p>am very much looking forward to getting the 24 1.4 II -- hear it's good.<br>

also need/want the 35 1.4 (mark III?)</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I find the 35L much more "magic" on full frame than on 1.6 crop, though it's good on either.</p>

[kc_foo]

<p>I guess it depends on what type of shots you want.<br>

For portrait 50mm is the "magic" for me (1/2 body and head shots) on APS-C.</p>

 

[tim_klimowicz]

<p>Absolutely rent the 24 1.4L II as well. I recently rented one (twice) for an extended period and it was every bit as good as I was hoping it would be.</p>

<p>On the 7D it's roughly 38mm, which puts it quite close to the 35mm 1.4 on a FF body, and being that the 24mm 1.4 has always been quite magical itself, that's probably as close as we can get to the 35mm 1.4 on a cropped body.</p>

[james_slanger1]

<p>Well, both the 35 1.4 and the 24 1.4L II will be arriving soon for a week-long tryout. </p>

<p>The IS on the 17-55 works wonders in many situations, but it still bags me with active subjects. I try to keep the ISO at 600 or slower, so turning it up is an option, but I haven't been happy with the shadow noise of my 50D at 800 and above. I definitely have more to learn about digital post-production. </p>

<p>With the new advanced flashes I'm realizing that strobes can be an artistic tool and not a necessary evil. Still, there are those times when they are too disruptive, even when dialed way back.</p>

<p>The subtleties of my personal style - blurred background, highly selective depth-of-field, and large shadow regions - are subtlely better with a FF sensor, so I'll go that route eventually. The 50D is about the largest camera my fiance is comfortable with so we'd be keeping that body, and a 5Dmkii plus fast prime is too rich for us right now. </p>

<p>Thanks again for all your responses, I'm not in a huge rush right now and want to make sure all the options have been explored.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Renting is a good plan, please let me know how you like those 2 lenses as they are high on my list. </p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I wonder how the Nikon 35 f 1.8 DX is selling. If that is a money maker for Nikon, Canon may make something similar. If it is not selling well we are likely stuck with what is out there now.</p>

[pgranone]

<p>I am not sure the answer has to be only Canon L primes<br>

Canon EF 24mm F1.4 II<br>

Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX</p>

 

[james_slanger1]

<p>Paul - Isn't the 24mm F1.4 an L series lens? I'm not tied to L, or I guess even Canon, as the Sigma 30 1.4 has been on my radar since the beginning.</p>

<p>In addition to helping with this specific purchase, my motivation for posting was to learn about the classic, or magical as I've been calling them, lenses. Before Len's response, I never knew about the holy trinity of Canon primes.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"I am not sure the answer has to be only Canon L primes"</em></strong><br>

<br>

Paul, suggestions do not have to be limited to Canon L series, but if one takes the OP literally, as I wrote above, I believe that there is only one “answer” (in the Canon range) - the 24L MkII.<br>

<br>

The 28F/1.8 might scrape in as a contender but it is closer to normal, than wide.<br>

<br>

In the Sigma range there is the 20F/1.8 and the 24F/1.8 - I have not used these Sigma lenses.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[yog_sothoth]

<p>If you don't mind manual focus and stop-down metering there are a lot of options. For ultra sharp and reasonable price a Contax C/Y 35 2.8 or a Contax C/Y 28 2.8 are impressive. The Canon 24 1.4 II L tests as well as the Contax 28 2.8, is two stops faster, and has good AF, but it is also more than $1300 pricier. </p>

[andy_gt]

<p>Surprisingly, I would also recommend the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 I had never considered buying a Sigma Lens, but this particular lens has more magic than either the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 or EF 50mm F/1.2L and dare I say it would rank 3rd overall (in my opinion) behind the EF 135mm F/2L and EF85mm F/1.2L II.<br>

I was so impressed with the Sigma 50mm that I also purchased their 28mm F/1.8 and it blows away all of the cheaper Canon wide primes and has a bit of magic itself (along with the plus that it is a macro). </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Surely only on medium format is 50mm considered a wide-angle lens.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>yes.</p>