Crop 50mm equivilent EF-S lens?

I believe the 28 1.8 is a better option at this focal length than any EF-s lens could be. Much less vignetting at large apertures when shot on crop cameras, and as good in the center as any glass you can buy. Inexpensive, too. To answer the question, Canon already makes the lens you are looking for.

STIC wrote in post #18139392
Ok.In that case, I want a lens that, when looked through, shows objects to be about the same distance away as they do when I lift my eye up from the camera...

How's that?

I think that what you really want to do is to compare your photos to "real life". Look at photos that are either printed or displayed on a computer (at a "normal" size for your photos being presented). Figure out what focal length range (by experimentation) gives you the images that, when printed or on a computer, appear the way you see the real scene with your eyes. Different sized prints or images on a computer of the same scene will look different when directly comparing to the real world.

you can buy the old 35 f2 for cheap...just get that....

SkipD wrote in post #18139593
I think that what you really want to do is to compare your photos to "real life". Look at photos that are either printed or displayed on a computer (at a "normal" size for your photos being presented). Figure out what focal length range (by experimentation) gives you the images that, when printed or on a computer, appear the way you see the real scene with your eyes. Different sized prints or images on a computer of the same scene will look different when directly comparing to the real world.

No, I just want a lens that captures the same point of view as my eye does...50mm on a FF, technically 31mm on a crop (30'll do me)...

STIC wrote in post #18139603
No, I just want a lens that captures the same point of view as my eye does...50mm on a FF, technically 31mm on a crop (30'll do me)...

does 50mm on a full frame really capture the view of your eye though? i mean i've never felt like that...the eyes can capture way more than just a 50mm lens...when you mount a lens on your crop camera and set it around 30mm do you really notice much of a difference between that and something longer, or wider?

Yeah, pretty much.

While I like the 15-85, getting that perspective (at or around 30mm) can be hit or miss, especially if you are needing a 'quick shot', so a dedicated 'street' lens would be nice.

While I don't, technically need f1.4, or I suppose, even 1.8...why not...

The 28 f1.8 is a good idea, although, slightly more expensive than the Sigma 30 f1.4 (and I've always liked my Sigma lenses)...

Picking one is the first job, convincing the wife I need it will be harder...

STIC - use your 15-85 lens and experiment with it a bit. Find a focal length that does what you want it to. Don't confuse the issue, though, by using what you see through the viewfinder to be your comparison to what you see with the naked eye. The reason for this is because the viewfinder has a fixed amount of magnification that's separate from the lens. Use a print of the normal size that you produce (or a display that you normally show your images on) as the comparison to what "your eyes see".

Find a scene near your home that you can use for your standardized experimentation. Shoot a sequence of images using different focal lengths. Print them (or display them) all at whatever you determine your standard print/display size is. Note on each image what the focal length was. When you decide that a particular image has the similarity to your naked eye view that you are looking for, note the focal length that was used to create that image. You now have the answer to your question.

What I'm hoping that you will learn is that you will find that your eyes/brain can "see" a scene in several different ways and that it would actually take quite a variety of focal lengths to emulate what you can "see". For example, if you are looking at something at a significant distance, your eyes/brain tend to ignore everything but a small angle of view. On the other hand, if you are taking in a wide view, your eyes/brain will assemble an image with a much wider angle of view although you can only truly focus on a very small spot at any one time.

To illustrate the last statement I made (although you can only truly focus on a very small spot at any one time), look at a single letter of this message on your screen. Without moving your eyes off the target letter, figure out how much text around that letter is truly in focus. You'll find that it's a really small area that's in focus. This, of course is far different than what your camera/lens records.

There's a detailed procedure that you can use to see what focal length will fill an image with what your eye sees. Essentially, you make an empty frame that's the size of image that you would typically view at a specific distance. Assume your favorite image size is 8x12 inches (the same aspect ratio as your camera) and you would typically view a photograph that size that at 18" from your eyes. Now, hold the empty 8x12 inch frame up to frame a scene in front of you while holding the frame 18" from your eyes. Note the details (what's at the edges) of the "captured" image. Replace the frame with your camera and locate the camera where your eyes were. Find the focal length that fills the camera's frame with exactly the same image as you saw through the empty frame. Now, if you print the image made with that focal length at 8"x12" and hold it up 18" away from your eyes, the image will match what you see through an empty 8"x12" frame held at 18" from your eyes.

The biggest problem you will have picking a focal length that does what you want is deciding how to determine what it is that you want. The procedure above is probably the cleanest procedure I can think of.

STIC wrote in post #18139193
Not sure on the 'art', I was looking at the 30 f1.4 DC HSM (older, non art model).

I get they want to sell more FF bodies, but if so, why make so many crops, especially the extremely good (basically pro grade) 7DII, and not offer a 50 equivalent EF-S lens?

Seems to me, they are missing out on a fairly simple to produce 'cash cow'...

When I was on crop, the Sigma 30mm DC HSM was by FAR my most used lens. It's an outstanding piece of glass! I tried the Canon 28mm f/1.8 and it was pretty good as well, but I only owned it for a short time before I got the 35L.

Image hosted by forum (815853) © randy98mtu THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

When I shot crop-only, I used the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 as my "normal" prime, and the focal length worked well. After adding a full frame body to my kit, I found that I no longer needed the lens (have a 50L), as I do not require a wide angle prime for how I shoot. So, after a year of non-use I sold the lens, but if I ever went back to a crop-only situation I would be buying one again.

STIC wrote in post #18139577
The wife will NOT sign off on a $1500 35L...

You didn't read my post very well if you think I suggested going for the 35L. The 28/1.8 and 35/2 IS are both reasonably priced. Personally I am still using the first EX version of the Sigma 30/1.4 and it's really good. You could probably pick one up for around $250 used.

I am going to sell mine at some time in the future though. If the 6D2 comes out with the right specs for me I'll sell it because it a crop lens. If I don't like the 6d2, I'll sell it for the 18-35: not because I don't like its performance, but because there is no other fast wider lens other than maybe the new Tokina 14-20/2 and I don't see needing a 35/1.8 zoom and the 1.4 prime.

I've been using the 24mm f/2.8 as my normal lens. It's a bit wider and slower than you might want but it's a cheap lens. Maybe consider this one?

If you can find a good used Sigma 30mm, I think that would solve your problem.

If you look at the viewfinder specifications for both the 7D (either version) AND the 5DIII you will see that it is specified that all three cameras have a magnification of 1× when using a 50mm lens focused at infinity and with any diopter adjustment set to 0. Actually AFAIK ALL SLR's based on any of either the 35mm film format, or 35×24mm or 22.5×15mm digital sensors have viewfinder magnifications based on using a 50mm lens focused at infinity. I haven't been and looked, but it would not surprise me at all to find that the Olympus 4/3rds DSLR's also specified the VF magnification with a 50mm lens at infinity. The other thing is that often the magnification factor is not 1×. Very many cameras seem to have VF magnifications of around 0.7× so would actually require a 71.4mm lens focused at infinity to achieve a visible magnification of 1×. By the same token, in the 7D a 500mm lens will display an optical magnification of 10×, while only achieving 7× in cameras with a 0.7× mag viewfinder.

The normal lens for a focal length is a completely different matter to VF magnification. The normal focal length for any format is defined as being the same as the diagonal length of the format. For the nominal 36×24mm 35mm format that is actually 43.3mm, 50mm is normally considered as the standard since when building the first 35mm still camera Oskar Barnack happened to have a 2" (50.8mm) lens to hand, and it was close enough. If you take a "standard" lens and print it so that you use the whole negative/sensor area, and then view the image at the same distance as the diagonal of the print, the image will cover the same FoV as you would see by holding a same sized wire frame at the same viewing distance. As with VF magnifications you have to fulfill all of the conditions for this to be true. Oh and in the standard lens viewing situation the magnification ratio for subjects at the plane of focus in the print are going to be very considerably less than 1×.

Oh and yes I would like a nice 31.25mm lens for my APS-C bodies, but I think I would like to see a decently priced 22mm f/1.4 lens for the same format. There is nothing to match the 35mm lens on the 35mm format for APS-C. The Sigma 30mm Art is supposed to be very nice, but a good 35mm is going to match 56mm on 35mm, which was also a very very popular focal length on that format, it seems as if most people liked a bit longer than "standard" for their standard lenses. 28mm on APS-C is actually only 1mm longer than the computed "standard focal length for APS-C.

Alan

Isn't 50mm not technically what the human eye sees on FF? I thought I heard/read somewhere it was somewhere between 43-45mm. Also, that everyone's eyes are actually slightly different and they can range a few mm's different from others.

Also the OP is not looking for a reasonable solution. He is just looking to voice his frustrations, plenty of valid options have been provided and he won't accept any of them.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #18139782
Isn't 50mm not technically what the human eye sees on FF? I thought I heard/read somewhere it was somewhere between 43-45mm. Also, that everyone's eyes are actually slightly different and they can range a few mm's different from others.

Also the OP is not looking for a reasonable solution. He is just looking to voice his frustrations, plenty of valid options have been provided and he won't accept any of them.

canon SHOULD make a 22-24mm F2 EF-s and 28-35mm F2 EF-s

The frustration for lack of those lenses is long existing, nothing new.

STIC wrote in post #18139211
No, it's about getting the 'human eye equivalent' perspective (so, shooting exactly what you are seeing) and, just as important, a nice wide aperture.

If I did have a FF, then my 50 f1.8 would give me this, but I have a 7DII so i'd like an EF-S lens that gives me this...

I still maintain that, if canon build it. it will sell...

It is an arguable point as to what the human eye "equivalent" may be. It can actually vary depending on numerous factors, one often not thought of is are we speaking of field of view of one eye vs. both eyes? In the old days of 35mm film what the eye (or eyes) supposedly saw was often related back to the diagonal of the film format, or 43mm in the case of 24 x 36 mm being size of 35mm film. If one accepts that 43 mm is the equivalent, then something just short of 28mm is the equivalent with a 1.6 crop.

Perhaps read http://www.earthboundl​ight.com …lens-vs-human-vision.html and then decide what is normal (or equivalent) for you.