Recommendations for a wide angle prime lens

[goering]

My shots are mainly taken in available or low light situations so I would need a prime. Currently using an EF 50mm f1.8 which has served me very well but find that it is too narrow due to the 1.6X factor. So I bought a zoom to complement it but have since sold it off as I find the zoom not fast enough

I have shortlisted the following:

EF 20mm f2.8
Cons: a little pricey, f2.8

EF24mm f2.8
Cons: f2.8, non USM

EF 28mm f1.8
Cons: a little pricey

EF 35mm f2.0
Cons: non USM

Based on what I know as commented above (pls correct me if it's incorrect), I'm leaning towards the EF28mm f1.8 or the EF35mm f2.0

Any comments to guide me in my selection? Optical performance is also an important consideration - is there any difference in the above choices and is USM really an asset?

I'm not sure about 3rd party lenses eg Sigma, Tokina, etc - any good recommendations are welcome although at this point in time, I would prefer a canon

Thanks

[CyberDyneSystems]

I would skip the 35mm right off,.. it is not really a "wide" on the 10D/300D

I think you are on the right track by looking for the widest lens you can afford... from there you can fill in the middle of need be.

So I would go with your 20mm choice.

On the other hand you seem to have a priority on aperture..

Which leaves that 28mm f/1.8 the best compromise between wides and fastes and affordability.

As for brand,. I personally have a lot of really nice Sigma lenses,. but I have not as much confidence in there wide zooms as I do there telephotos.. But I have heard mostly very good things about there wide primes.

Another option would be looking at the "L" zooms. They may not be primes,. but they are exceptional lenses and by getting say a 17-40mm or 16-35mm L you would have all your bases covered in one lens as far as wide goes. The 16-35mm is an f/2.8 ... pretty fast ,. but not f/1.8

On the other hand,. I too have experienced a good prime,.. so I know why you may want to stick with them.. it's all a matter of compromises.

[Andy_T]

And maybe take a look at the Russian Zenitar 16 mm f/2.8 MF FISHEYE lens mentioned many times in this here forum.

Used with correcting tools like Panotools, it might be some alternative (considering the price of about US$ 150 new)

Regards,
Andy

[goering]

Thanks for the sugestions ... seems like there is no clear cut recommendation. Every one seem to give a different opinion

Part of the problem is the 1.6 FOV crop factor and that there aren't many wide angle lenses with f2.0 or wider to begin with. I actually only have three choices - the very expensive 24mm F1.4L, the 28mm f1.8 and the 35mm F2.0. None of these lenses are really wide on digital as pointed out

If I compromise on the aperture to F2.8, I'd have more choices 15mm Fisheye, 14mm F2.8L, 20mm F2.8, 24mm F2.8 and the 16-35mm or 17-35mm L zooms

If I am willing to compromise on the aperture further to F4.0, then I understand the 17-40mmL is an excellent recommendation

As of now, most of the "L" lenses are out due to budget. From the replies so far, it seems the 15mm fisheye and the 24mm f2.8 have been highly regarded for sharpness. But these two lenses are still f2.8 ... so need to weigh that against the 28mm f1.8

I had an easy time deciding on a lens in the mid telephoto range. Deciding to buy the 100mm F2.0 was easy -as it was a fast lens (F2.0), sharp, had USM, very fast AF and price wise not overly expensive

Deciding on a wide angle is decidedly more difficult .... any more comments are welcome.

[RichardtheSane]

It is certainly worth considering the Sigma 20mm F1.8 - supposed to be a good lens for the money.

[Kevin M]

I recently got a Sigma 20mm 1.8.

Very fast lens which performs very well from f2.8 onwards.
At f8 it is exceptionally sharp centre to edge on a 10d. Very good value for money.

[rdenney]

goering wrote:
My shots are mainly taken in available or low light situations so I would need a prime. Currently using an EF 50mm f1.8 which has served me very well but find that it is too narrow due to the 1.6X factor. So I bought a zoom to complement it but have since sold it off as I find the zoom not fast enough

I have shortlisted the following:

EF 20mm f2.8
Cons: a little pricey, f2.8

EF24mm f2.8
Cons: f2.8, non USM

EF 28mm f1.8
Cons: a little pricey

EF 35mm f2.0
Cons: non USM

Based on what I know as commented above (pls correct me if it's incorrect), I'm leaning towards the EF28mm f1.8 or the EF35mm f2.0

Any comments to guide me in my selection? Optical performance is also an important consideration - is there any difference in the above choices and is USM really an asset?

I'm not sure about 3rd party lenses eg Sigma, Tokina, etc - any good recommendations are welcome although at this point in time, I would prefer a canon

Thanks



It sounds to me as though you want a lens that will work like your 50/1.8 worked on a film camera. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

The 28 does the same thing on the 15x23 sensor as the 50 does on the full frame. If that's the perspective you want, then that's the lens to get. Plus, it's faster than wide-angle choices.

If you really do want wide angle, and f/2.8 is an acceptable maximum aperture, then you aren't just limited to primes. The 16-35/2.8 zoom would address all your concerns. It is expensive, to be sure. But you might also find a 17-35/2.8L that is used, being sold by someone wanting the newer 16-35. It still won't be real cheap, but it has the speed plus the versatility.

Don't count on a wide-angle lens faster than f/2.8 to provide really sharp images wide open. That's asking too much of optics at the current state of the art.

Rick "who finds the 10D sensor clean enough to allow the addition of a stop in film speed rather than by getting a faster lens" Denney

[Fried]

The 35mm f2 is an excellent lens for the 10D, but it is no wide angle. It is one of my preferred lenses.
I have also the 28mm f2.8, and after some test I've done I'll be getting the 20mm f2.8. (all of those and also the 50mm 1.8 MK1 I got used for rather good prices).
And not to forget the 15-30mm Sigma, which is very good optically (better than the Canons in this range IMO) but the handling is rather poor due to the very large size of the lens.