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?

 
pixel_junkie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,001 posts
Likes: 141
Joined May 2007
Location: Southern California
     
Dec 22, 2008 17:44 |  #31

LightRules wrote in post #6928714 (external link)
The Sigma is *significantly* smaller and lighter, "man".

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).

You brought it up chief.


Website (external link) | Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tony-S
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,903 posts
Likes: 204
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
     
Dec 22, 2008 17:47 |  #32

pixel_junkie wrote in post #6928871 (external link)
You brought it up chief.

But you're the one who tried to make something out of nothing.


"Raw" is not an acronym, abbreviation, nor a proper noun; thus, it should not be in capital letters.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,447 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5961
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2008 18:54 |  #33

LightRules wrote in post #6928714 (external link)
The Sigma is *significantly* smaller and lighter, "man".

IMAGE NOT FOUND
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).

And the 30 1.4 is not near as sharp....

The 35L is one of the best 35mm lenses you can buy period.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Dec 22, 2008 19:14 |  #34

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6929309 (external link)
And the 30 1.4 is not near as sharp....

The 35L is one of the best 35mm lenses you can buy period.

Come on, Frog. You love to chime in with your L-fanboyism. [Yawn...]




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nadtz
Goldmember
Avatar
1,483 posts
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 22, 2008 19:21 |  #35

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6929309 (external link)
And the 30 1.4 is not near as sharp....

The 35L is one of the best 35mm lenses you can buy period.

Though the 35L is indeed very good, on a crop camera the sigma 30 gives the L a very good run for *less than half the price*. Given what the op asked for my order of recommendation would be

1) 35/2 which is a very good lens and fairly inexpensive
2) sigma 30 a better lens, though a bit more expensive

with emphasis that even though I list it second, saving the pennies for the sigma would be well worth it, but the 35/2 is no slouch.

As for buying once and not having to buy again, the sigma resells well when it is a good working lens, why not use the best tool for the job and the situation? Suggesting the L when the op states its out of his price range is pointless.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,447 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5961
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2008 19:29 as a reply to  @ LightRules's post |  #36

Its true.

Don't take my word for it
30
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1 (external link)
35L
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1 (external link)

Go to the next page adnd read the conclusions...

Check this not even close..
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …nsComp=121&Came​raComp=396 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,447 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5961
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2008 19:29 |  #37

nadtz wrote in post #6929447 (external link)
Though the 35L is indeed very good, on a crop camera the sigma 30 gives the L a very good run for *less than half the price*. Given what the op asked for my order of recommendation would be

1) 35/2 which is a very good lens and fairly inexpensive
2) sigma 30 a better lens, though a bit more expensive

with emphasis that even though I list it second, saving the pennies for the sigma would be well worth it, but the 35/2 is no slouch.

As for buying once and not having to buy again, the sigma resells well when it is a good working lens, why not use the best tool for the job and the situation? Suggesting the L when the op states its out of his price range is pointless.

Its not even close and on a crop the 24L is much better than the 30...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Dec 22, 2008 19:36 |  #38

Even if TDP comparison showed the Sigma to be better, you would (because of your presuppositions and bias) find reason to declare the L better or not post the test. That said, they are close even in TDP comparison. As for PZ, whatever Klaus' conclusions are, he tests one copy and that can only contribute to a conclusion but by no means is conclusive.

Now get off your L-hobby horse and try to be a little more objective...as hard as I know it must be for you. :D

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6929492 (external link)
Its true.

Don't take my word for it
30
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1 (external link)
35L
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1 (external link)

Go to the next page adnd read the conclusions...

Check this not even close..
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …nsComp=121&Came​raComp=396 (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Dec 22, 2008 19:38 as a reply to  @ LightRules's post |  #39

And FTR...

http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/30v35_1st (external link)

http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/30v35_2nd (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,447 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5961
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2008 19:41 as a reply to  @ LightRules's post |  #40

I've shot with both and own the 35L. I doubt that most that have shot with both prefer the 30.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LightRules
"flat out embarrassing"
Avatar
9,909 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2005
     
Dec 22, 2008 19:43 |  #41

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6929562 (external link)
I've shot with both and own the 35L. I doubt that most that have shot with both prefer the 30.

Let's just say I don't believe you. Show them side by side and post the crops. Talk is easy. :lol: Vindicate your claim.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cotmweasel
Senior Member
Avatar
995 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Allen, TX
     
Dec 22, 2008 19:56 |  #42

wow, those are close. I can hardly tell a difference :shock:


-Dave
Equipment List:Canon Rebel XTi, Canon 7D, EF-S 18-55mm (Kit lens), EF 28-135mm IS, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM, Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.7 Planar T* (converted to canon), EF 70-200mm F/4 L, EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro, 430EX, MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite Flash.
My flickr page http://www.flickr.com/​photos/cotmweasel/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,447 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5961
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2008 20:05 |  #43

LightRules wrote in post #6929574 (external link)
Let's just say I don't believe you. Show them side by side and post the crops. Talk is easy. :lol: Vindicate your claim.

I did I bought the 35L and the 24L...Thats vindication enough for me. I showed you reviews and side by side crops done by folks far more credible than I am so keep shoot'n with the 30 if you like but I found it to be not as sharp as the 35L as did the two reviews I posted. I gotta $20 said if you ever spent any time with the 35L you would go back.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ade ­ H
Senior Member
598 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Wiltshire (U.K.)
     
Dec 22, 2008 20:13 as a reply to  @ airfrogusmc's post |  #44

To those who think nothing of suggesting a £900 lens to someone with a budget of, at best, less than one third of that:

Those nice expensive lenses might be great and suit you (and your wallet) down to the ground, but please have a care for people who are on a tight fixed budget and clearly state that budget in their opening post. Is it not more constructive all round? :)

There is a lot more to choosing lenses than differences in image quality that can be hard to discern and matter nought to almost anyone who looks at someone's photos other than the person who has to justify the expenditure of that kind of money. The kind of cash that some of us would take many months to scrape together once the bills are paid and simply could not justify by any form of rational thought even if we could afford it. :confused:

(Moan over).

To the OP: the Sigma 30mm is a cracking lens in every way, but I can understand that it might be a stretch. Sigma's 28mm f/1.8 is a bit cheaper and I reckon that you would be quite happy with it. The Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM is about the same price as the Sigma 30mm, so I can't really favour it. I have never used Canon's cheap 35mm f/2, so I have no opinion about that.

Whatever you pick, try to stick with f/2 or wider rather the f/2.8s, since that is obviously one of the biggest benefits of a prime.

(My comparisons based on UK prices, obviously. YMMV)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
queenbee288
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,610 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 154
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Stanford, Ky
     
Dec 22, 2008 20:14 |  #45

LightRules wrote in post #6928714 (external link)
The Sigma is *significantly* smaller and lighter, "man".

IMAGE NOT FOUND
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).

It will also look real cool when that black finish starts to peel.:lol: It does happen. I have shot with the sigma 30 to test for a friend. It was ok nothing special. The 35L on the other hand is definately special.




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

6,222 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 Craig777
880 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.