# Is There Such Thing As a "Best" Normal Lens for Crop?



## Cory (Sep 9, 2013)

I was pretty psyched about my Sigma 30 1.4 Art, but got some wild purple streaks in some pics so you fail. 
My telephoto lenses are the ultra flawless 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 II.
Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop? I usually don't need to go overly wide, but just a great general purpose (non-sports) lens that'll do it most the best.
The Canon 24 2.8 IS is currently loosely at the top of the list, but maybe just deal with the size of the 17-55? 15-85? 35 2.0?
Thanks.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 9, 2013)

Cory said:


> I was pretty psyched about my Sigma 30 1.4 Art, but got some wild purple streaks in some pics so you fail.
> My telephoto lenses are the ultra flawless 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 II.
> Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop? I usually don't need to go overly wide, but just a great general purpose (non-sports) lens that'll do it most the best.
> The Canon 35 2.0 IS is currently loosely at the top of the list, but maybe just deal with the size of the 17-55?
> Thanks.



What is normal?

I think you have answered your own question in your question.

My favourite walkaround lens on APS-C was my 28mm f2.8.
Cheap.
Compact.
Sharp.
Fairly fast focusing.
Metal mount.
Focus scale.

Very dated now in terms of noise, design (old shakey loose feeling narrow gritty MF ring)
Geometrical bokeh

But perspective wise, I felt it a perfect match for walkaround 'as I saw it' photography.

28mm on aps-c equates to the diagonal of the sensor, which like 43mm on 135 / leica / minature format seems to give the most natural perspective. Whether natural and perfect and the same thing for you is a matter for you.

I've grown to be quite fond of my EOS M + 22 combo. Partly the form factor and rich images from the M, maybe I've been swayed by the convenience rather than the focal length, but the 22mm f2.0 pancake really is super. I even like the fall off! Equiv to a 35mm in old money.

The thing with best, is that rules are always there to be broken.. and it is a lot of personal taste involved.


----------



## bholliman (Sep 9, 2013)

When I had a 7D, my favorite normal lenses were the EF-S 15-85 zoom and EF 35L.


----------



## Zv (Sep 9, 2013)

There is no best just what you prefer in terms of focal length. If you like the slightly tele effect that a 50mm gives on crop (88mm equiv) then you can't go wrong with one of the cheap 50s from Canon. I liked the nifty on the 7D it was a pretty good all round combo but sometimes I needed wider and I missed IS. Plus the 50 1.8 was soft until f/2.8. There was no logical reason to use it after I got the 17-55 so I sold it. 

The 17-55 in my opinion is one of the greatest lenses you can get for a 7D or any other crop body. Wide open it was just as good as the nifty. Add a flash and you can shoot in almost any environment. Doesn't get more general purpose than that!


----------



## aj1575 (Sep 9, 2013)

This is a little bit difficult. I used the 35mm f2 for quite a while as a walk arround lens. It is small, and the IQ is good; AF is noisy but fast enough. FoV is just a bit too narrow for my taste (56mm eqv.)
The Sigma 30mm f1.4 got me quite excited, but the old version had horrible short focusing distance, which itself was a killer for me. The second generation improved in this aspect to an acceptable level, but I was hoping for Sigma 35mm f1.4 IQ, which it can't deliver, actually, the improvement over gen. one is not that big.

I then considerd a zoom option. There we have the 17/18-50/55 f2.8 options from Canon, Sigma and Tamron. The Canon being the best (and most expensive), then there is the nice 15-85mm, and Sigmas 17-70 is also in the mix. To make it short, the f2.8 were too expensive and lack some versatility (and when I really need fast glas, I take a prime), the 15-85 has a nice zoom range, but it is a bit slow, and IQ could also be a bit better (and it overlaps to much with the 10-22 at the wide end), so I went with the Sigma 17-70 and I'm very happy so far. IQ is great, the zoom range is nice. It works almost silent. And it is smaller and lighter than the other options.

But no, there is no "Best" normal lens for APS-C, there is only the one that suits your personal needs the best.


----------



## sdsr (Sep 9, 2013)

Cory said:


> I was pretty psyched about my Sigma 30 1.4 Art, but got some wild purple streaks in some pics so you fail.
> My telephoto lenses are the ultra flawless 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 II.
> Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop? I usually don't need to go overly wide, but just a great general purpose (non-sports) lens that'll do it most the best.
> The Canon 24 2.8 IS is currently loosely at the top of the list, but maybe just deal with the size of the 17-55? 15-85? 35 2.0?
> Thanks.



When you say "wild purple streaks", do you mean purple fringing in corners in areas of strong contrast that are out of focus etc.? If so, is it worse than other other lenses you have around that focal length or wider? Purple fringing is a common problem with fast and/or lenses, esp. when used at or near maximum aperture. If that's not what you mean, you probably have a defective lens.

I can't comment on the various "normal" zooms or the 24 2.8 IS, but you may want to consider the 28 2.8 IS too - on FF is works superbly, and I imagine it would on APS-C too.


----------



## Cory (Sep 9, 2013)

Thick purple streaks along a steel railing while wide open. I've taken similar shots without this effect. Lightroom eliminated it, but it's a little unsettling. 
Thanks.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 9, 2013)

17-55 is my vote. I love this lens when I was shooting with 40D & 60D.


----------



## Cory (Sep 9, 2013)

Went with the 17-55.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2013)

Cory said:


> Went with the 17-55.



Good choice - IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for APS-C.


----------



## Jim O (Sep 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Went with the 17-55.
> ...



+1

Well worth the money.


----------



## Cory (Sep 9, 2013)

Thank you for confirming my "oh **** it" moment. Added a lens hood and polarizing filter to the mix and will, of course, post pictures.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 9, 2013)

Cory said:


> Thank you for confirming my "oh **** it" moment. Added a lens hood and polarizing filter to the mix and will, of course, post pictures.


I think almost all lens/camera purchases are "oh ****it" moments for most people, coz there is always a "better" lens out there that we could/might have bought, so it is comforting when many people agree with our purchase decision ... but at the end of the day what we make of it that matters ... I've seen some very talented people who do awesome work with the el cheapo 18-55mm lens ... that said, I think you made a wise decision to go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, I had that lens for quite some time and loved it, I used to use it with my 7D & 60D cameras ... all of them (including 17-55) are sold to fund my 5D MK III last year. Congratulations on your 17-55 f/2.8 IS, may it serve you well.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 9, 2013)

Cory - I know you have already made your purchase which I would have to say was probably the safest choice. However, I would also give some thought to/or try out the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (29-56mm equivalent). It covers what most people like to consider normal (between 35-50), it is faster than the 17-55, and has more current tech as far as lens coating and elements go. As a result, it supposedly has very minimal chromatic aberration for a lens in this FL range with an aperture that wide. This would only make sense though if you were open to getting another Sigma lens. To answer the other part of your question for a prime (my personal preference), would be the 35/2 IS. IQ is really good, it's faster than any zoom (minus the new Sigma), it fits your need for "normal", and it is the fastest lens Canon produces next to the 200mm that has IS. Again, this lens is fairly new and uses modern coatings which has helped a lot with CA compared to the 35L and the older 35/2. Also, it is an EF lens that you will be able to carry over with you should you decide to make the move to FF one day (it also happens to be on sale for $599 right now).

I use the 35/2 IS on the 5D3/EOS M and love it in both instances. I kept the 35L for the first month after picking up the 35/2 IS and eventually realized that the L was only going to collect more dust. Another affordable purchase that really exceeded my expectations.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 9, 2013)

I've been happy with my 17-55 2.8.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Sep 9, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for confirming my "oh **** it" moment. Added a lens hood and polarizing filter to the mix and will, of course, post pictures.
> ...



+1 doing awesome work with you've got is what matters.


----------



## Cory (Sep 9, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Cory - I know you have already made your purchase which I would have to say was probably the safest choice. However, I would also give some thought to/or try out the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (29-56mm equivalent). It covers what most people like to consider normal (between 35-50), it is faster than the 17-55, and has more current tech as far as lens coating and elements go. As a result, it supposedly has very minimal chromatic aberration for a lens in this FL range with an aperture that wide. This would only make sense though if you were open to getting another Sigma lens. To answer the other part of your question for a prime (my personal preference), would be the 35/2 IS. IQ is really good, it's faster than any zoom (minus the new Sigma), it fits your need for "normal", and it is the fastest lens Canon produces next to the 200mm that has IS. Again, this lens is fairly new and uses modern coatings which has helped a lot with CA compared to the 35L and the older 35/2. Also, it is an EF lens that you will be able to carry over with you should you decide to make the move to FF one day (it also happens to be on sale for $599 right now).
> 
> I use the 35/2 IS on the 5D3/EOS M and love it in both instances. I kept the 35L for the first month after picking up the 35/2 IS and eventually realized that the L was only going to collect more dust. Another affordable purchase that really exceeded my expectations.


That's a good call, I think, on the 35 2.0 IS although I swayed over to the "flexibility" part of the compromise. I think that might be what I'll go with if I move to full-frame one day. 
Thanks.


----------



## albron00 (Sep 9, 2013)

17-55mm


----------



## alexturton (Sep 9, 2013)

I used the original sigma 30mm 1.4 for a number of years. Always thought it was a fantastic little lens in AF speed, accuracy and sharpness. on crop was about 50mm which is standard enough.


----------



## pwp (Sep 10, 2013)

Cory said:


> Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop?


If you're choosing a lens that basically stays on your camera, ready for a variety of situations then it's got to be a zoom. Primes are fine but as a primary lens the zoom rules.

You've said it yourself...the 17-55 EF-S or the 15-85 EF-S. After a dozen years with FF and APS-H I got my first APS-C body a fortnight ago. It's a tiny SL-1 paired with the 15-85 EF-S. I wanted something smaller & lighter for travel. On APS-C the 15-85 makes a great package.

"Best" is a big, broad, diverse place. What is "best" for you depends entirely on your unique style.

-PW


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 10, 2013)

Congrats on your 17-55 you should enjoy it greatly IME.


----------



## Pi (Sep 10, 2013)

albron00 said:


> 17-55mm



+1.


----------



## stefsan (Sep 10, 2013)

pwp said:


> "Best" is a big, broad, diverse place. What is "best" for you depends entirely on your unique style.



Exactly! For a lot of things I use the 15-85 on my 7D because it has a very nice zoom range. There is a price to pay for every lens choice though. You'll have to weigh limiting factors such as aperture (e.g. the 15-85's widest aperture is f3.5 on the wide end) and optical aberrations (making corrections in pp can be cumbersome and time-consuming) against benefits like the versatility. In the end, what the "best" lens is for you depends on your specific needs and may vary with different situations.


----------



## Bruce 101 (Sep 10, 2013)

Add the 18-135 STM to your short list (with the 15-85 nothing optically lost in that comparison) and the 17-55.


----------



## curtisnull (Sep 10, 2013)

Going back to my photography school days almost 30 years ago. A "normal" lens is defined by the film size or sensor size. That is the diagonal of the sensor size in mm is equal to the "normal" lens size in mm. 

Using the Pythagorean Theorem which is a square + b square = c square. Therefore the APS-C sensor on the 7D for example which is 22.3 mm x 14.9 would result in a normal lens of 26.82 mm. 

A full frame sensor would have a "normal" lens of 43.27 mm.

Anything greater than the "normal" lens which is defined by the sensor size would be considered a telephoto lens and anything lesser than the "normal" lens would be considered a wide angle. 

When I was using an 8x10 view camera in photography school, the normal lens for that camera was a 12.8 INCH lens or a 322 mm lens. I think the actual lens we used was a 300mm.

In theory a 26mm lens on an APS-C would give the same field of view as a 43mm on a full frame and the same field of view as a 322mm on an 8x10 view camera.

My Hasselblad used an 80mm as a normal lens.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Sep 10, 2013)

curtisnull said:


> Using the Pythagorean Theorem which is a square + b square = c square. Therefore the APS-C sensor on the 7D for example which is 22.3 mm x 14.9 would result in a normal lens of 26.82 mm.



Hence my choosing of a 28mm and recommendation of it.


----------



## Pi (Sep 10, 2013)

curtisnull said:


> Going back to my photography school days almost 30 years ago. A "normal" lens is defined by the film size or sensor size. That is the diagonal of the sensor size in mm is equal to the "normal" lens size in mm.
> 
> Using the Pythagorean Theorem which is a square + b square = c square. Therefore the APS-C sensor on the 7D for example which is 22.3 mm x 14.9 would result in a normal lens of 26.82 mm.
> 
> A full frame sensor would have a "normal" lens of 43.27 mm.



This is a rather dogmatic view of what "normal" means. "Normal" is supposed to mirror human's field of view, which is close to fisheye with terrible resolution off center, and long telephoto with good resolution. When comparing different aspect ratios, comparing the FL to horizontal or vertical size becomes inconvenient; then the diagonal is more convenient as some kind of average of the two. One can also take the square root of the area instead. 

Once we decide that the we prefer the diagonal as a linear measure of the size of the film/sensor, then FL=diagonal is as "normal" as FL=1.12345*diagonal. Choosing it to be exactly equal to the diagonal sounds a bit mystical, so it must be right. 

If you really want to know what "normal" means, this can only be determined with experiments with people. It is tricky because the AOV depends on the distance to the print, and the latter would depend on how large the print is, in a non-linear way.

Yes, I know what wikipedia says.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 10, 2013)

30 mm. 

My Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN is just great on (1.5x) crop (Sony NEX)


----------



## aroo (Sep 10, 2013)

Setting aside the question of a "normal" human field of view (I personally can't imagine a rectangular sensor producing anything like it), I've noticed that about 50mm on crop or 70mm on FF seems to match the magnification of my eye. In other words, if I look at an object with my naked eye and then through the viewfinder, it appears the same size in my field of vision. Does anyone know the correct term for this "normal" magnification concept?


----------



## keithfullermusic (Sep 10, 2013)

Cory said:


> Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop?



No.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

aroo said:


> I've noticed that about 50mm on crop or 70mm on FF seems to match the magnification of my eye. In other words, if I look at an object with my naked eye and then through the viewfinder, it appears the same size in my field of vision.



That's going to depend on the viewfinder magnification. For example, the 7D has a 1x magnificaiton, whereas the T5i/700D's VF mag is only 0.85x.


----------



## Dantana (Sep 10, 2013)

Not going to get into the debate of what is "normal," but I'm very happy with the original 35mm 2 on crop. It's a nice compact lens with good IQ for the money.


----------



## aroo (Sep 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> aroo said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed that about 50mm on crop or 70mm on FF seems to match the magnification of my eye. In other words, if I look at an object with my naked eye and then through the viewfinder, it appears the same size in my field of vision.
> ...



Ah ha! So sensor size has nothing to do with it... Thank you, Neuro. You're a treasure.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

aroo said:


> Ah ha! So sensor size has nothing to do with it... Thank you, Neuro. You're a treasure.



VF magnification determines how big something looks, but the sensor size is proportional to the field of view for a given focal length (although that's affected by viewfinder coverage...for example, the 7D has a 100% VF, you see everything the sensor sees, whereas the T5i has 95% coverage, meaning there are things at the very edge that you don't see in the VF, but that the sensor captures). 

Take the example of a 100mm Macro lens shooting a coin at the minimum focus distance for the lens (i.e. 1:1 image magnification)


Looking through a 7D, an Indian head gold dollar (a coin smaller than a dime) will appear life sized and just fill the VF
Looking through a T5i, that same coin would appear smaller than life size (0.85x), and the stippled edges at the top and bottom would not be visible through the VF, although they would show up in a picture
Looking through a 5DIII, that gold coin will appear much smaller than life size (0.71x), but you could put a Canadian quarter next to that little gold coin and still fit both in the frame


----------



## MLfan3 (Sep 10, 2013)

Cory said:


> I was pretty psyched about my Sigma 30 1.4 Art, but got some wild purple streaks in some pics so you fail.
> My telephoto lenses are the ultra flawless 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 II.
> Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop? I usually don't need to go overly wide, but just a great general purpose (non-sports) lens that'll do it most the best.
> The Canon 24 2.8 IS is currently loosely at the top of the list, but maybe just deal with the size of the 17-55? 15-85? 35 2.0?
> Thanks.



no , but you can just get the good Sigma 35mmf1.4 or Canon 35mm f2IS as an almost 50mm equivalent lens for your APS-C.
I think the Canon is a better lens , though the Sigma is considered to be the best at this focal length.


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 10, 2013)

On a full frame i could go my whole life with only a super high quality 85mm.

Thankfully i don't have to and i can use a lot of variety in my photos with many different lenses.


----------



## pwp (Sep 11, 2013)

keithfullermusic said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Is there such thing as a best normal lens (prime or zoom) for crop?
> ...


+1. 
I _respect _concise, accurate posts...you win. 8)

-PW


----------



## Cory (Sep 11, 2013)

Then what's the best "normal" prime/zoom combo? 
For telephoto it's clearly the 100 2.0, 200 2.8 II and 100-400. :-*  :-*


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 11, 2013)

My favorite normal lens would be the Canon 28mm F1.8 USM. It's not as sharp as my 50mm but very near it in terms of sharpness. It's not too wide nor too tight for a crop. I've tried the almost similar Sigma 30mm F1.4 and don't like it that much. The Canon is simply smoother and focuses faster even in low light. I've used the 17-55 and 15-85 and found that I like both. They're just too expensive for me to invest something that I'll not use in the future (6D is coming)...


----------



## FTb-n (Sep 11, 2013)

The most versatile "normal" range crop lens is the 17-55. It's sharp and fast and minimizes the need for a flash.

My favorite "normal" range lens, crop or full frame, is the 40 f2.8 pancake. Technically, a tad long on crop (like a 64mm on FF), but it's fun to use. Sometimes, the limited, slightly tighter focal length can be liberating in a way. No time wasted at zooming for the best framing, you spend more time on you subject and framing with what you have. (Of course, if it's critical event to cover for someone else, then I use the 17-55 on crop.)


----------



## Zv (Sep 11, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> aroo said:
> 
> 
> > I've noticed that about 50mm on crop or 70mm on FF seems to match the magnification of my eye. In other words, if I look at an object with my naked eye and then through the viewfinder, it appears the same size in my field of vision.
> ...



Thanks for this link to luminous lanscape, it was a very informative read! Afterwards I looked up my 7D and 5D2 manual for the viewfinder specs. 5D2 could be better!


----------



## Cory (Sep 11, 2013)

While I'm at it should I get a 2-stop ND filter for waterfalls? I'll likely generally try to get these shots earlier or later in the day; hopefully.
Thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 11, 2013)

Cory said:


> While I'm at it should I get a 2-stop ND filter for waterfalls? I'll likely generally try to get these shots earlier or later in the day; hopefully.
> Thanks.



Depends on how much blur you want... I'd think at least 3 stops, I sometimes use 10 stops for waterfalls. A CPL is usually very good for waterfall shots (cuts down on the reflections from water and rocks, and increases saturation of foliage, etc.), and the CPL will cut ~1.75 stops. The 17-55mm is not an ultrawide lens, so as long as you're not planning to use it on a 10-22mm, you might consider a variable ND filter (B+W, Tiffen, or Singh-Ray, skip the Fader/Genus/etc. versions).


----------



## jd7 (Sep 12, 2013)

aroo said:


> Setting aside the question of a "normal" human field of view (I personally can't imagine a rectangular sensor producing anything like it), I've noticed that about 50mm on crop or 70mm on FF seems to match the magnification of my eye. In other words, if I look at an object with my naked eye and then through the viewfinder, it appears the same size in my field of vision. Does anyone know the correct term for this "normal" magnification concept?



I'm not sure I'm correct about this but ... My understanding is that around the 40mm to 50mm focal length - on a 35mm sensor - gives an angle of view (correct expression?) such that the relative sizes of objects at different distances is about the same as what the human eye/brain perceives, and that's what gives the name "normal lens" to lenses around that focal length. 

Have a look at the TDP review of the Canon 40mm pancake lens - 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-40mm-f-2.8-STM-Pancake-Lens-Review.aspx
and compare the scene shot at 35, 40 and 50. The framing of the foreground is about the same in each case, but the objects further away appear less or more "magnified".

If I'm right, my assumpion is the formula posted earlier in the thread works (assuming it does) because it reflects this. I haven't tried to do the maths though.

Perhaps I'm wrong? If so, can anyone explain further?

In terms of field of view , I think human vision is generally a wider field of view than that of a 40mm or 50mm lens, ie a 40mm or 50mm lens (on a 35 mm sensor) gives effectively a crop of what human vision would perceive.

Thanks.

PS - Neuro has already responded about the effect of viewfinder magnification, so my post has nothing to do with that issue.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 12, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> My favorite normal lens would be the Canon 28mm F1.8 USM. It's not as sharp as my 50mm but very near it in terms of sharpness. It's not too wide nor too tight for a crop. I've tried the almost similar Sigma 30mm F1.4 and don't like it that much. The Canon is simply smoother and focuses faster even in low light. I've used the 17-55 and 15-85 and found that I like both. They're just too expensive for me to invest something that I'll not use in the future (6D is coming)...



While I agree with the idea there is no "best", I also think the 28 1.8 makes a very good "normal" lens on APS-C sensor cameras, at least if you don't want to carry the bulk of the 17-55 2.8 (which I think is an excellent zoom lens). I have never tried the Sigma 30 1.4 to compare though.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 12, 2013)

jd7 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > My favorite normal lens would be the Canon 28mm F1.8 USM. It's not as sharp as my 50mm but very near it in terms of sharpness. It's not too wide nor too tight for a crop. I've tried the almost similar Sigma 30mm F1.4 and don't like it that much. The Canon is simply smoother and focuses faster even in low light. I've used the 17-55 and 15-85 and found that I like both. They're just too expensive for me to invest something that I'll not use in the future (6D is coming)...
> ...



The Sigma 30 1.4 is definitely sharper and has less CA than the Canon 28mm F1.8 (probably due to CA). However, the Canon as I said is much better mechanically and AF is a lot faster. With a little bit of time in LR, you won't notice the IQ difference at all unless you really pixel peep (200%?). They cost essentially the same. I have the 28mm F1.8 and the 50mm F1.8 II combo when I want maximum IQ and lightness while bringing my 500D. Night or day, they're perfect for me.


----------

