Which wider lens for 5D

[scgalloways]

<p>I need some advice. I shoot mostly portraits (with backgrounds and in natural settings) but I also like to include some that are journalistic style as well. Example, I did a newborn shoot this past weekend and I took some shots of the family in their home going about their day with baby. I love primes and currently use a 50 f1.8 (metal mount) and a Canon 85mm f1.8. My question is to get a bit wider should I got with a 35mm or is that too close to the 50, which means i should consider something like a 24mm or 28mm? I can't swing an "L" right now but I've looked at 24mm f2.8 and f1.8, 24mm f2.8 and the 20mm f2.8 </p>

[craigd]

<p>35mm is definitely wider than 50mm, but 28mm or 24mm would probably be better. Unfortunately Canon's 28mm f/1.8 is a real dog, possibly the worst prime they produce. Color fringing around highlights is a big problem with this lens even when stopped down to f/8.</p>

<p>I haven't tried any of Canon's wide f/2.8 primes, so I can't comment on them.</p>

<p>If you like your 50mm f/1.8, you'd probably find the 35mm f/2 to be very similar in build and optical quality; I just think you'd probably be better off with something a bit wider.</p>

<p>The 17-40mm f/4L zoom is one of the least expensive L lenses (around $800); if you can manage the cost, it is probably the best choice for a relatively inexpensive Canon wide-angle.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>I think Craig is "spot on" here and agree with his thoughts!<br>

On the FF, I don't think the 35mm will be wide enough for situations like the "in home" type shots.<br>

I personally liked using a 24mm focal length over the 28mm, back in the day with my Canon FD primes, although not much difference, and probably either would be fine for your situation. I have the Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM MkII which is fairly decent if you could find one. Although something with a larger aperture in the f/2.8 range would be better, but again, more money!</p>

[Brad_]

It's really personal preference.<P>

 

I shoot a ton of urban photography involving people and posed street portraits of strangers. I use a 35mm f/2 lens with my

5DII. For me it provides the best of both worlds where context is important, yet still providing the ability to do

tight portraits when desired. A lot of examples are <a href=

"http://www.citysnaps.net/blog/">here</a>.<P>

 

If you shoot a lot indoors, then something wider should be considered. But then there are tradeoffs for other situations. If you're not sure about focal length, rent candidate lenses for a day or two...

[paddler4]

<p>you should try lenses in those focal lengths yourself to see your preference. It is all a matter of taste. Some people love wide, and some don't.</p>

[bueh]

<p>If you feel comfortable with the look and feel of the 50mm prime, try the EF 24mm f/2.8. Better than the 17-40mm L zoom, much more affordable and offers a nice wide perspective without being "too wide". Enjoy!</p>

[scgalloways]

<p>Thanks everyone. Brad your work is amazing! I've shot with a Canon 35mm f1.4 that i've rented a few times and I love it but can't swing the price right now. I wondered how the f2.0 might compare and it looks pretty nice.<br>

I'm also now reading up on the Sigma 28mm f1.8 the images look sharp and I like the color.<br>

Dan I have a 5d for my primary and a 30d which I had to start with and kept as a backup, with it I used the 10-22 and love love love the wide angle effect. <br>

I've ruled out the Canon 28mm f1.8 too many bad reviews, 20mm looked promising but reviews are mixed on it too which is what led me to consider the 3rd party primes.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>I own the 5D and the 17-40L. Although it's probably a good choice, I should point out that the 17mm end on a full frame camera is REALLY, REALLY W-I-D-E ! I wouldn't dare take a portrait at that focal length. You'll also find that this lens is a bit soft in the corners at some apertures and focal lengths, and it barrels quite a lot on the wide end. It does make a really good landscape lens at smaller apertures, and it doesn't hurt to have that capability too.</p>

<p>With regard to primes, a 28mm would be about the same perceptual difference from a 50 as a 50 would seem from an 85 (i.e. same ratio). In other words if you're comfortable with the 85/50 gap, you'll probably be comfortable with a 50/28 gap.</p>

[scgalloways]

<p>Sarah I think the 28mm might be the way to go. I want to add a 135mm on the tele side to finish off my primes. I've used the 17-40 and the 16-35 (I rent lenses pretty often) and I prefer that 17-40, but I really want to stay with my primes. I have a 3rd party 24-75mm that I like a lot of my 30d but not so much on the 5d. I had a 70-200 f4 which I ended up selling. I just really have found that I like working with primes. I'm thinking if I go somewhere in the 20's then I have the 50 and the 85 and I add the 135 i'll be a happy camper. It may be a lot of lens changing but isn't that what entering the world of DSLR is all about :) I just want to get a good wide prime and not something where i'm going to be fixing everything in photoshop.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Lynn, I never go wider than 35mm for portraiture, apart from group shots. I find that wider angles produce too much distortion in the face.</p>

<p>The 35/1.4 L is, indeed, a very fine lens, and is almost perfect for your needs. But it is dearly priced as well, even used. I have heard that the 35/2 also has very good image quality, and it's much lighter and more compact than its faster cousin.</p>

<p>As for the telephoto end, you're going to love the 135/2 L. Back in the "good ol' days," photographers tended to favour one of two "sets" of primes: 35/85/135, or 24/50/100. These, of course, were matters of preference and not prescription. Ideally, if budgets permitted, one would want to have <em>both </em>sets.</p>

[aran_watson]

<p>For the price, I highly recommend either the 24/2.8 or the 35/2. I have used both of the lens extensively on the 5d and really enjoy the product. The autofocus is noisy- more noticeable on the 35 than the 24 for sure- but other than that they are both quite sharp little lenses. For environmental portraits, I agree that the 35 is probably just right. But in your description with the family, it looks like you are trying to add a different kind of shot to the portraits you will take. For in-house, tight space work, I think you will be more than pleased with the 24 2.8. I wish the 28 1.8 had better reviews, I too would pick that over anything, but only a few people seem to be pleased with it. In any case, I bought the 35 and the 24 each used for 250 bucks, and they're easily re-sold if you don't like 'em. But I bet you will!</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The EF 35mm f/2 is a fine little lens, essentially on par in optical terms with the 50mm and 85mm lenses you already have. Whether or not this is the right focal length for you is a tricky question that only you can figure out. For me, 35mm is significantly different from 50mm on FF, and it is a focal length that is wide but without showing the inevitable and normal distortions of wider lens such as the 24mm focal length. Regarding build quality, this is not a lens that will impress you - especially if you have shot the 35mm and other L primes. That said, however, its image quality potential is quite high - in many cases it is virtually certain that you would not see a difference between photographs made with this lens and the 35mm L.</p>

<p>It is interesting to note that once you get that 135mm L you'll have - if you get the 35mm non-L - the same basic set of primes that I use. Now that doesn't mean that it is the right set, but it does mean for a certain types of shooters, this is a useful set. In my case, I don't want the focal lengths to be too far apart since I'd rather avoid cropping if possible. With the 35mm non-L, you could consider the 24mm L at some point if it turns out that 35mm isn't quite wide enough.</p>

<p>On the other hand, at some point you could consider the 16-35mm f/2.8 L if you really want to cover the wide range in a single lens. This is the sort of thing it was intended for. If you add up the cost (and inconvenience of switching lenses) and consider how you'll likely be shooting, the minor aperture difference might not be an issue, and it might be trumped by the versatility of the single lens. Expensive now, but if you can do this instead of a couple of primes including at least one L prime, it could be worth it.</p>

<p>BTW, my philosophy regarding primes is to first look for excellent non-L primes such as the 35mm f/2, the 50mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.8. These are really fine lenses that are great performers. In real terms, and in most situations, they will work as well as the L alternatives. At some of the other focal lengths, the L lenses don't really have any analogs among the non-L lenses that will perform the same way. That's why I have the 135mm f/2 L and why I might consider the 24mm L.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[paul_m__austin_]

<p>Try the 28/1.8. You might like it. If not, you can always return it. I like mine. I thought about it for a long time because of all the bad reviews, but I finally found a good price (on ebay of all places) and took a chance. It turned out to be a lot better lens than I expected based on all the terrible reviews.<br>

<br /> I've never used the 35/2, but apparently it is sharper. However it also has worse autofocus and worse bokeh. The 28/1.8 focuses fast and silent and the out of focus blur looks nice and smooth. It's not the sharpest lens, but it's sharp enough.<br>

<br /> If you buy a used one for a reasonable price you can probably turn around and sell if for the same. If you buy a new one and only use it for a few days you can return it for only the cost of shipping. It's worth a shot.</p>

[scgalloways]

<p>Hi everyone thanks so much for the feedback. I think I'm going to go with the 35mm f2. If I decide I want something a little wider later i'll add the 24mm non-L later or maybe grab a little fisheye and do a few from that perspective. Thanks for all the detailed feedback, I love this forum because all you guys/gals ROCK! </p>