advice on choosing a fast "wide" prime

hi folks
I started getting into primes a bit.
i found that both on crop and on FF, I am not so fond of the 50mm range (though it is better on the FF)
and I love my 85 and my 100 so far.
as a weekend shooter, I find that family stuff is still the zooms, but when I think i have time to really "play" I reach for my primes.

so I wanted a wider prime.
and I am stuck between the 35 and 24 of sigma (and maybe even the canon 35 f2IS).

At first, I thought about the zeiss 21...but I don't think I am yet ready for MF lenses.

my general shots are landscape and city scape types - though i shoot anything that tickles my fancy.

my dilemma:
the saying that "the best 24 is the 35 with 2 steps back" got me thinking about the 35 more seriously.
The fact that most of the 35s outperform the 24s also help the matter.
when I pin the 24-105 to either 24 or 35 separately - I like both focal lengths....
ideas?

thanks for your time

Might not be relevant but I wish I knew about it back when I was choosing lenses, especially for architectural/city scapes. Have you considered or looked into tilt shift lenses? There is a version 1 24mm TS-E lenses that isn't as expensive as the others.

Heya,

Depends on what you're trying to achieve and how fast you want the aperture to be. And it really comes down to what you're shooting.

24mm and 35mm are very different on full frame.

If you want to maintain very narrow depth of field, lean towards the 35mm.
If you're ok with getting extremely close and creating narrow depth of field with a fast aperture, 24mm can be ok for that. But if you're remotely a few feet away, that aperture (for depth of field purposes) suddenly is not so thin. Keep this in mind.

Very best,

There's always the bargain priced 28mm f/1.8 USM as well,. very fast and quite wide.
Of course it likely is not as good wide open as the others you are looking at.

I have the 28 1.8, which is excellent at 1.8. Well, of course the corners are crap. Who cares at f/1.8?
I have the 35 IS, which is just plain excellent. Well worth the premium over the old 35 2.

If I had a rich wife, or a job, I'd be buying a Sigma 24 f/1.4. Alas, I have neither. The 28 1.8 is a good substitute.
I really don't get the point of the 24 and 28 IS offerings, at f/2.8. If they were f/1.2 to f/1.8 perhaps, but then I couldn't afford them.

I have heard the big fat lie that 24mm is 35mm - two steps back. That may work at some limited intermediate focus distances. It most certainly does not work at dinner party/restaurant table distances. Unless of course, you want to sit at the next table. It is also a big fat lie when shooting distant landscape-y kinds of stuff. That two steps can become 200 yards when the subject is big and distant, or big and really close. I think 24 and 35 are two entirely separate animals.

My vote based on reliable information would be the Sigma 35 1.4 based on sharpness and price. They are all very very close so you probably won't go wrong with whatever lens you select.

stlouis_26 wrote in post #17561501
My vote based on reliable information would be the Sigma 35 1.4 based on sharpness and price. They are all very very close so you probably won't go wrong with whatever lens you select.

One just appeared on the sale page: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1429272

Not mine.

iroctd wrote in post #17561238
Might not be relevant but I wish I knew about it back when I was choosing lenses, especially for architectural/city scapes. Have you considered or looked into tilt shift lenses? There is a version 1 24mm TS-E lenses that isn't as expensive as the others.

thanks for the idea. I had also looked at the tilt-shift lenses. To the best of my understanding, they are manual focus lenses. And they may be a bit more than I can chew at this juncture. I expect that one day I will get one - just not for this experimentation. Thanks!

MalVeauX wrote in post #17561312
Heya,

Depends on what you're trying to achieve and how fast you want the aperture to be. And it really comes down to what you're shooting.

24mm and 35mm are very different on full frame.

If you want to maintain very narrow depth of field, lean towards the 35mm.
If you're ok with getting extremely close and creating narrow depth of field with a fast aperture, 24mm can be ok for that. But if you're remotely a few feet away, that aperture (for depth of field purposes) suddenly is not so thin. Keep this in mind.

Very best,

Thanks for the input about the differences between the two lenses. I had not seen that difference when experimenting (most likely has to do with the fact that I had a max aperture of f4 when trying! ) I will indeed take that into account. Many thanks for the food for thought!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17561400
There's always the bargain priced 28mm f/1.8 USM as well,. very fast and quite wide.
Of course it likely is not as good wide open as the others you are looking at.

Thanks for answering. I will check into the lens. The form factor seems quite beneficial!

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17561499
I have the 28 1.8, which is excellent at 1.8. Well, of course the corners are crap. Who cares at f/1.8?
I have the 35 IS, which is just plain excellent. Well worth the premium over the old 35 2.

If I had a rich wife, or a job, I'd be buying a Sigma 24 f/1.4. Alas, I have neither. The 28 1.8 is a good substitute.
I really don't get the point of the 24 and 28 IS offerings, at f/2.8. If they were f/1.2 to f/1.8 perhaps, but then I couldn't afford them.

I have heard the big fat lie that 24mm is 35mm - two steps back. That may work at some limited intermediate focus distances. It most certainly does not work at dinner party/restaurant table distances. Unless of course, you want to sit at the next table. It is also a big fat lie when shooting distant landscape-y kinds of stuff. That two steps can become 200 yards when the subject is big and distant, or big and really close. I think 24 and 35 are two entirely separate animals.

It seems that others agree with your dismissal of the 24=35 - 2 steps. The canon 35 f2 IS is in the running. Again, I like the idea of a fast lens with IS (one can hope that one day they will also have the 135 f2 with IS!!) and the form factor is also very important. I think that I should start looking through the image example threads.

stlouis_26 wrote in post #17561501
My vote based on reliable information would be the Sigma 35 1.4 based on sharpness and price. They are all very very close so you probably won't go wrong with whatever lens you select.

Thanks for your opinion. Indeed the sigma selections in the art line have been quite impressive - both in overall quality and price. I already have the dock, so this allows me even more leeway.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17561511
One just appeared on the sale page: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1429272

Not mine.

most people (understandably) don't mail to the ME (internationally), so I never look in the for sale section. Thanks

some sort of 28mm IMO. Distortion not as bad as the 24, while wide enough to be considered a wide angle landscape lens.

CTB, sorry, didn't notice your location.

Fast means 1.4. All that 1.8 are a tad slower and sharpenss isn't on par with Sigma or canon 24/35.

35mm can replace 24-70 zoom. you can see many people trading one for another. 24mm too wide for allround use, but it's great too.

So you can go either 24+50 route, or get a 35. For now I suggest a Sigma, looks like it's great performer.