citizensmith1664875108 Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 I currently use a 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 pretty frequently. However, I tend to find the 50 is often not wide enough, while the 24 is too wide (unless im doing landscape or something). I'm looking to get either the 28/1.8, 28/2.8 or 35/2 to fill the gap. The 28 is USM and fastest which is a plus, but is the most expensive which isn't. I'm still trying to figure out which length would be more useful (playing with my 28-105). I take a lot of indoor stuff and the faster primes and some 400 film are a staple as I don't often need a flash. My question is, which of these lenses do people prefer. Is there anything optically about them that isn't obvious. Is the 28/1.8 optically much better than the 28/2.8? Is the 35/2 any good? The only FAQ stuff I really found seemed to be a bit negative about the 28s. Your input would be much appreciated. Thanks Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_torio Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Marcus - I would vote for the 35mm F2. It's in the middle of the other lenses you mention in terms of both focal length and price ($230 USA from B&H). My personal opinion is that 24mm and 28mm are too close in focal length. They do offer a different view point, but I think you'll get more use out of something that offers a bigger difference from what you already have. Maybe that's just me, though. In any case, I hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac sibson Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 I too would say 35mm. I find that I use my 24-85 at 24, 35 or 50 lengths, or very close to. Anything longer I tend to use my 70-200 F4L. I'm contemplating replacing the zoom with the three primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 <P>For a general walk around lens, I like the EF 35 2.0. The perspective is natural and easy to shoot with. Plus it's a fast, small and very sharp bargain optic.</P> <P>I wrote reviews on the above mentioned lens:</P> <P><A HREF="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox4.htm">http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox4.htm</A></P> Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david8 Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Agreed....go for the 35mm. Fab, fast, and sharp lens, and is different enough from the other mentioned lenes that you'll actually use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 <p>The 28/2.8 is generally said to be better, optically, than the 28/1.8 USM. Even Canon's own MTF graphs show that it's the better lens with both at f/8 (the only aperture in common on the graphs), as do the graphs at photodo, and it seems that comments from people who have used both tend to favour the 28/2.8.</p> <p>If you end up going with a 28mm lens, you may be better off with the 2.8 for other reasons, too - as you noted, it's a lot cheaper. It's also smaller and lighter. Chances are you're not going to need the extra speed of the faster lens often if at all. And quick, silent focusing isn't usually a big deal on a wide-angle lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_linney Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Marcus, I had the 28mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 and then decided to get the 24mm f2.8 since I found I used my 24-85 zoom right at the 24mm end a lot and wanted a prime of that length. Then I got the 35mm f2 cheap on eBay and found in practice I used it quite a lot. Result - the 28mm never got used so I sold it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eos 10 fan Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Comparing the <a href=http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/pdf/spec.pdf>"Angle of View (Diagonal)"</a> of the three lenses shows the 35mm about in the middle of the 24mm & 50mm. <p> 24mm = 84°; 28mm = 75°; 35mm = 63°; 50mm = 46°. <p> -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted November 12, 2002 Share Posted November 12, 2002 I'm another voter for the 35/2. I have the 17-35/2.8 and 50/1.8. Ever since I got the zoom, the 50/1.8 saw no use at all and the zoom is almost exclusively used in either 24mm or 35mm settings. Thus, both will go in favor of the 35/2 and 24/2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith1664875108 Posted November 12, 2002 Author Share Posted November 12, 2002 Thanks for the advice folks. The resounding support for the 35/2 means I'll be adding that to my B&H shopping cart very soon. It sounds like a great lens, with many people using it for what I'm intending, an everyday prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoff_doane Posted November 13, 2002 Share Posted November 13, 2002 It sounds like you may have already made up your mind, but here's another vote for the 35/2. I have one (along with a 24/2.8 and 50/1.4) and I haven't found anything not to like about it. Sharpness and colour rendition are as good as any lens I have (Ls included) and the speed has never been an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_raymond1 Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Another vote for 35/2. Bad thing - noisy, no USM, no IF Good thing - OPTICS, not expensive, light weight, compact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now