Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 21 Dec 2008 (Sunday) 23:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which "normal" prime for crop?

 
Double ­ Negative
*sniffles*
Avatar
10,523 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2006
Location: New York, USA
     
Dec 22, 2008 10:34 |  #16

The 35L is obviously THE choice, but as you say, not practical for you.

The 2/35 is one of the unsung heroes of Canon's lineup. Sure, it has some cons (e.g. the slower, buzzy AF) but it's a great lens at a great price.

The 1,4/30 Sigma is also a good choice, some some sample variation seems to exist. I'd suggest checking it out carefully.


La Vida Leica! (external link)LitPixel Galleries (external link) -- 1v-HS/1d Mk IIn w/E-1 & Op/Tech straps
15mm f/2.8, 14mm f/2.8L, 24mm f/1.4L II, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II, 135mm f/2.0L
16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, Extender EF 1.4x II & 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
javanutsy
Senior Member
Avatar
751 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Dec 22, 2008 11:11 |  #17

I vote for Sigma 30 f1.4 as well.


galleryexternal link | gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Dec 22, 2008 11:34 |  #18

tkbslc wrote in post #6924364 (external link)
Got a rebel body and I'm looking at ~30mm primes

The best choice for APS-C here is the Sigma 30 EX. It's closest competitor is the 35 L, yet you don't have to fork over hundreds of dollars more and carry its added weight around. Optically they're pretty close, probably depending on the calibration of each copy.

Also note that depending on your specific "Rebel" body, focus accuracy will vary with any of these fast lenses. In fact, a while back I tested out a 35 L on an XT and it was horrible in accuracy. Missed focus left and right. So the body plays a big part here too. Step up to the 40D, and both the 30 EX and 35 L copies I've used have been excellent.

My personal choice is the 30 EX for my 40D. It's just too good a lens at too good a price.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gardengirl13
Goldmember
Avatar
1,798 posts
Joined Feb 2006
Location: US
     
Dec 22, 2008 11:40 |  #19

What are you shooting? I ask because if you don't need real fast AF the 35 f/2 is a great little lens! I loved mine! Close focusing, nice and sharp, good colors. The only reason I had to upgrade is due to the AF speed, I needed quick accurate AF in dark conditions. Otherwise I never would have sold it. I did try the sigma after the f/2 but couldn't find a good copy. One focused so bad nothing in the frame was in focus. (and yes I know how to use f/1.4 lenses I've used them for 27 years) the sigma is just a bad egg until you find a good one, which is hard. If they'd fix the focusing issues I'd have that lens because if you can get one to work it's real sharp at 1.4!


photos (external link)
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205171

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Dec 22, 2008 11:59 |  #20

I prefer and use the Canon 28/1.8. It's compact, fast focusing and a fine lens. I like the slightly wider angle of view, compared to 30mm or 35mm choices.

I would not consider the Sigma 28/1.8 as an alternative either. It's big, heavy and all the reviews I've read on it (nd the other two similar lenses: 20/1.8 and 24/1.8) aren't all that favorable. These lenses also lack HSM (Sigma's equivalent of Canon's USM). I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Sigma update these lenses in the not too distant future.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Dec 22, 2008 12:10 as a reply to  @ amfoto1's post |  #21

The 28 f1.8 is definitely a good lens. Its AF speed, slightly smaller size, and closer MFD are real perks it offers. But optically, it just cannot hang with the Sigma 30 f1.4.

Here are some crops of the two head to head:
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/28v30main (external link)

Here specifically shows the two lenses under identical conditions at the "money apertures":
http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7200740​2/original (external link)

Here you can see the bokeh difference (and the Sigma being more pleasing):
http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7198355​0/original (external link)
http://www.pbase.com …s/image/7198355​1/original (external link)

And here is how they each do in flare (with the Sigma being much better):
http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/28v30flare (external link)

The Canon does outperform the Sigma in the area of distortion and light fall off, however. [Its very interesting to me that in all my tests with multiple copies of these lenses the Canon 28 f1.8 and 35 f1.4 do better than the 30 f1.4 in LFO and distortion while the Sigma bests them both in CA and flare.] But again, the closest competitor overall to the 30 EX is the 35 L (and that comparo can be seen here http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/30v35_2nd (external link) ).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
beepclick
Goldmember
Avatar
1,850 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Dec 22, 2008 13:50 |  #22

The OP states in the opening that the Sigma 30 1.4 is "more than I wanted to pay" - and 4 people recommend the 35L.

Just griping.


Gear https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=635450

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pixel_junkie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,001 posts
Likes: 139
Joined May 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Dec 22, 2008 14:15 |  #23

Chez Wimpy wrote in post #6925841 (external link)
Its nothing unique on a *crop* camera. A total waste of cash without FF plans.


The "35L for the crop" is the Sigma 30. I should point out that my recent experience with the 5D2 has shown me the incredible value of the 35/2 (alright on the crop, but a truly useful, and pocketable lens for a FF camera).

Whut?!

LightRules wrote in post #6926808 (external link)
The best choice for APS-C here is the Sigma 30 EX. It's closest competitor is the 35 L, yet you don't have to fork over hundreds of dollars more and carry its added weight around. Optically they're pretty close, probably depending on the calibration of each copy.

Also note that depending on your specific "Rebel" body, focus accuracy will vary with any of these fast lenses. In fact, a while back I tested out a 35 L on an XT and it was horrible in accuracy. Missed focus left and right. So the body plays a big part here too. Step up to the 40D, and both the 30 EX and 35 L copies I've used have been excellent.

My personal choice is the 30 EX for my 40D. It's just too good a lens at too good a price.

Come on man. The CANON is 130 grams heavier than the SIGMA and less than 1 inch longer. 130 grams is like putting your cell phone in your bag, that'll break your shoulder?

beepclick wrote in post #6927612 (external link)
The OP states in the opening that the Sigma 30 1.4 is "more than I wanted to pay" - and 4 people recommend the 35L.

Just griping.

I think that means "reconsider your choices, don't waste your money, save and get it right the first time".


Website (external link) | Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
blipski
Member
55 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
     
Dec 22, 2008 15:06 |  #24

I adore my Sigma 30. I have a great copy on my first try. In fact, I have 3 Sigma lenses and 2 Canons. Never had a bad Sigma lens. Don't worry about bad copies, chances are you WON'T get one.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hdco1209
Member
Avatar
240 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Dec 22, 2008 15:58 as a reply to  @ blipski's post |  #25

Sell the camera body and apply the money to the 35L. There is just nothing like owning an L lens. You will appreciate the build quality and overall craftsmanship even if you can't use it until you can buy another body.

Second choice would be to buy the Sigma. I have one on my 30D and it's incredibly sharp and useable all the way down to 1.4. Check out Lightrules' extensive coverage of this.

I can't be as kind as him to the Canon 28 1.8. I've had two copies of this and found both to be quite "bleary-eyed" at wide open. Vaseline on the lens kind of look.

If it was a money is no object decision, I would go for the 24L instead of the 35L if you're using this as a "standard" prime. Of course it depends on what kind of shooting you want to do with it but given our ability to crop, the 24L will likely be more useful, more often.

Of the "Old Masters," I love Gary Winogrand's body of work using a 35mm lens (on a film body, of course) and find a lot of inspiration in it for how to shoot with something a little wider than the standard 50.

...and btw was just kidding about selling the body for the 35L!


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hdco1209
Member
Avatar
240 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Dec 22, 2008 16:03 as a reply to  @ hdco1209's post |  #26

...and finally, addressing your list of actual lenses, I think the 28 2.8 is the way to go since it's inexpensive and would be a good way to try out the prime experience and see what focal length works best for what you shoot.


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Double ­ Negative
*sniffles*
Avatar
10,523 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2006
Location: New York, USA
     
Dec 22, 2008 16:05 |  #27

I wouldn't suggest the 28mm f/1.8 either. Pretty soft wide open.


La Vida Leica! (external link)LitPixel Galleries (external link) -- 1v-HS/1d Mk IIn w/E-1 & Op/Tech straps
15mm f/2.8, 14mm f/2.8L, 24mm f/1.4L II, 35mm f/1.4L, 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II, 135mm f/2.0L
16-35mm f/2.8L, 24-70mm f/2.8L, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, Extender EF 1.4x II & 2x II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cfibanez
Senior Member
Avatar
857 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
     
Dec 22, 2008 16:08 |  #28

hjohnson wrote in post #6924624 (external link)
While it's not on your list, I've got the Canon 28mm f/1.8, which is a great lens. USM with FTM.

I second that!


5D4 | 7D2 | 11-24/4.0 L | 16-35/2.8 L III | 24/1.4 L II | 24-105/4.0 L IS | 40/2.8 STM | 85/1.2 L II | 100/2.8 L macro IS | 70-200/2.8 L IS II | 100-400 L IS II | 400/4.0 DO L II | 580EXII | EF 1.4x III | Gitzo monopod GM2541 | Gitzo tripod GT2541 | Really Right Stuff ball head & plates | B+W & Singh-Ray filters

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agc1019
Member
184 posts
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Boston, MA
     
Dec 22, 2008 17:01 |  #29

cfibanez wrote in post #6928360 (external link)
I second that!

I third the 28 f/1.8!

Sure, at 1.8, it's not all that great, but I'm comfortable using it from 2.2 onward.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Dec 22, 2008 17:15 |  #30

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6927758 (external link)
Come on man. The CANON is 130 grams heavier than the SIGMA and less than 1 inch longer. 130 grams is like putting your cell phone in your bag, that'll break your shoulder?

The Sigma is *significantly* smaller and lighter, "man".

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'


The Sigma EX is 14 oz while the Canon L is 21 oz. That's 2/3 the weight of the L. There's a significant difference when you put both on the camera, just like there's a significant difference between a 2 lb lens and a 3 lb one. That said, I don't think weight should be the decisive factor here (though it is meaningful).



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,180 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which "normal" prime for crop?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is vttnguyen
1094 guests, 333 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.