Prime Lens for 7D

[athanasios_retzonis]

<p>Hi <br>

I want to by a prime lens for my 7D .<br>

The focal length i want is 28mm-35mm so it can become around 50mm . <br>

I have in mind Canon 35mm f2 , Canon 28mm f2.8 , Canon 28mm f1.8 USM <br>

I use canon 17-40mm f4L but i am not pleased at f4 , so i expect the prime to be sharper .<br>

I also want the prime to be FF so i can use it if i go for FF later.<br>

Any help ;</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>I really like he 35 mm focal length on a crop body. I have both the 35/2 and the 35/1.4. Both are great... I never got rid of the 35/2 because its size makes it very convenient when I travel and I've gotten great shots with both lenses.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>When we were deciding between the EF35/2 and the EF28/1.8 both were quite nice used on an APS-C body.<br>

We bought the 35/2 because IMO is better on our 5D, than the 28/1.8 when both lenses are used wide open.<br>

Using the lenses wide open might not be in your consideration. I did not carry on testing the 28/1.8 stopped down, because it failed to meet what I wanted, so I cannot comment on the performance at F/2.8 etc on a 5D.<br>

I can state that the 35/2 is very nice on a 5D. Like Jeff I have the 35/1.4 also, but often use the 35/2 because of its physical size.<br>

Also for an APS-C body I have found I use a 24 much more than the 35, having a little wider than "equivalent 50", is often useful so this might be something you should consider.</p>

<p>I have not used the 28/2.8</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>My personal favorite for APS-C regular or "normal" lens is the EF 35mm f/2. My daughter's favorite is the EF 28mm f/2.8. The latter is a major bargain, if you don't need the little extra bit of light, or the slightly longer lens.</p>

<p>For a short telephoto, and the biggest of all Canon bargains, look at the EF 50mm f/1.8. It looks cheap and is cheap, but it seems as durable in actual use as any Canon lens. It has excellent image quality. I like its "bokeh" (ideally creamy out-of-focus highlights), but the more expensive f/1.4 is really even finer and nearly universally beloved. :)</p>

[athanasios_retzonis]

<p>Thank's for the responses.<br>

Has anybody tested one of the primes vs 17-40mm .<br>

I imagine that they will be sharper .</p>

[bueh]

<p>The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM is really the best and most cost-efficient "standard lens" for APS-C. Buy it and use it now, and sell it when you upgrade.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Has anybody tested one of the primes vs 17-40mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look at the the-digital-picture.com. I am pretty certain that any of the primes will beat the zoom in the center at the same aperture setting, although corner sharpness may or may not be equal. I take lightweight and fast prime over a heavy zoom any day, though!</p>

[rubo]

<p>I second Bueh B.<br>

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is simply amaizing. Very sharp wide open, painfully sharp from f/2.0 up.<br>

Focus is very fast, accurate, quite and with my copy it is spot on.<br>

Blows away my EF-S 15-85mm in every aspect, except not being a zoom :-)</p>

<p>Just my $.02</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>From the reviews I have seen of the Sigma 30/1.4, it doesn't compare so well to the 35/2. Ok. . great if you need 1.4 -> but the reviews don't make me want to run and buy the lens over the 35/2.</p>

[athanasios_retzonis]

<p>Generally I don't trust sigma lenses , because i don't know if i get a good copy .<br>

When i go for shopping i'ii try it , but i think Canon 35mm will be my first choice.<br>

I have also Nikon 35mm f2 AF-D + D700 .<br>

Has anybody compared Canon 35mm Vs Nikon 35mm (Sharpnes ) ;</p>

[matthijs]

<p>In<a href="00Y6RN"> this discussion </a>a comparable question was asked.</p>

<p>I posted samples of my 28/2.8.</p>

<p>Here <a href="../photo/12625899">two </a>real life <a href="../photo/12625895">samples</a>. (The first at f3.2 the second at f5.6)</p>

<p>Of course there are better lenses than the 28/2.8 but... it's small, light, decently built and yields pretty pictures.</p>

 

[eric_duncan3]

<p>I have a Canon 7D and 50D, and I own two prime lenses, a Canon EF-S 60mm macro, and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The Sigma is well-made, and feels of a nicer build quality than the 60mm macro. It also compares favourably to the very sharp 60mm Canon in terms of sharpness and other aspects of image quality. As already pointed out, sharpness falls off slightly, wide open at f/1.4, but it is still good and very useable. And f/1.8 or f/2 maximum aperture lenses simply have nothing to compare to this lens at f/1.4!<br>

I have not used the Canon 35mm f/2, however, so I cannot say how image quality of the Sigma compares to the Canon 35mm f/2 lens at f/2 and smaller. But I can say that the Sigma is a delight to use, especially in low light, and holds its own against the Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro. A prime lens of course ought to compare well against zooms for image quality. And the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 upholds this rule of thumb, even compared to my two best zooms for image quality, the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4 L.<br>

I, too, have read that Sigma optical quality can be alarmingly variable from one example to another. But I own four Sigma lenses, and have never been unlucky.<br>

One final point, as users of cameras with APS-C sized sensors, even one as extremely good as the Canon 7D, it is still in general more important than it is for 35mm sensor-sized camera users, to have high quality lenses fast enough to avoid the highest ISO settings in low light, where noise can begin to significantly degrade image quality.</p>

[drpath]

<p>The best you can do is the two f1.4 L's -- the 24mm and 35mm -- if you can deal with the price, weight, and bulk. The 35mm f2 is an amazing value, very close to the L primes in performance above f2.8. It will beat the wonderful 17-40mm L at f4. Back in my pre-5D era, I leased the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and tested it against my 35/2. The Sigma won up to about f3.5, and was really impressive around f2, but the little Canon pulled away above that, easily besting the Sigma at f4. For me, the 35/2 was just a tad long on a crop body, but the 28mm f2.8 would probably be ideal. I've never had the pleasure of using that lens, but I believe its performance is very much like the 35/2's.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Frankly, the 35/2 and 28/2.8 are nearly useless in low and challenging light, BTDT. I wouldn't buy a zoom w/o USM, and I shouldn't have to buy a prime w/o it either. Sharpness at f4+ is almost a moot point (except for landscape work of course), as current L zooms are nearly on par w/ prime performance @f4+, and here, specifically, the 17-40 performs well in this regard.</p>

<p>I assume (though the OP did not state explicitly) that the need is because a) at f4 the 17-40 is somewhat soft, and b) the OP would like to shoot below f4 (assuming again, reasonable sharpness is required)</p>

<p>Of the three lenses proposed therefore I would recommend the 28/1.8 USM for the following reasons.</p>

<p>a) USM w/ full time manual focusing. <em>An absolute necesity in low light for any subjects that do or may move. Regardless of all other concerns (sharpness, etc), a lens that cannot (or will not) focus is utterly useless</em>. Neither of the other two lenses have USM.</p>

<p>b) Sharpness. @ f4, the 28/1.8 <em>clearly</em> outperforms the 17-40(@29mm, closest tested, but in fairness so do the 35/2 & 28/2.8). The 28/1.8's sharpness is similar to 35/2 @ f2, outperforms (center, similar elsewhere) the 35 @ f2.8, and is roughly similar at f4. It has similar performance to the 28/2.8 @2.8 & f4. <em>While it does not clearly outperform these guyson the crop in any circumstances, it does NOT (ON THE CROP) underperform either.</em> Which leads to c).</p>

<p>c) Sharpness on FF. At comparable f stops, <em>on FF, the 28/1.8 center sharpness clearlyoutperforms the 28/2.8 @ f2.8 and the 35/2 @ f2</em>, other areas are similar to 35/2 & 28/2.8. <em><strong>By f4, it's as sharp as any Wide Angle L series prime</strong> (except maybe TS-E)</em>.</p>

<p>d) f1.8. nuff said,as neither the 35/2 nor the 28/2.8 go that loooooow. While the 35/2 is close, it's also signif. narrower, lessening the necessity of low f-stop for shallow DOF effect. The 28/2.8? what <em>is</em> shallow DOF?!</p>

<p>And of course the Ls... While L primes <em>are</em> better, they were not proposed, and <em>can't </em>be practically considered (hello! $$$$!) here. Also the Sig 30/1.4 while comparable broadly is out because of no FF coverage...which the OP specifically <em>wanted</em>. </p>

<p>BTW while my conclusions could have been garnered from my experience, in this case, they were gathered from slrgear.com's database of 'blur index' take a look! See for yourself! The 28/1.8 ain't "great", but it is better than the 28/2.8 & 35/2 even if only marginally... <em>plus it's USM... because it doesn't matter how crappy or great the lens is, it only matters if you can actually focus on the subject</em>.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Frankly, the 35/2 and 28/2.8 are nearly useless in low and challenging light</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course the f/2.8 is only fast by zoom standards, but I used the EF 35mm f/2 all over Egypt for a low light lens on a 20D. Here's one below just for the record. No problem focusing at all and shooting hand held. Works fine in much darker environments too. By the way, even f/4 lenses will often do fine in even low light if they have IS and are braced a little.</p>

<p>I have a nice Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 that also works well, but of course it is manual focus anyhow on a Canon. You really don't absolutely need f/1.4 or f/1.2 these days to shoot in available darkness. Bite the bullet and turn up the ISO. It won't kill you, and <em>no matter how crappy or great the lens is, it only matters if you get the picture</em>.</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>Ditto JDM:<br>

On a 400D at ISO1600 - Snapshot of Turkey / Full Frame:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12696813-lg.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Crop:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12696814-lg.jpg" alt="" width="690" height="460" /><br>

WW</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Frankly, the 35/2 and 28/2.8 are nearly useless in low and challenging light,</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />I shoot with the 35/2 regularly in very low and challenging light. You can see what I do<a href="http://www.spirer.com/"> here, </a>it's obvious I've shot in the kind of lighting that is very demanding. The 35/2 comes through just fine, compare these to what other people shoot who complain about it. The only issue I've had with it is that it is not very well-made, the first one I had self-destructed one night.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Well, much as I like my 35mm f/2, mine also broke when I tried to switch to MF, turned the focus ring, and <em>crunch</em>. However, $80 later, it now is working fine again. This is the only EF lens failure I've ever had. My cheap and cheap-looking little EF 50mm f/1.8 II that I have had longer has worked without a hitch for years now.</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>I have the Sigma 24mm f1.8 and Canon 35mm f2 on a 5D Mk II body because basically I wasn't sure which L series version I wanted because I traded in both (I am still undecided which focal length is better for documentary type pictures!). Anyway, in low light the Sigma lens just cannot find focus and is continually missing the focus point. It sometimes misses focus using the autofocus in bright light as well. It's build quality is great but it's a lemon in my bag at the moment. I was so disappointed as my other Sigmas I've owned were great lenses. It is also noisy and slow to focus. The much smaller 35mm f2 is much faster, silent and more importantly sharper in my opinion. It's so good and small I'm thinking do I need an L version of it?</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>All taken with a 35mm f2 at night and with no flash. A lovely little lens and like the 50mm f1.8, best value for money out there. Bit long on a 7d though? <br>

<a href="http://www.flickriver.com/photos/researchphotography/sets/72157623713248582/">http://www.flickriver.com/photos/researchphotography/sets/72157623713248582/</a></p>