# Good, relatively cheap prime that work well across formats



## SJTstudios (Oct 4, 2013)

Hey guys, I'm looking to buy a new prime or two before I upgrade to a pro level body. I'm looking to get a 5d/ 6d or 70d/7d. I have a 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, the 100mm l macro, and some lensbaby stuff. Anybody have some advice on primes that work well on both formats?

I've been thinking about the 135mm f2.

I like the 28 on my rebel

I like the 35mm and 50mm on ff.

But I'm lost at this point


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2013)

Any EF lens 'works well on both formats' if it provides the focal length that you need for a given AoV with each sensor size. There are some lenses that 'work better' on APS-C if you go by overall IQ (not just sharpness), and that's usually the cheaper lenses where performance away from the center degrades badly.

The 40/2.8 pancake does well on both, IMO. The 135L does ok, but it's really best on FF (too long indoors on APS-C for me).


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 4, 2013)

Thank you for posting this! I was gonna ask if the 35mm f2 USM IS lens is good on crop. I have the 28mm f1.8 USM and it seems a bit wide for my liking and I usually don't shoot it at 1.8 because of the ugly bokeh. Would it be considered an upgrade? There is the IS though slightly useless unless it's super dark and/or shooting video. Is f2 on the 35 sharp and prettier? Color rendition? Thx!!


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 4, 2013)

King of the cheap primes has to be the 40mm pancake. Pin sharp in the centre, very sharp across the frame @ f4 - 8. Pleasing bokeh at 2.8 (I think; some disagree). So small you can put it in your top pocket and have it with you 'just in case'. Actually feels quite well made compared with some other cheapies. 

The other obvious 'cheap' prime is the 85mm f1.8. Now that does work very well on both formats as it is a short tele on FF and gives classic 135mm FOV on APS-c. The lens was designed with moderate chromatic aberration correction to give very pleasing bokeh, but can give bad purple fringing wide open. Nothing to worry about; just stop down a little if you're shooting into light with very high contrast. 

Personally I prefer the 85 f1.8 to the 135 f2, but don't mention that on CR or you'll get kicked out of the club. 

With regard to 35mm f2 IS I would say it is a very useful lens on crop if you want a 'standard' field of view'. I disagree about IS being useless on this lens. What if you're shooting landscapes at sunset or dusk and haven't been lugging a tripod around with you ? I have heard good reports on this lens but haven't used one yet.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 4, 2013)

I personally love the 35/2 IS. I shoot a lot at 35 and 50 which is roughly (yes, 35mm at 1.6x not exactly 50, but 50ish) what it would give you transitioning between a crop sensor and full frame. As I've stated before in another thread, it is a great deal at $549 after the recent price drop.

It is the fastest lens with IS next to the 200/2, has modern optics, and is actually on par with the L at f2 with regard to resolution. If you are willing to spend a few hundred more, there is always the Sigma 35.


----------



## xvnm (Oct 4, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> King of the cheap primes has to be the 40mm pancake.



Here's a picture taken with the 40mm @ f/4, 1/100s, ISO 400 on a 70D body, 100% crops from the center and lower left corner, straight out of the camera (RAW convert by Canon DPP), no retouching. Looks pretty good for a $200 lens.


----------



## ScottyP (Oct 4, 2013)

Needing to work well on both formats makes it a little tough but I think 85mm is best if you do portrait-type shooting. It occupies the wide and long ends of "ideal portrait range" on both full and crop frame, respectively. 

If you do a lot of "street photography" or "standard length" shooting I agree on the 40mm f/2.8 for cost quality and portability. And the 40mm length works well for that on both full and crop. 

I can't think of a wide angle landscape lens that would work well on both unless you spend big for the 14mm. 

It is easier if you want casual and not terribly distant sports, as 135mm and 200mm would do that well on either format.


----------



## xvnm (Oct 4, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> I was gonna ask if the 35mm f2 USM IS lens is good on crop.



I have a 35 IS and I love it on my 70D. IS doesn't hurt, but if you think it is not needed, I've heard the non-USM 35/2 is just as good for a lot less money.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 4, 2013)

xvnm said:


> cellomaster27 said:
> 
> 
> > I was gonna ask if the 35mm f2 USM IS lens is good on crop.
> ...



the original 35/2 is much older and as such has very dated optics along with dated coatings. The new IS version is much better optically even without IS.

+1 regarding the 40 pancake if you are indeed looking for something in that price range. The STM is great if you do video recreationally and just want to make quick/simple captures. Otherwise, I personally feel like may be a bit too close to the 50 you already own with regard to focal length.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 4, 2013)

The focal length range from 35-85mm is excellent on both formats. Even 24-100mm.

First pick the focal length you will need, then ask for lens recommendations.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 5, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Thank you for posting this! I was gonna ask if the 35mm f2 USM IS lens is good on crop. I have the 28mm f1.8 USM and it seems a bit wide for my liking and I usually don't shoot it at 1.8 because of the ugly bokeh. Would it be considered an upgrade? There is the IS though slightly useless unless it's super dark and/or shooting video. Is f2 on the 35 sharp and prettier? Color rendition? Thx!!



i tested the new 35 IS canon when i got the sigma 35

it was a very tough decision
in the end i placed the extra stop and slight sharpeness edge wide open and corner to corner on full frame on the sigma ahead of IS on the canon

but if IS is something you find yourself needing or using alot I would definately say the canon 35 is the one to go for

the canon f2 IS is still very sharp at f2 in the center but it is not as strong in the corners as the sigma if this matters to you.

the other thing i love about the canon f2 IS is its small, much smaller than the sigma


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 5, 2013)

Thanks for the knowledge! 
Since the price drop, I guess the canon seems more likely...more "wallet" friendly than the sigma.  Think I'm gonna sell my 50 and 28 for the 35. Don't know if I'll really need the IS but can't hurt! Thanks again~


----------



## mwh1964 (Oct 5, 2013)

Keep 100L. Sell 28 and 50. Get the 35f2 IS in stead. Will work great on both crop and ff. If on a budget well then keep the 28 you have. It is also a great lens even considering its age.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 5, 2013)

Looking at your lens lineup, if you like landscape, then I suggest a 14mm. Samyang/rokinon/bower fits the budget though without AF. 17-40L if you want filter and AF. For tele, a 70-200L f4or F2.8 will be good or a 70-300L depending on your needs. The 100mm f2.8 is a good portrait lens already. But of course go for a 135L if you feel that the 100mm is not good enough. I have the same lens lineup as you are and I'm going for 6D definitely unless the 5d3 suddenly becomes cheap enough for my budget. I also plan to go fora 24-105 as my walk-around lens. The 40mm seems redundant with your 50mm. If you really want to buy it then sell the 50mm. The 40mm IQ is better but not much. I prefer the 50mm focal length though than a 40mm. I suggest you do your lens upgrade slowly and only as needed. Try out first those lens that you want before you buy them. Don't be a collector. Buy only when needed and your wife/life will be happier (if you got one). If not married then I envy you coz you can have the best lenses without worrying about your wife. .


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 5, 2013)

SJTstudios said:


> Hey guys, I'm looking to buy a new prime or two before I upgrade to a pro level body. I'm looking to get a 5d/ 6d or 70d/7d. I have a 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, the 100mm l macro, and some lensbaby stuff. Anybody have some advice on primes that work well on both formats?
> 
> I've been thinking about the 135mm f2.
> 
> ...



50mm f1.4 is great lens. I had this lens for years before jumping over to 50L. The copy I had was great @ f1.8 - smaller. 50mm on FF is easy to shoot.

135L is a super lens. It's sharp and AF is fast. Huge benefit for both crop and FF. Just keep the shutter speed @ 1/125 or faster.

I had bad experience with 28mm. Soft - soft and more soft


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 5, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> I personally love the 35/2 IS. I shoot a lot at 35 and 50 which is roughly (yes, 35mm at 1.6x not exactly 50, but 50ish) what it would give you transitioning between a crop sensor and full frame. As I've stated before in another thread, it is a great deal at $549 after the recent price drop.
> 
> It is the fastest lens with IS next to the 200/2, has modern optics, and is actually on par with the L at f2 with regard to resolution. If you are willing to spend a few hundred more, there is always the Sigma 35.




+1 a perfect choice between the two 35s

there are reviews of 35 sig and 35 f2 I.S. .....in my opinion... the best lenses avail that work on FF(35mm) or 1.6 crop(50mm+) ... either are the top choices ...


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 6, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> SJTstudios said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys, I'm looking to buy a new prime or two before I upgrade to a pro level body. I'm looking to get a 5d/ 6d or 70d/7d. I have a 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, the 100mm l macro, and some lensbaby stuff. Anybody have some advice on primes that work well on both formats?
> ...



+1 on the 28mm. It's soft until you stopped down a little. From 2.2 to 2.8, it just keeps on getting sharper. @2.5 or 2.8, it's IQ is very good already and much better than the 18-55 kit lens @5.6. In my experience, it's sharper than the 17-55mm head-to-head, same camera, same focal length and same aperture.

Here's the comparison from the-digital-picture lens tool.

17-55mm and 28mm @ F2.8, 60D.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=253&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

It's even close to the 24-70II though the CA degrades its quality. If you reduce the CA in PP, it'll be a little bit closer though of course, 24-70II is still better especially if you pixel peep.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=253&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------

