Shopping for a small prime..

[Lightstream]

I have an opportunity to purchase a small, CHEAP prime for low light work. Sadly, this means no L primes, so please withhold recommendations of 24 f/1.4L and 35 f/1.4L. I have already Looked, I have already Lusted, and the budget says HeLL No.. :( :( :(

I want an ultrasonic motor for focusing accuracy, which is more important to me than focus speed on a small prime. Performance is obviously a top consideration - particularly performance on full frame, because I'm going to run 'em on the 5D. And besides aren't primes always touted as performance lenses anyway. I'm looking for something for general purpose shooting at low light events, which can cover a spectrum from wide to tele. I tend to shoot more wide though.

Currently up on the table for consideration:

24mm f/2.8: 24-105 may be f/4, but IS trumps one stop. Not an option

28mm f/1.8: apparently very soft in the corners on FF. APS-C users not so badly affected. Pros - has the ultrasonics that I like, true ring USM, and it is a nice wide angle.

28 f/2.8: not an option. Cheap for a reason and not the same as the 50 f/1.8.

85 f/1.8: Outstanding build quality and largely acclaimed by POTN users as the lens to have. It's a pity - I'm not a portrait shooter. I have shot the 50 f/1.8 on a 350D before, and I am not very fond of the FOV, too narrow at 80mm equiv. My Sigma 70-200 or 24-105 are the portrait lenses during those days I do need to take portraits (love the blur at 105mm f/4).

50 f/1.8: stay with this lens? Upside: I already own it, it's 'free' (sunk cost). Downside: crappy AF.

50 f/1.4: the Great Classic lens bridging the gap between wide and tele and thus versatile enough to do a little bit of both. Fantastic aperture. Crappy build quality (yes, my opinion and I'm sticking to it till Canon shows me a 50 f/1.2L with true L quality.. maybe I will fork over the $$ then).

... which would you guys buy? (PS: all of this is going to be shot on the 5D)

[grego]

Well, if the 5D is your primary body, go with the 50 1.4. For a cropped(1.6 camera), the 30-35 range was useful because it acted like the 50 range. Now you can use the 50 and get the 1.4. I wouldn't say the quality is stellar, but I wouldn't say the lens has crappy build quality. 85 1.8 would fit well as the complementary portrait lens(that the 50 is on the 1.6 crop)

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/354/audrey6211ck6.jpg
Here's what the lens can produce.

[narlus]

are you considering only Canon lenses? the sigma 30 f/1.4 is a nice corker of a lens.

[Lightstream]

Thanks guys..

Canon only for this discussion because only Canon really got all the small primes right. I have shot the Sigma 30 before and while it was HSM, I could feel the elements grinding inside, and hear them as well. Asked my dealer if it was normal. He told me that's why he wasn't recommending it to me, even though he was quite willing to let me play with it.

Wouldn't mount on my 5D anyway. :) it's a reduced-frame lens. Would go well with my 350D but the 350D lacks the f/2.8 high precision AF that the 5D has. I'd prefer to use the 5D for the job.

Other suggestions still welcome!

[stupot]

...only Canon really got all the small primes right.
hmm wrong?! i read everywhere that canons wide offerings are useless. im gonna vote for the sigma 30ex. the shop one must have been abused because i hear no grinding - focusing is quiet, i get very sharp results and the wide aperture is great.

but then... you have a 5d, which kindof ruins it:) how about trading your 17-40 for a 16-35. the extra stop could be what you're looking for...

[Lightstream]

I thought the Sigmas were headed for Rechip Heaven, especially the older small primes excluding the HSM series. But somehow they've never inspired confidence, somehow.

Good question, maybe his 30EX took a ding in transit. He said it's common, I dunno. He also had a 30D with an ULTRA-stiff mode selector ring, which I have never heard of anywhere else - could be his batch, too.

17-40 for 16-35L.. beautiful :) the spirit is willing, but the credit card is weak!! ;) (it keeps saying something about "declined" :mrgreen:)

grego has a good point.. all the Sigma 30 1.4 recommendations are still good ones, I translate them into a 50 f/1.4 recommendation because that's my equivalent on FF. Somehow I always seem to find myself in the dark, so the large aperture is welcome. Friend was just telling me about a candlelight event he thought I might like to shoot.. what a heck of a challenge! ISO 3200 here I come! No flash because that would completely destroy the atmosphere.

[jesusdelallata]

For the 5D - canon 50mm f1.4

For the 350D - Sigma 30mm f1.4

[aparmley]

85 f/1.8: Outstanding build quality

50 f/1.4: Crappy build quality

I own both - build quality is exactly the same. :rolleyes:

My vote is for the 50 1.4 and its crappy build quality which is equal to the 85s build quality, which I hear is outstanding.

[Lester Wareham]

If you don't have the 50/1.4 get that, it is light, fast and very sharp from f2, slighly soft wide open but that's fast lenses.

The 28/1.8 is soft in the corners even on a APS-C, this is not a big issue if it is for low light use however. It is very sharp in the centre however, sharper than my 17-40/f4L at least until f8. It does have bad chromatic aberation but that is easy to fix in photoshop or ACR.

[SimonG]

I own both - build quality is exactly the same. :rolleyes:
I would tend to agree with that assessment. My vote is for the 50 1.4; it's as if this lens was made for the 5D.

[ed rader]

I own both - build quality is exactly the same. :rolleyes:

My vote is for the 50 1.4 and its crappy build quality which is equal to the 85s build quality, which I hear is outstanding.

i've owned both and the 85 is built better, and has true ring USM unlike the 50.

ed rader

[pfogle]

my 2c worth - go for the 28/1.8 - I started out with a Nikon F and my only lens was a 28. If I could only have one, this would be it. And I am thinking full frame :)

[Lightstream]

Oh no! Here comes the Nikon user! ;) just kidding. I understand where you're coming from, on New Year's Eve I had a very nice chat with a guy holding a FM2 and if I recall, a 28 f/2. Either a 24/2 or a 28/2. (too many drinks fog the memory ;))

I tend to 'see' a lot of things in wide.. that suggestion is tempting. Plus true ring ultrasonics and better build quality.. and it would not make my 50 f/1.8 instantly obsolete. Hmnm.. maybe that way I could carry just two small primes and switch if I did need extra reach.

The 35 f/1.4L would be a nice in-between, but WOW what a staggering price tag.

[incendy]

I have the 50 1.4 with the 5d and must say it works quite well. I don't use it very often because I prefer the 35mm perspective, but performance wise it does really well. I do agree it feels really cheap, but on the up side it is super light=D

[Lightstream]

Good point. I notice I have omitted the 35 f/2 from this discussion - what do you guys think of it? I nearly bought it (first post to POTN asked about the 35 f/2) but it fell through due to a worldwide shortage at that point, even B&H did not have it.

[grego]

Good point. I notice I have omitted the 35 f/2 from this discussion - what do you guys think of it? I nearly bought it (first post to POTN asked about the 35 f/2) but it fell through due to a worldwide shortage at that point, even B&H did not have it.

It's good, cheap, but noisy. No USM(ring or micro) what so ever. But its a good lens to have, if you need wider perspective for cheap.

[Lester Wareham]

Good point. I notice I have omitted the 35 f/2 from this discussion - what do you guys think of it? I nearly bought it (first post to POTN asked about the 35 f/2) but it fell through due to a worldwide shortage at that point, even B&H did not have it.

The non-USM lenses are noisier to focus and possibly more importantly (at least for me) don't have full time manual focus.

Optically the 35/2 is a good lens. If the non-USM is an issue depends on application, so for landscape it is probably a non-issue.

[mfunnell]

I have an opportunity to purchase a small, CHEAP prime for low light work.

[...]

Currently up on the table for consideration:

[24mm f/2.8, 28mm f/1.8, 28 f/2.8, 85 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4]

... which would you guys buy? (PS: all of this is going to be shot on the 5D)

I'm confused by the question, as each of these lenses has very different characteristics and so are general|y used for very different applications. So my first question is: what kind of low-light photography do you want to do?

For example, I have 4 different lenses that could be considered in some way "low light" (3 of them primes). I use them for quite different things. If I knew what you wanted to do I might (or might not) be able to offer some suggestions, but right now I'm at a bit of a loss.

...Mike

[Olegis]

Hi, Lightstream.

There is a thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=180548) which discusses a few prime lenses (35 f2, 28 f2.8 and 28 f1.8) - you may find it interesting.

You say -
28mm f/1.8: apparently very soft in the corners on FF. APS-C users not so badly affected. Pros - has the ultrasonics that I like, true ring USM, and it is a nice wide angle.
I dont think that this should bother you - first of all this softness issue is apparently overrated and second of all you will barely notice it because the amount of shots where the corners stay in focus plane and should be sharp (at 1.8 ) is negligible anyway.

Personally I would go for the 28 f1.8 - and I probably will in a few days.

[aparmley]

i've owned both and the 85 is built better, and has true ring USM unlike the 50.

ed rader

Interesting opinion Ed. I'm not challening it as it is your right to have such an opinion. But I'll offer up at least another opinion as to why I think they have = build quality.


I think what plays a factor with some people is that the 85 weighs more, most people equate more weight with more quality - perhaps subconciously. The exact same materials are used in the build of these lenses. The only difference is the 85 weighs more. Ring USM is an operational characteristic, not a build quality characteristic.

just my .02


Personally I would go for the 28 f1.8 - and I probably will in a few days.

I too will be purchasing the 28 1.8 to roud out my prime collection for the time being. . .

[Lightstream]

I'm coming closer to a decision...

My shooting style tends to the 'wide' side of things. 17mm on a crop camera with a equivalent FOV of 27-28mm was fantastic - I LOVED it! Especially coming from the P&S world. So 28mm on full frame - that's the same deal. I never really developed an affinity for the 50mm FOV.

Besides, if I get a 28mm that will introduce me to something new. I already have the 50 f/1.8 so I can use that if I need a 50 angle of view.

[grego]

Sigma has a 20mm 1.8 that is pretty good. Im not sure about their 24 1.8 or 28 1.8 though.

[René Damkot]

Review of Sigma 20mm f/1.8 (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/a_Sigma_20_f1-8/a_Sigma_20_mm_f-1.8.html)
Review of Canon 35mm f/2.0 (http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/da_Canon_35_mm_2/a_Canon_35_mm_f2.html)
If you want wide(ish) either the 35/2.0; 28/1.8 or 20/1.8 are nice lenses.
They all offer quality comparable to your 17-40 when stopped down IMO.

[lmitch6]

I'll add another vote for the 28mm f/1.8. Mine is a workhorse and is the most used lens in my kit.

[dave_bass5]

Im very happy with my Canon 35 f/2.0. I got it a month or so ago to replace my Sigma 30 f/1.4 as that was having focus issues outside.
I couldnt believe how small and light it was when i got it out of the box.
so far i have not found any problems apart from being slightly soft wide open (but still usable)
I mainly use it when my Band have a long day out and take lots of shots while we are hanging around.
Im now thinking that maybe the 28 f/1.8 might be better as its a bit faster and wider.