What should be my first prime lens?

[JDMvW]

<p>I must say that when I had both the 35mm f/2 and the 28mm f/2.8, the one I kept was the 35mm lens, but it is a trifle more expensive and also beginning to range into 'portrait lens' length.</p>

<p>Burt Keppler at Modern (and later Popular) Photography was a big fan of his 58mm Biotars on regular 35mm film cameras, and that is roughly where the 35mm lens comes in on APS_C sensors.</p>

<p>If you only buy one lens, then the 35mm is worth consideration.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>What the hell, just buy em all.</p>

[Brad_]

So many lenses, so little time...

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Might help if you consider & share relative priority of what you're trying to improve -<br>

a) size/weight<br>

b) optical performance<br>

c) max aperture</p>

<p>If f/2.8 is fast enough, you might get a steadier (well rounded) performance from a modern zoom or also consider Tokina 35/2.8 macro. Also, Canon 28/2.8 is cheap, simple & light, and while it doesn't offer peak center performance as high as the 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4 its corners are closer to its center performance. </p>

<p>As others suggested, focal length/angle-of-view are perhaps the most significant attribute, so consider (perhaps with your current zoom) whether you're willing to use something as narrow as a 35mm (on Canon 1.6x crop, it's a little long, like 56mm equivalent) while 28mm is more 'normal', 44.8-equiv. I can even imagine using a 24/2.8 (38.4mm equiv) or 20/2.8 (32mm) as a single walkaround lens.</p>

[phule]

<p>Crop-sensor camera user here.</p>

<p>Whenever I want a prime for a small, light, kit, and I'm not sure exactly what I'll be seeing, I bring the 24mm f/2.8. It's my go-to lens for things like museums with my children as well. Otherwise, I personally quite like 50mm f/1.8 as a walk around. I spend time in a metropolitan area and don't photograph people too often.</p>

<p>The 35mm f/2 I own but keep struggling to find a good spot for it in my photography. It's either not wide enough nor is it long enough. I guess I just "see" better with the 24 or the 50. Seems like that would be a good challenge for me to tackle in 2012...</p>

[vab3]

 

<p>I agree with Rob, I have fun with the 24mm f/2.8 when out and about at the fair or a park. I use the 50mm f/1.8 for portraits, although I've seen better results with the 50mm f/1.4 (although I have to admit that is in the hands of someone else!)<br>

The f/1.8 or f/1.4 might be handy, too if you already have the 24mm focal range on a zoom. It would give you a little bit more low light or shallow depth of field. </p>

 

 

 

[Stock-Photos]

<p>35</p>

[ron_sanders1]

<p>The 28mm focal length will accomplish many tasks superbly. Whether f2.8 or f2 you can expect to get workhorse usage from it. Easy to handhold at 15th sec or less. The lens is great for night and street work and proven in documentary images by decades photojournalists. On a crop sensor you will have a slightly broader view that 50mm. The modest size is stealthy unlike some zooms and light weight on camera. You will find it affordable used or new.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>All around lens on crop sensor? 28 or 30mm. Enjoy.</p>

[osfania]

<p>Zeiss 50/2 Makro</p>

[robertbody]

<p>28mm or so sounds like a good advice. Only time brings answers if it's the right focal length, or if you can make it work.<br /> 2 primes, if you get them used could do well too, something like a 24mm + 35mm, or 28mm + 50mm.<br /> I used borrowed 35mm and 24mm side by side and preferred the 24mm on either full-frame or 1.3 sensor, and I didn't expect that beforehand, it's just the subjects I picked (2 bridges, several times) made me want to use the 24mm because of the view it provided.<br /> Ideally I would like them both, but if I just had to pick one, then the 24mm (on full-frame or 1.3 crop sensor 1D).<br /> Sometimes I shoot with a 17-40mm and purposely set it to 24mm or 35mm to see which focal length I favor, to make my prime selection easier - ever tried that?<br>

L lenses are not always the answer, but it's hard to turn them down :), but weight of them can get to you. If you have sharp copies of non-L 24mm, 35mm and 50mm, and all 3 of them, and you don't shoot wide open but go down to f/8, f/11, then you can do quite a lot for landscapes. Even just 1 stop closed down can look real great.</p>

[michael_josefsson]

<p>For my 20D I got a 50/1.8. Almost never used it as it was too long for my general photography. Got a 24-105/4 instead, then later changed to full frame. I found a program on the net that makes statistics on what focal lengths I have used in all of my shots. Turns out that around 40 mm (on full-frame) was used most. So, in my case a 40/1.6=25 mm lens would be a good choice. All other things being equal I'd go for the previously mentioned 24/2.8! </p>

[leonard_van_der_zwan]

<p>Hi Morten,<br>

Just some remarks from my experiences as an amateur photographer with some of the lenses you suggest. I own a 40D (crop camera 1.6x), a 50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2.0 lens. I really like them. However, the 50mm on a crop sensor is a telephoto lens and ,therefore, not very suitable as an allround lens. The 35mm is a better option. However, I (very) often would have liked a wider field of view. The photozone.de website seems to be a good source of information about lenses. The 24mm f/2.8 has previously been suggested and gets good marks by photozone. Therefore, albeit not extremely speedy, I would choose this lens.<br>

I understand your sequence of upgrades/additions if you do most of your photography outdoors . If however, you usually/often work indoors I would give more priority to a flash.</p>

<p>Good luck making a decision,</p>

<p>Leonard</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>It might be a good idea to try out primes at different focal lengths to see which one suits you best. One way of doing this is by acquiring used lenses. That way, you can sell those lenses that you do end up fancying for the price you paid for them, with the only expenditure being your time.</p>

<p>I have typically used 50mm and 85mm primes (on FF) for low light, indoor shooting, but lately have been using my 35/1.4 alot in this regard. Since perspective preferences can change over time and with the shooting situation, I personally find that its best not to get too hung up on optimal focal lengths. </p>

[romuald.janik]

<p>Interesting thread! I just wanted to ask a very similar question so I continue here instead of starting a new thread...<br>

I am considering buying a `normal' (50 equivalent) prime lens for a 7D body. I would like to have a <em>light</em> kit to walk around - I find walking around with just my 50/1.8 very relaxing and now I am thinking of something similar in the 28-35 focal range.<br>

I am considering mainly the 35/2. Alternatively 28/2.8 (perhaps too slow?), 30/1.4 (a bit more expensive). Any other good options?<br>

My specific question is how do those lenses compare (on a 7D so with a quite high pixel density) to the 17-55/2.8IS at these focal length. I also have this zoom so the answer would give me a point of reference about the quality...</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The "plastic fantastic", aka the "nifty fifty" EF 50mm f/1.8 mk ii is a wonder. Despite its cheap look, it seems to be at least as durable as the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens. As a short tele prime on the APS-C it is a wonderful street shooter. It does have a little angularity to the 'bokeh' (out-of-focus highlights), but I don't find it unpleasant, myself. On an APS-C body it and the 35mm f/2 are wonderfully light to carry and fast enough to be happy without IS. Some time back, I wrote an eBay guide to these Canon cheapies ( http://reviews.ebay.com/A-Guide-to-Inexpensive-Canon-EF-Primes?ugid=10000000004546950 )</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The 7D has good high-ISO performance, so a 28/2.8 will not be too slow in most circumstances.</p>

<p>Here's a shot taken with my 24-105mm f/4L IS on my 7D at ISO 6400. I'd normally use my 5D MkII for this, but I wanted the built in flash of the 7D (not on for this shot, obviously) so I pushed the 7D and it stood up well:</p>

<p><a title="Michelle checks for text message... by dcstep, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7170/6582141799_dc9f11e821_b.jpg" alt="Michelle checks for text message..." width="800" height="533" /></a></p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"My specific question is how do those lenses compare (on a 7D so with a quite high pixel density) to the 17-55/2.8IS at these focal length. I also have this zoom so the answer would give me a point of reference about the quality..."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photozone.de with 15pm Canon EOS 50D:<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/425-canon_1755_28is_50d?start=1">17-55/2.8</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/157-canon_35_2_50d?start=1">35/2</a><br>

You can form your own conclusion...but it looks to me like the 35/2 (vs. the 17-55/2.8 @35mm) is slightly better in terms of corner resolution, distortion, and vignetting but slightly worse (though still not bad) for CA.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>The BIG problem of so many lens comparisons today is that they do not factor in the corrections that programs such as Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro make in RAW conversion. An unprocessed RAW file is meaningless in today's world of lens/camera/software peformance. Each body interfaces with each lens differently and almost nobody that shoots in RAW fails to correct for errors introduced by the physical design of the lens and the interface with the camera body. Optics Pro corrects for geometric distortions, chormatic aberration, vignetting, edge softness, etc. at every focal length, every aperture and every body combination that I use with my L-series lenses.</p>

<p>As a practical matter, lens reviewer/testers elect to leave software out of the formula because we don't all use the same software. The often do offer comparisons with different bodies, but that's only address 2/3s of the variables.</p>

<p>Now, when I consider buying a lens, I check to see if my software has correction tables for the lenses under consideration, combined with the bodies that I use. For wide angle and zoom lenses this is particularly important.</p>

<p>We're no longer shooting slide film in SLRs and need to factor in all elements of IQ when considering various options.</p>

[romuald.janik]

<p>Thanks for the info.. How do you compare 28/2.8 and 35/2 (as I wrote earlier on a high pixel crop body)? Does anyone has both and has any reason to prefer one for the other?</p>

 

[morten_jespersen]

<p>Hi all,<br /> I went to the local lens pusher yesterday armed with all your input. After careful consideration I took a deep breath, swiped the creditcard and......(drumroll)...... left the shop with my new canon 35 mm f/2. The reasons were:<br>

<br /> - "Normal" lens on my crop cam (60d)<br /> - Since it is my only prime (so far), I would like it to be a good walkaround lens.<br /> - Good reviews.<br /> - 40% cheaper than Sigma 30 1.4 and Canon 28 1.8 (saving for my zoom upgrade).<br /> - Portraits are not that important. I have used my 70-200 f/4 L non-IS for this with some amazing results (in daylight).<br /> - Good-old-fashioned gut feeling.<br>

<br /> I am amazed of the amount of really great input you have provided me with. I'll be sure to include you in my future thoughts on gear requisition. Thanks for all your help. Regards, Morten</p>

[newmanuk]

Just the shots on that lens to show us then Morten regards miken

[dcstep]

<p>Thanks for the follow up Morten. It's interesting to see how someone responds to the "help."</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>My favorite and most used lens on my Canon 5D II is by far the 28 1.8. This lens stays on my camera when I am not using that I am shooting with my Tamron 28-70 F2.8. I also use Canon 17-40 F4L, Canon 50 1.8, and Canon 85 1.2L, Sigma 70-200 F2.8.<br>

I absolutely enjoy the 28 1.8 the most because it is great for outdoors night shots because it it so fast, light, quite, focuses really well in low light and is by far my best lens for shooting HD video in low light. <br>

I really don't care so much about edge sharpness because when I am shooting video I need that super shallow DOF which no other lens can give me at that wide of an angle for than low of a price. The center sharpness and to me is great and does exactly what I want it to do. Also, it has full time auto-focus override like L -lenses distance meter and is built much more solid than the 50 1.8 which is also very good in terms of image quality.<br>

A sample video shot with the 28 1.8 can be seen at http://tenminutesewin.com</p>

 

[charcoal_happy]

<blockquote>

<p>Morten, I'm afraid you hit a raw spot with the crop camera bodies. There are no normal or moderately wide prime lenses for crop cameras that would be good and affordable like in the film days. There are only poor substitutes and awkward matches.<br /> You'll have to go full frame to get a decent prime set.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately, that's true.<br>

<br /> There aren't any affordable wide angle lenses of good quality for crop. If you want quality, it's cheaper to jump straight to full frame rather than start with a crop camera and build up.<br>

<br /> For general purpose and indoor use, you need something wider than 35mm, close to 20 - 24mm. Lenses in that range aren't cheap, nor very fast (unless you pick the 24/1.4). Consider the 17-55/2.8. I think that lens is more useful on crop than most budget primes. Add a 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 if you want shallow dof for portraits.</p>