whats a good prime lens for Canon SLR Digital Rebel?

[elfyrulz]

for wide-angle
or a 50mm normal lens (not telephoto)

[roanjohn]

I only had experience with the Canon 15 f2.8 fisheye and all I can say was that it was wide with beautiful contrasty pictures.....

check out my gallery with the lens.

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/15_f28_fisheye

The Canon 20 and Sigma 20 primes have been getting good raves (haven't experienced them myself).

As far as the normal 50's...........I only had experience with the "el cheapo" 50 f1.8.

check out my gallery with the lens.

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/50_f18

This lens is light, small and unobtrusive. Not so sharp at f1.8 but will gain sharpness stopped down to around 2.8 and above. I imagine the 1.4 version will be much better - that is if you can afford the 290 USD pricetag :-)

Hope this helps.

Ro1

[slin100]

A 28mm lens comes closest (~45mm equivalent) to approximating a normal lens. At that focal length there are the 28/2.8 and the 28/1.8. The 28/2.8 is actually sharper. If you don't mind going a little wider, there's the 24/2.8 which is highly regarded and the 24/1.4L for mucho $$$.

The thing is, Canon's non-L primes are not that sterling. If you don't mind losing a stop from the f/2.8s, the 17-40/4L is one of the best lenses at those focal lengths and one of the cheapest L lens.

[CoolToolGuy]

The thing is, Canon's non-L primes are not that sterling. If you don't mind losing a stop from the f/2.8s, the 17-40/4L is one of the best lenses at those focal lengths and one of the cheapest L lens.

I beg to differ - perhaps the 28 fits that bill (I have never used it) but many of Canon's non-L primes are equal to, or better than, the L zooms of the same length. If you have specific data to support your accusation, please post it.

Have Fun,

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ditto..

The 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 etc.. each under $300.00 and each top notch glass...

[Andy_T]

Hi,

take a look at the test results for these and varoius other lenses at http://www.photozone.de/

Best regards,
Andy

[slin100]

I beg to differ - perhaps the 28 fits that bill (I have never used it) but many of Canon's non-L primes are equal to, or better than, the L zooms of the same length. If you have specific data to support your accusation, please post it.

I don't have a lot of data to go on. It's an impression I've gathered from reading anecdotal evidence. There are many comments about the mediocre performance of 20/2.8, for example, and photodo's data shows the 28/1.8 is much less sharp than the 28/2.8. The 28/1.8 is certainly lot in the league of the 50/1.8 performancewise and it's $400!

The 24/2.8 is the considered the best performer of the lot, yet my own personal experience did not match up with expectation. I originally bought a 24/2.8 along with my 10D. It not only backfocused badly, but the pictures from it were really soft, and this was supposed to be one of the better primes. I took it back to the dealer and tried another one. It, too, backfocused. I eventually returned it and bought the 17-40/4L. What a revelation.

I still have some images taken with the 24/2.8 but since I never owned it and the 17-40 at the same time I can't post any side-by-side comparisons taken under identical conditions.

[timmyquest]

Ditto..

The 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 etc.. each under $300.00 and each top notch glass...

Not true at all

:roll:

http://www.antiwall.com/march2004/images/2aidan%20and%20meghan.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/march2004/images/3meghan%20close.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/march2004/images/5john.jpg

[elfyrulz]

:shock: nice pix timmy.. what kinda lens are you using?

[timmyquest]

:shock: nice pix timmy.. what kinda lens are you using?

8)

Thus the reason i posted them, as they were shot with the thrifty fifty, the low light non L, the plastic magic, the uhh...ehh, i'm out of ideas.

the canon $75 50mm f/1.8 II
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12142&is=USA

But if you can spring for it:

50mm f/1.4 w/ USM and metal mount (and some argue slightly better optics)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12140&is=USA

Also, although i dont own it i have seen some amazing photos from this lens:
85mm f/1.8 $320
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=12182&is=GREY

[elfyrulz]

^^ i already have that the Canon $75 50mm f/1.8 II . I curious since Drebel has a 1.6 focal lenght that means if i use a 50mm prime on a Drebel I'll be like using an 80mm lens.

[timmyquest]

I curious since Drebel has a 1.6 focal lenght that means if i use a 50mm prime on a Drebel I'll be like using an 80mm lens.

Something like that yes 8)

Why does it have to be a prime though?

sigmas 12-24 produces some great photos (and it's fisheyed so...thats kinda neat)

As does the 17-40 canon L

Both for about $650

Prime lenses are great, dont get me wrong, but if your willing to spend some money i really think you'll get just as good photos with a zoom. (this wouldnt apply for tele's though)

[Tom W]

^^ i already have that the Canon $75 50mm f/1.8 II . I curious since Drebel has a 1.6 focal lenght that means if i use a 50mm prime on a Drebel I'll be like using an 80mm lens.

I've really been thinking about the 28 mm f/1.8 myself, but I'm not sure of the quality of images from that lens. Its a good focal length for indoor low-light on the 10D/Drebel, and the 1.8 would be very useful. But, I've heard mixed reviews on it from other users around the net.

Maybe somebody has some examples they can put up here.

[slin100]

I need to qualify my comment about non-L primes. I meant to say that the non-L, wide-angle (i.e. focal length < 50mm) primes are not top performers.

[CoolToolGuy]

I've really been thinking about the 28 mm f/1.8 myself, but I'm not sure of the quality of images from that lens. Its a good focal length for indoor low-light on the 10D/Drebel, and the 1.8 would be very useful. But, I've heard mixed reviews on it from other users around the net.

Maybe somebody has some examples they can put up here.

I'm curious about that, too. I usually want the primes for low light shots, and I can't see getting a prime that I already have covered with a zoom. At 28mm, as well as 24mm I have f2.8 covered with my 24-70 L. The faster 24mm f1.4L is way expensive, but the 28mm f1.8 is not too much more than the 28mm f2.8. I'll have to check up on that - if it is a dog, I'll write it off my wish list. :?

[CoolToolGuy]

I need to qualify my comment about non-L primes. I meant to say that the non-L, wide-angle (i.e. focal length < 50mm) primes are not top performers.

Thanks for that. I can't dispute your comment about the wides, as I have not tried them out - but I was a little nervous about that sweeping statement. I'm glad you clarified it.

[Tom W]

The pictures I've seen on Pbase with the 28/1.8 are pretty good, but there aren't any 100% crops floating around that can give me an idea of their resolution. A couple of folks on dp****** were pretty happy with theirs.

Photodo doesn't give it a very good rating. Its OK at FM at 3.6. It gets a 3.22 at Photozone's test compilation, and a 3.09 on their user's survey. I'm wondering if its just inconsistent, or if expectations are higher since its a prime, or if it just isn't as good as it could be.