Any fast 35mm equivalent for 1.6x crop?

i highly recomend the sigma 20mm f1.8. great lens for the price

kevin_c wrote in post #4596445
Nobody seems to talk about the Canon 20mm f/2.8 USM - Is it a pile of poo?

This would give you 32mm fov on a 1.6x crop - I like a 35mm fov on FF/35mm although it is a bit slow for a prime.

I thought of trying it myself at one time although I never actually got around to it. But from what I remember it didn't have a particularly good reputation in any of the reviews I could see at the time. I'm usually fairly pro Canon lenses, but in this case the third party offerings seemed to be better.

Perhaps a "pile of poo" may be a slight exageration though

cheers
Bill

The 24mm F/2.8 Canon is another option. It's cheap and good, but it lacks USM.

But the OP is looking for 'at least f/2.0' (but didn't explain why).

Madweasel wrote in post #4600882
But the OP is looking for 'at least f/2.0' (but didn't explain why).

Why does anyone want or need f/2? Answer(s) should be obvious if you know anything about aperture...

Bill Roberts wrote in post #4596670
I thought of trying it myself at one time although I never actually got around to it. But from what I remember it didn't have a particularly good reputation in any of the reviews I could see at the time. I'm usually fairly pro Canon lenses, but in this case the third party offerings seemed to be better.

Perhaps a "pile of poo" may be a slight exageration though

cheers
Bill

I don't think Canon has a particularly good reputation on (non-L) wide primes - The Nikkor ones seem to shine (I have two).

I may have to try one sometime, The only thing about the Sigma is it's not HSM. For the money (around £300) I might just try the Canon and see what its like. mind you it is only f/2.8 so it's not that fast, but still cheaper than the 16-35L or 24L...


EDIT: The FM review isn't exactly 'stunning' (7.4) and some of the comments aren't exactly selling it to me (Noisy USM being one!).
The Sigma only scores a bit better (7.6) and this has noisy 'wasp in a matchbox' AF and the famous Sigma colour-cast.

Maybe I better start saving for that 24L...

cdifoto wrote in post #4600896
Why does anyone want or need f/2? Answer(s) should be obvious if you know anything about aperture...

What I'm saying is I'm not impressed by this 'need for speed' idea. With the quality of modern DSLRs, it's easier to bump the ISO up another notch. And if it's tiny depth of field, then this focal length won't really give you that anyway. See, I know the odd thing about aperture - I just question the OP's motives, which, as I said, he didn't state.

*cough* Sigma 10-20

Madweasel wrote in post #4600932
What I'm saying is I'm not impressed by this 'need for speed' idea. With the quality of modern DSLRs, it's easier to bump the ISO up another notch. And if it's tiny depth of field, then this focal length won't really give you that anyway. See, I know the odd thing about aperture - I just question the OP's motives, which, as I said, he didn't state.

If you shoot in a lot of dark areas, sometimes ISO isn't possible to bump. I've been in churches where, due to my aperture, I couldn't get faster than 1/4 second shutter speeds at ISO 3200. Since I've gone to a fairly fast lineup, that restriction doesn't happen as often, and helps me get shots I otherwise couldn't.

Madweasel wrote in post #4600932
What I'm saying is I'm not impressed by this 'need for speed' idea. With the quality of modern DSLRs, it's easier to bump the ISO up another notch. And if it's tiny depth of field, then this focal length won't really give you that anyway. See, I know the odd thing about aperture - I just question the OP's motives, which, as I said, he didn't state.

You've obviously never been in my house, my grandmother's house, or my sister's house. Or probably any other average home or church for that matter. And no, I don't want to and/or can't always take the easy way out with the use of flash.


What I'm saying is just because it doesn't appeal to you, doesn't mean there's no legitimate use for it. OP stated his needs. OP doesn't have to justify his needs to anyone.

Adamora wrote in post #4600949
*cough* Sigma 10-20

*cough* "fast, at least f/2" (from the OP's first post)

That kinda rules out any zoom

Oh come on guys. Y'all know OP really needs that 1200mm f/5.6L that B&H has/had for 99 grand. Since it fits OPs description the best.

Madweasel wrote in post #4600882
But the OP is looking for 'at least f/2.0' (but didn't explain why).

Well ok, then it's easy. 24L or Sigma 20/1.8.
The L is a little longer than 35mm eq.
The Sigma a little shorter.
Optically you get what you pay for.
Note that the Sigma needs ridiculously expensive 82mm filters.

I have the 24. It rules.

cdifoto wrote in post #4601012
Oh come on guys. Y'all know OP really needs that 1200mm f/5.6L that B&H has/had for 99 grand. Since it fits OPs description the best.

Haven't they sold that yet? - Haven't seen PetKal round here for a bit, maybe he's sellin' himself to purchase it

kevin_c wrote in post #4601152
Haven't they sold that yet?

I dunno I didn't check..that's why I covered my bum with both present and past tense. :P

kevin_c wrote in post #4601152
- Haven't seen PetKal round here for a bit, maybe he's sellin' himself to purchase it

Maybe. I'd try to sell myself but I'm sure I'd get to page 7 without so much as a tire kicker. I'm about as desirable as an original d-reb with 200,000 clicks.