wide angle prime

Hey, so I've been reading around for awhile and have finally bothered to post.

So recently I've been looking around for a 24-35mm prime to go with my other lenses (see below). I've been dabbling in street photo (unsuccessfully), but I've found that 50mm is too narrow and the 17-55 makes me feel too conspicuous.

So far I've settled on either the 35 f/2 or 24 f/2.8, leaning towards the 35 since I'd rather stop down to 2.8 than start there. The 28 1.8's optics seems abysmal compared to its price, $100-200 more than the previous two. L's are out of the question since they're all too large and expensive. Are there any other options, though? Is it worth it to go for a Nikon lens and adapter? I've also heard of the Tokina 35mm, but haven't found much on it.

The lens must be full-frame compatible. Sooner or later I'm gonna buy a film body. Thanks.

edit: Alternatively, should I just stick with my dad's old AE-1 and get an FD lens?

seems like your info on the 28 1.8 is different than what i have been reading lately (looking for a lens to fill the same role as you) hmm....

i've read multiple threads here that for the money the 35 f/2 is nice and sharp...

I found the 28 f/1.8 to be a very fine lens. It's not a good lens for landscape use, as the corners don't ever really sharpen up, but it's a very good lens for people and other such use. What are you going to shoot with it?

If landscapes, don't go AE-1 and an FD lens...get an Olympus Zuiko 28 f/3.5 ($45) (or f/2.8 for a little more money) and an OM to EOS adapter, and you'll get a super compact (almost pancake sized) lens that is stunning optically. Sharp throughout the aperture range, all the way into the extreme corners. It's really amazing how good this little lens is.

The lens:

toxic wrote in post #6914047
Hey, so I've been reading around for awhile and have finally bothered to post.

So recently I've been looking around for a 24-35mm prime to go with my other lenses (see below). I've been dabbling in street photo (unsuccessfully), but I've found that 50mm is too narrow

I can understand that. It depends on how you try to make use of a specific FL too, however.

Why? I think that is just a personal feeling. I did street photography with a 100-400L a few times, and used it a lot at 400 mm. Personally, I am convinced that if you feel uncomfortable about these things, it rubs off on your environment, so they start noticing . Act normally and all is fine, if you ask me .

Since they both have AFD, personally I would probably also go for the 35. The 35 is a tad sharper as well. Of course, personally I don't care much for the 35 mm FL, neither on APS-C, nor on crop. On APS-C it is too short to be tele for me, and too long to be a standard lens. On FF it si too short to be standard for me, and too logn to be wide . But that's me. It may be different for you.

It isn't. At least mine wasn't. It is sharp from wide open, and excellent from F/2. I sold mine because I got the 24L, and the guy who bought it is still extremely happy with it, half a year later. He was a little worried at first, but was amazed at the IQ this underrated gem produces.

Other than that, I like 28 as a standard lens on APS-C, as at ~45 mm FF equivalent it is the slightly short standard lens I prefer, and on FF it is a true WA. I like a 24 mm FL even better, however .

No. Maybe an Olympus Zuiko 35 F/2.8 if you can find one. They are cheaper, too. But manual focus isn't all that easy on a digital camera, certainly not if you want to take shots reasonably fast.

Very good lens. It is a macro lens, of course, but it works very, very well for normal photography too.
It has an extremely sharp centre, but at larger apertures there is some sharpness fall-off at the edges. Not that it isn't good at the edges, but at F/2.8 it is noticeable. From F/4 it starts delivering a more equalized spread of sharpness. This may not bother you at all (still sharp at the edges after all), but it is something I find important at large apertures, equal performance over the whole image.
With macro, because you only deal with the centre of the image circle, you don't have this "problem".
I only sold mine because I shouldn't have bought it in the first place: 35 mm is just not my thing, as stated above.

The Tokina is a lens designed for APS-C.

No. If you are anything like me, you won't like it anymore. Prints from digital slrs are sharper than those from film.

And you'd stand out even more with an old shape slr than with a modern new digital one, if you ask me, especially if you feel you do already with the 17-55 IS .

Kind regards, Wim

I would not call a 28-35 wide angle on a crop like the 40d, its more a normal perspective.

I was after the same range for my 40d and found that most of the zooms are actually better performers across the frame at that kind of range than the primes. People don't want to believe that but check the mtf figures over at photozone.de and you will see it yourself.

Centre sharpness can be a little better on the primes, but the boarders are usually worse. The only exception to the rule is the 35L which is out of the question for me also as even that is only marginally better than my zoom at equal settings, however I would like the 2 stop advantage.

So in the end I've decided to get a sigma 30 f/1.4 for my 40d (deposit paid today, picking it up tuesday), and use my 50 f/1.8 on my film body. I'll just have to live with the weaker boarders. It won out over the 28 f/1.8 because its faster and performs better wide open and equally at mainstream settings. The 35 f/2 seems to need a lot of stopping down to get reasonably sharp seems average at f/2.8 also. Shame really I wanted to like that one. The sigma includes a hood and case which is a nice benefit over the others at this price segment. Of course its not full frame.

If I was in your boots, i'd go with the 28 f/1.8

In that length, assuming the two Ls are out of the budget, I would look at either the Sigma 30mm 1.4 or the Canon 28mm 1.8. If I am incorrect about the budget then the Canon 24mm 1.4 or the Canon 35mm 1.4 are the best in the that focal range.

If the 24mm 2.8 is on your list how about the 20mm 2.8. Don't know about US but UK they are both same price. And I don't know about the 28mm 1.8 but that is cheaper than both of these lenses.

One thing I do know is most primes are one trick pony's because of their fixed focal length, but are very good if you like to use that trick over and over.

Choccy...

Jman13 wrote in post #6914168
If landscapes, don't go AE-1 and an FD lens...get an Olympus Zuiko 28 f/3.5 ($45) (or f/2.8 for a little more money) and an OM to EOS adapter, and you'll get a super compact (almost pancake sized) lens that is stunning optically. Sharp throughout the aperture range, all the way into the extreme corners. It's really amazing how good this little lens is.

I'll look into that lens, thanks. Mostly, I'll be shooting candids and street, both indoors and outdoors. I don't shoot landscape all that often, though that may change. I'm getting a film body for b&w, though, and I dunno if that works for landscape...

wimg wrote:
Why? I think that is just a personal feeling. I did street photography with a 100-400L a few times, and used it a lot at 400 mm. Personally, I am convinced that if you feel uncomfortable about these things, it rubs off on your environment, so they start noticing . Act normally and all is fine, if you ask me .

Huh. You're probably right, but I still feel like people are less likely to be intimidated if I don't have a huge lens pointing at them. I'll try it out some more though.

Well, I'm referring to "true" focal length, since I'll be going full-frame one way or another.

Thing with zooms is I want something relatively cheap but I need it to work well in low light, and I already have the 17-55. Whenever I go film, I'll have 35 (or whatever I buy), 50, and 85, so I don't think I need a zoom. I use my 17-55 like a set of primes anyway (17-28-55).

20mm I think is pushing it...on a crop it might be fine, but I'm wary of the perspective distortion and I already think 24mm is pushing it
The 28 1.8 is $400 here (on amazon), the 24 and 35 are both < $300. I think you're referring to the 28 2.8...

My own experience of the 28/1.8 is that it is horrible, or at least my copy was. I had no option but to return it. I am deciding how to proceed. It might be with another 28/1.8 or I might bite the bullet and get the 24/1.4.

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=6900931&po​stcount=95

Get over your self consciousness with the 17-55 and use that. Total price = $0 and, quite frankly, the primes you are looking at aren't going to give you better IQ, imo.

bohdank wrote in post #6915291
Get over your self consciousness with the 17-55 and use that. Total price = $0 and, quite frankly, the primes you are looking at aren't going to give you better IQ, imo.

That still doesn't give me a wide angle lens on a full frame. As I said before, I'll give the zoom another try. If it works fine, the prime is merely delayed. Lay off.

Worry about it when you get the FF. You're asking to buy a lens for a camera before you even have specific plans for one.

bohdank wrote in post #6915523
Worry about it when you get the FF. You're asking to buy a lens for a camera before you even have specific plans for one.

Have you read my posts? I will be buying a film body for black & white. If that isn't specific enough for you, it will be as soon as the coming summer. At that point, I will need a lens wider than 50mm, which is half of what this thread is for. I never said I had to buy everything now.

edit: additionally, asking now lets me plan my budget in advance. Is that a bad thing?

I'll be gone the next few days. Hopefully other posters (or bohdank) can contribute something a little more informative and a little less presumptuous.

I've also found the 28 f/1.8 to be a fine performer. This lens is on my XT 90% of the time. For indoor available light shots of people, it's great. I found it to be a much more useful focal length for this purpose than the 50 f/1.8. f/1.8 is a bit hit-or-miss, but I'm comfortable using it at f/2.2 or higher.

toxic wrote in post #6915839
Have you read my posts? I will be buying a film body for black & white. If that isn't specific enough for you, it will be as soon as the coming summer. At that point, I will need a lens wider than 50mm, which is half of what this thread is for. I never said I had to buy everything now.

edit: additionally, asking now lets me plan my budget in advance. Is that a bad thing?

I'll be gone the next few days. Hopefully other posters (or bohdank) can contribute something a little more informative and a little less presumptuous.

The closest you came to pinning down a purchase was

The lens must be full-frame compatible. Sooner or later I'm gonna buy a film body. Thanks.