# Which is the best "normal" prime for a Crop Camera?



## papa-razzi (Aug 13, 2011)

I have a 7D and want to get a fast prime lens that would be close to the equivalent of a 50mm on a FF camera. I have a 17-55 f/2.8, so I want it faster than that. 

This will be my "learn composition & photography the old school way" with a standard length prime, zoom with your feet, etc. I would also use this for indoor pics of the family, children, dogs. Possibly indoor events like kids plays, or sports in a poorly lit gym when I want a wider angle shot (I have an 85 f/1.8 and a 50 f/1.4 and those usually handle the indoor sports stuff)

Sharpness & accurate focus are important to me.

There are several lenses in this range to choose from, and they all get mixed reviews from what I have read. I can't see a clear winner.

For those of you that have any of these lenses, I could use some of your advice, thoughts. I am tempted to rent them all and compare them, but that would be somewhat of an expensive experiment.

I assume the 35 f/1.4L is the best, also Zeiss lenses but that is beyond what I would want to spend. (unless someone could convince me to spend 3x the money 8) )

I am looking at the following lenses
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4
- Canon 28mm f/1.8
- Canon 35mm f/2

Any other suggestions?

Thanks in advance for your responses.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 13, 2011)

I actually went with the 50mm f/1.4, which is 80mm equivalent (as you know) but I found the telephoto effect ended up a better choice for me than a wider 50mm equivalent would have been.

I suppose that technically speaking the 35mm focal length will be, at 56mm, very close to the traditional normal (almost the same as the old 55mm focal length seen as a kit prime on old Fujica cameras and others). Wider would be the 24mm or 28mm - 38.4mm equivalent for the 24mm is rather wide, 44.8mm from the 28mm is closer. However, the EF 28mm is only made as fast as f/1.8, while the 24 and 35mm lenses are both made at f/1.4, but as rather expensive "L" lenses.

I have read good things about the L lenses but they will be more expensive.

About halfway down this page you can find a comparison of the various lenses in these focal lengths. While the 28mm f/1.8 looks somewhat bad in comparison, especially wide open, it is in many ways close to the 50mm f/1.4 which is still a well-regarded lens and one I had no problems using (although I do feel it could be improved, it's still a good lens even wide open when used appropriately).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2011)

The 35L is a wonderful lens. You mention sharpness and accurate focus as key, and the 35L will deliver both, whereas the lenses on your list are all compromises. But a budget is a budget. From the choices you list, I'd choose the 28/1.8. IQ is not stellar (the 17-55mm is better), but it's decent. I'd pick it over the 35/2 for the USM AF motor - AF is fast and accurate. I wouldn't reccomend the Sigma due to inconsistent AF. Nor would I recommend the Zeiss - if you can afford that, get the 35L. The Zeiss is manual focus, and one could argue that the Sigma 30/1.4, which is quite sharp, could be manually focused to avoid AF issues. But I'd stay away from fast MF primes with your 7D, unless you've got the skills to change out the focusing screen (Canon does not consider it a user replaceable part, although there are 3rd party screens available (not cheaply). The stock screen shows you the DoF of f/2.5-2.8, even with a faster lens - that makes it very hard to accurately MF a fast lens (unless you use Live View, which will show the true DoF).


----------



## papa-razzi (Aug 14, 2011)

Thanks for the replies. I just read through reviews on all the lenses again. Yes, they are all compromises, so I remain undecided. I was thinking, if I'm going to spend 35L money, I might as well jump up further and buy a used 5D or 5DII and use my 50mm f1.4 and skip the "normal range" on the crop camera thing. Now I'm talking crazy.

I'm really just looking at this because I have an itch to go more old school and learn on a "normal range" fast prime. My 17-55 f/2.8 really covers my general purpose lens in this area for the most part. So I guess that is why I don't want to spend the money to get the L lens.

So, I think I'll rent the 28mm f/1.8 (best of the 3 as you suggest) and if I'm good with the sharpness of the pictures and my experience with the lens I'll go with it. I think if I don't like that lens, I wouldn't like the others enough to buy them either.

Thanks again.


----------



## dougkerr (Aug 14, 2011)

Hi, p,



papa-razzi said:


> I have a 7D and want to get a fast prime lens that would be close to the equivalent of a 50mm on a FF camera.


Well, the lens that, on an EOS 7D, would give the same field of view as would a 50 mm lens on a full-frame 35-mm camera would have a focal length of about 31 mm.

But you might mean something else by "would be close to equivalent".

Best regards,

Doug


----------



## chicken (Aug 14, 2011)

papa I was in the same boat as you, Canon 7D and 17-55 f/2.8. I was thinking the 35L but my concern is that it is such an old lens and has been rumored for a while that it is going to be refreshed. So I ended up picking up a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and there was something about it I just did not like. Seemed to hunt alot for focus in lower light and pictures were just not that sharp. So I returned it for a replacement and had the same issues. So I then returned it for a refund and picked up the Canon 50mm 1.4 I loved it but just way to close for a day to day lens. I liked it so much though that I kept it and use it for portrait shots here and there. I then ended up buying the Canon 24L II. All I can say is wow. I love the lens both indoor and outdoor. It rarely leaves my camera now a days and my 17-55 which used to never leave the camera, now lives in my bag. I know its an expensive lens but if you can get it, I would highly recommend it with the 7D. The colors just seem to pop so much more than my 17-55 (which always seemed great to me to start with) and the ability to go to 1.4 indoors for that low light picture or outdoors to get some great bokeh rocks. Good luck.


----------



## elflord (Aug 14, 2011)

papa-razzi said:


> I have a 7D and want to get a fast prime lens that would be close to the equivalent of a 50mm on a FF camera. I have a 17-55 f/2.8, so I want it faster than that.
> 
> This will be my "learn composition & photography the old school way" with a standard length prime, zoom with your feet, etc. I would also use this for indoor pics of the family, children, dogs. Possibly indoor events like kids plays, or sports in a poorly lit gym when I want a wider angle shot (I have an 85 f/1.8 and a 50 f/1.4 and those usually handle the indoor sports stuff)
> 
> ...



I went through this, and rented the Canon 35mm f/2, the Canon 35mm f/1.4 and the Canon 28mm f/1.8. 

I liked the focal length of the 28mm but was unhappy with the image quality. If you want sharpness, I'd rule that one out. 

I liked both of the 35mm lenses. The cheaper f/2 is sharp on a crop body (tests show it doesn't do as well in the corners of a full frame but on APS-C it is nice). It is cheaper, the AF motor gets a bit loud when it is making a large jump and you don't get FTM focus. But aside from the 1 stop advantage, the L lens didn't strike me as that much better. And unlike the longer lenses, I found that I didn't have use for f1.4. So I got the 35mm f/2.

Depending on why you want fast primes, a full frame might be nice to have but you might find the AF system on the 7D more to your liking especially if you're shooting sports.


----------



## DJL329 (Aug 14, 2011)

I use the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 on full frame (5DII) and love it. It's fast and sharp (perhaps the previous poster rented a 'bad' copy).


----------



## recon photography (Aug 14, 2011)

sigma 28mm f1.8 u can also use him if u go to the full framess


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 14, 2011)

I've been in the same boat as you since i bought my camera, 7D and 15-35, so i've got more to gain by going a faster 25-35mm ish prime.
So far i've only got the 50 f/1.8, and its sharpness (even wide open) is good enough for me (maybe because i only use it in almost black without a flash, ISO3200 and upwards means softer and smaller images after NR).
One of my main criteria would be a small walkaround lens, sharp, and light, more full-body portraits wide open and f/5-8 landscapes for weight-critical hikes (or i'd just bring my 15-85)

I've compared all the options you have, and lots more, in different mounts and ages up to 60 years old.
and what i've come up with (from reviews and opinions, never having used myself):
Samyang 35/1.4 definitely gets my resolution vote, especially for the price, but it's huge. (and apparently not too contrasty wide open). And MF only.
EF 35/2 is definitely up there, and not too expensive (nice and small too).
EF 28/1.8 looks really soft on the borders from what i've seen. but centre res beats the 35/2.
EF 28/2.8 looks nicely sharp, but you've already got the 17-55 so not much point.
EF 24/1.4L and 35/1.4L both look good, but they're L-priced, and L-sized. (and i've thought the same as you, a 2nd hand 5D makes more sense with a 50/1.4 (or 1.8 ) than wide Ls on my 7D)
sigma 20/1.8 is a bit too wide, and soft as butter until f/5.6, not too useful.
sigma 30/1.4 is good for the price, sharp centre but corners are squishy until f/4 at least (not a bad thing if you want a portrait with blurred background though). APS-C only.
Zeiss 35/2. well yeah. if i had the money, i'd have bought it already.

a few other weird places i've been looking, if you don't mind Manual Focus M42 primes:
Asahi Pentax Takumar 35/2, there's 3 versions and 1 is really good IQ and nice colours, not sure which one though.
Also the MIR-24N (soviet ripoff of Zeiss design), apparently has really good colours and really contrasty from wide open, goes for $100 or so on ebay.
But i've never seen any proper MTF reviews, just washy 'i like this lens' statements from consumers (who for all we know could be comparing it the the 18-55nonIS bathroom-window they're used to).

So for you, i'd be recommending either the Canon EF 35/2 for small, light, AF, or the Samyang 35/1.4 if you don't mind the extra size and MF.

But i'm waiting in the vain hope that one day canon will release their own EF-S 28-35/1.4-2.0. but by then i'll have bought my 5D mk4 and won't need it anymore...


----------



## Viggo (Aug 14, 2011)

"If someone could convince me" 

I can give you the ultimate advice. If you are not prepared to shell out the money for a 35 L, then NEVER try it, not even just for fun. THAT will be the most convincing argument you'll ever come across.


----------



## koolman (Aug 14, 2011)

papa: I have the 550d + Tamron 17-50 - and was in the same dilema.

I currently have the 50 1.4 + the 35 f/2. 

My experience is that on crops, the 35 f/2 is superb. It is a light, sharp, player with a useful field of view. 

The 50mm are a little tight, and are more suited for isolated subjects (portraits etc.)

I often walk around with the 35 f/2. it is very light and fun to use.


----------



## papa-razzi (Aug 14, 2011)

Viggo said:


> "If someone could convince me"
> 
> I can give you the ultimate advice. If you are not prepared to shell out the money for a 35 L, then NEVER try it, not even just for fun. THAT will be the most convincing argument you'll ever come across.



Too funny. That one really got me laughing.


----------



## Darkn3ss (Aug 14, 2011)

For what it's worth...
I believe that a 7D plus 35mm f/2 combination would make you reasonably happy when you get the box for the 35mm, but any happiness after hearing the autofocus will last for a week tops.
Selling your 7D and getting a T3i plus a 35mm f/1.4 combination would make you happy until you want to go full-frame.

Too often do I see people with mediocre glass but a prosumer camera, and feel that that is the best that they can do because they cannot afford a better lens. Flip that mentality my friend! A sharp "L" glass on a JPG only camera will give you better results than mediocre glass on a camera that can take pictures in RAW format any day. Plus, the T3i jpg's look sharper with the same lenses than a 7D anyways, because the 7D is meant to be taken and processed in RAW, not JPG, so corners were cut.

I hope that this post can help you make a decision. I'm 100% sure that you'll love my setup.


----------



## macgregor mathers (Aug 14, 2011)

Darkn3ss said:


> Too often do I see people with mediocre glass but a prosumer camera, and feel that that is the best that they can do because they cannot afford a better lens. Flip that mentality my friend!



With that, I agree.



Darkn3ss said:


> A sharp "L" glass on a JPG only camera will give you better results than mediocre glass on a camera that can take pictures in RAW format any day.






Darkn3ss said:


> Plus, the T3i jpg's look sharper with the same lenses than a 7D anyways, because the 7D is meant to be taken and processed in RAW, not JPG, so corners were cut.



You have a reliable source for that ?


----------



## dr croubie (Aug 14, 2011)

macgregor mathers said:


> Darkn3ss said:
> 
> 
> > Plus, the T3i jpg's look sharper with the same lenses than a 7D anyways, because the 7D is meant to be taken and processed in RAW, not JPG, so corners were cut.
> ...



When TDP did his review of the 7D, he said that at the same 'sharpness' setting, the 7D was softer than the 50D, but i haven't seen anything mentioning the 550/600/60D.

*If* it's true (that the 7D is softer), then my money would be on it just being older, they improve algorithms and features all the time, eg the 600D has digital zoom in movies, not because it's better or more expensive, just because it's the newest. From now on every camera's gonna have that, and more, regardless of cost.


----------



## Darkn3ss (Aug 14, 2011)

No reliable source other than experience and testing things out for myself. I've gone through so many lenses and bodies in my time, it's quite fun playing with items for a while and figuring out what works the best.

Go out and play for yourself. Take the same picture on the 7D with the RAW + L setting and let me know a single time that the L looks nearly as good as the raw. If you have a friend with the 600D, then try that as well, same subject, same glass, and compare JPG to JPG.

For my money, I'd rather have less post and get a JPG immediately. Well, until about 3 weeks ago with Windows 7 added RAW to their list of native file formats!


----------



## koolman (Aug 14, 2011)

Darkn3ss said:


> For what it's worth...
> I believe that a 7D plus 35mm f/2 combination would make you reasonably happy when you get the box for the 35mm, but any happiness after hearing the autofocus will last for a week tops.
> Selling your 7D and getting a T3i plus a 35mm f/1.4 combination would make you happy until you want to go full-frame.
> 
> ...



The 35 f/2 is an older lens, and yes it is not the silent "USM" internal focusing. I got used to the noise and don't hear it any more. However - it delivers clean, crisp, SHARP pictures, nice colors, all in an affordable LIGHT package that's great for extensive use. Sure the 35 L at almost 4 times the price is nicer!


----------



## elflord (Aug 14, 2011)

Darkn3ss said:


> For what it's worth...
> I believe that a 7D plus 35mm f/2 combination would make you reasonably happy when you get the box for the 35mm, but any happiness after hearing the autofocus will last for a week tops.
> Selling your 7D and getting a T3i plus a 35mm f/1.4 combination would make you happy until you want to go full-frame.
> 
> ...



I've had the 35mm f/2 for quite a bit more than a week and am still quite happy with it. Take a look at the test results (e.g. photozone) -- it is not mediocre by any stretch. The Autofocus motor buzzes when it kicks in hard (e.g. because it's hunting or jumping from near to infinity and back but unless you're shooting fast moving objects at short distances (e.g. kids running around the living room) it's fairly quiet for the most part.


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 14, 2011)

> because the 7D is meant to be taken and processed in RAW, not JPG, so corners were cut.



says who?



> When TDP did his review of the 7D, he said that at the same 'sharpness' setting, the 7D was softer than the 50D, but i haven't seen anything mentioning the 550/600/60D



apples and oranges....
and that test makes the 7D a camera that is "meant for RAW"?
really? :

i call that BS.... 600D or 7D or 550D are virtually equal in that regard.

as far as the lens.... if you not absolutly need it then save some money and buy the 35 L when you have enough in your money sock.


----------



## Gothmoth (Aug 14, 2011)

Darkn3ss said:


> Go out and play for yourself. Take the same picture on the 7D with the RAW + L setting and let me know a single time that the L looks nearly as good as the raw. If you have a friend with the 600D, then try that as well, same subject, same glass, and compare JPG to JPG.



i think what you mean is "and let me know a single time that the JPG looks nearly as good as the raw"... ? 
otherwise the sentence makes no sense to me. but my english is not that good... 

well my RAW straight out of cam look 90% of the time worse then the JPGÂ´s.
because RAW must be processed.. that is why we have all the tools like lightroom and C1. 

donÂ´t get me wrong im a die hard RAW shooter.
but what you wrote makes no sense to me.



> For my money, I'd rather have less post and get a JPG immediately. Well, until about 3 weeks ago with Windows 7 added RAW to their list of native file formats!



i donÂ´t know what the RAW codec from M$ has to do with the postprocessing of RAW files?
the only thing the codec does is enabling windows to show a preview of the RAW files.
canon users could find a free codec who does the same for quiet some time.

and if you really want to speed up things get this:

http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/

so M$ finally released a RAW codec to preview files in the windows explorer.
took long enough if you ask me.... :
i never use the windows explorer.... it sucks as image viewer and sucks as filemanager.


----------



## Darkn3ss (Aug 14, 2011)

By "L" I meant a large sized "L" JPG. There are 6 JPG settings on all of the cameras, L, M and S, and I don't know what the other two options are honestly.

Whether it was corners cut, or different chips used, or whatever, the 600D and 60D that I've had certainly produce much nicer JPGs in my opinion than any 7D I've had, and to date I've had a single 600D, 60D and four 7D's. None have been returned for problems, just bought when needed, and sold after they were no longer needed.

All I'm saying is that people should stop spending $1400+ on a body and then $500 for a lens, when $1400+ on a lens and $500 on a body will yield MUCH nicer results!


----------



## jspiteri (Aug 15, 2011)

I had a 50mm for a while and found the focal length too tight for day to day use so, like you, looked for the 50 equivalent. 

I dismissed the Sigma 30mm 1.4 simply because its not a future proof investment as it is not full frame compatible. 

I was tempted by the sigma 28mm 1.8 so picked one up from warehouseexpress, unfortunately it front focused quite dramatically on my 550D so I returned it and replaced it with the Canon 28mm 1.8.

As much as i would have loved to get L glass i didn't have the budget or a lens to use in the mean time. The Canon 28mm 1.8 however has been surprisingly good (despite the mixed reviews). Focus is fast, silent and consistently accurate. The centre image is tack sharp and the colours are good. It gets my vote as a great 50mm equivalent.


----------



## bycostello (Aug 15, 2011)

curious to know why you feel you need a normal lens?


----------



## pedro (Aug 15, 2011)

Planning to go FF again (was shooting a Contax 139 Quartz back in the film days...1982!) I purchased the 28 f/2.8 which is half the price of the 1.8. I did not want to spend too much, but as there are excellent streetphotographers like new york based Markus Hartel using it, so it was way enough for me. ;-) Having the 50 f/1.4 in my line up it will do for a fine street lens when the 5Diii is halfway thru its product cycle...I could bite the bullet already and go for an excellent 5Dii, but I am dreaming of a 5Diii providing some very fine ISO 25600 and very usable ISO 51200. For extreme lowlight photography in b/w (Robert Frank style). So there is joy in the waiting ;-)


----------



## aj1575 (Aug 15, 2011)

I had exactly the same problem. My 50 was to long, and I wanted a "normal" lens on a crop camera. I finally went for the Canon 35 f2. It performs very well, and is affordable. So I never regreted that I bought it. 

I also considered the Sigma 30mm f1.4, APS-C only didn't bother me, since I probably will never go FF, but the close focusing is just too bad (something like 0.5m, 1:10 macro!), I can't comment on the focusing issue, but it seems to be a problem. The Sigma 28mm f1.8 is alos nice, and an okay performer for the price, the problem here was, that it is almost as big as Canons L-glass. The Canon 28mm f1.8 is to expensive for its performance; not very sharp, lots of CA's. The drawback of the 35mm f2 is the noisy autofocus, but I got used to it very fast. 
So, the 35mm f2 is for me the go to lens in this segment.

Of course, there is the 35mm f1.4L, but there is also a 5D mark II and a mark III soon, and a 1D, and expensive Leica glass (without autofocus!), but if you like to or have to stick to a budget, and don't have to own (or buy) just the most expensive stuff out there, you will be very happy with the 35mm f2.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2011)

papa-razzi said:


> I have a 7D and want to get a fast prime lens that would be close to the equivalent of a 50mm on a FF camera. I have a 17-55 f/2.8, so I want it faster than that.
> 
> This will be my "learn composition & photography the old school way" with a standard length prime, zoom with your feet, etc. I would also use this for indoor pics of the family, children, dogs. Possibly indoor events like kids plays, or sports in a poorly lit gym when I want a wider angle shot (I have an 85 f/1.8 and a 50 f/1.4 and those usually handle the indoor sports stuff)
> 
> ...




First, there was nothing magical about 50mm on FF. The only reason it got called the classic/standard/normal etc. was because a standard 50mm lens is THE easiest lens to make and it's very easy and inexpensive to make one that is super sharp stopped down just a little. So it might be more rightly referred to as the simplest/cheapest focal length than the classical/standard/magical/etc. So they used the be the kit lens years ago. I have to say it was never my favorite or ideal focal length on FF. When I had a 35-70mm zoom it was used far, FAR more at 35mm or 70mm. So I wouldn't go after a 30-35mm prime on APS-C just to be at THE standard FF focal length. If you happen to truly like that focal length, ignoring all the talk, then that is a different matter.

I don't think the canon primes that are non-L and non-mark II when a mark II has been released that are wider than 35mm are very good. The 35mm f/2 is good optically but the AF isn't so fast or amazing. Never used a sigma 30 1.4, supposed to have great center sharpness, heard everything from AF is way off to it's perfect so not sure what to make of that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 15, 2011)

papa-razzi said:


> Thanks for the replies. I just read through reviews on all the lenses again. Yes, they are all compromises, so I remain undecided. I was thinking, if I'm going to spend 35L money, I might as well jump up further and buy a used 5D or 5DII and use my 50mm f1.4 and skip the "normal range" on the crop camera thing. Now I'm talking crazy.
> 
> I'm really just looking at this because I have an itch to go more old school and learn on a "normal range" fast prime. My 17-55 f/2.8 really covers my general purpose lens in this area for the most part. So I guess that is why I don't want to spend the money to get the L lens.
> 
> ...



The 35 1.4 has much better focusing system than the 50 1.4.
Ideally, I'd try out 35 1.4 on a 5D2 .


----------



## papa-razzi (Aug 15, 2011)

bycostello said:


> curious to know why you feel you need a normal lens?



Not to confuse need with want - I don't need a normal lens, I want one. I have two zoom lenses that cover that focal range.

I have read from several places that the normal 50mm is close to what the naked eye sees, and that length prime is a good learning lens to learn and practice the basics of photography. Being a fast lens allows experimentation with depth of field.

So it is as simple as that. I want it to play around with and learn.


----------



## Rocky (Aug 15, 2011)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> First, there was nothing magical about 50mm on FF. The only reason it got called the classic/standard/normal etc. was because a standard 50mm lens is THE easiest lens to make and it's very easy and inexpensive to make one that is super sharp stopped down just a little. So it might be more rightly referred to as the simplest/cheapest focal length than the classical/standard/magical/etc. So they used the be the kit lens years ago.


Actually, there are a few "Magical" reason behind the 50mm standard lens. The diagonal of a FF is 43.3mm. In the old days, 45mm is the standard focal lenth for fixed lens camera. Also the angle of view of 45mm is also almost the same as the "clear view" angle of human eye. Leica was using 50mm as standard lens since day one. In the 30's comes the SLR (Exakta). Due to the frange focal length, that make it impossible to make 45mm focal length for the camera. So 55mm was forced to be the focal length for its standard lens. This focal length was adopted by almot all SLR maker until the 60's. As techology gets better, SLR maker finally was able to make 50mm as standard lens. 
As for the price, 50mm is always the cheapest due to high volume, not due to the ease of design or manufacturing. All the design cost and manufacturing tooling are shared by millions of lenses. That makes it almost zero overhead. As for ease of design, for SLR it is easier to design a good 60mm lens than a 50mm lens due to the frange focal length. But 60mm is a little too narrow for general use.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2011)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> First, there was nothing magical about 50mm on FF. The only reason it got called the classic/standard/normal etc. was because a standard 50mm lens is THE easiest lens to make and it's very easy and inexpensive to make one that is super sharp stopped down just a little.



A 'normal' focal length is one that provides a perspective that nearly mimics what humans typically perceive. Psychophysical studies have shown that when presented with a large print or piece of art, most people have a tendency to stop and view that image at a distance that corresponds to an angle of view along the diagonal around 53Â° - and that's the angle you get when your focal length equals the diagonal measure of your image substrate (whether film or sensor, of whatever size). For a FF sensor, that focal length is 43mm - so, technically, 43mm is 'normal' and 50mm happens to be close enough to that. Historically, the *Lei*tz Optical Factory used a 50mm fixed lens on their first 35mm *ca*mera - thus, the Leica was born and 50mm has been 'normal' (for the 35mm format) ever since.



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> When I had a 35-70mm zoom it was used far, FAR more at 35mm or 70mm. So I wouldn't go after a 30-35mm prime on APS-C just to be at THE standard FF focal length.



I suspect that's true for most people - grab the EXIF-analyzing software of your choice and look at your zoom lens stats, and I bet most of your images are at the ends of the range.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Aug 16, 2011)

+1 for the 35mm f/2. If you're wanting to go a little old school, this is your lens. The IQ is superior to the 28 f/1.8. Yes, the autofocus is a little loud, but who cares? The shutter of a camera is loud too.


----------



## nismohks (Aug 16, 2011)

although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....

it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful


----------



## jseliger (Aug 16, 2011)

Eagle Eye said:


> +1 for the 35mm f/2. If you're wanting to go a little old school, this is your lens. The IQ is superior to the 28 f/1.8. Yes, the autofocus is a little loud, but who cares? The shutter of a camera is loud too.



How do you feel about it compared to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which looks similar enough for me to ask the question? 

EDIT: Plus, it gets a lot of love elsewhere, although I get the impression that the differences between the various lenses in this range might be pretty minimal in actual use.


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 16, 2011)

nismohks said:


> although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....
> 
> it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful



I couldn't agree more - I love it, too, and it's the perfect FL for me on a crop sensor (60D).


----------



## koolman (Aug 16, 2011)

nismohks said:


> although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....
> 
> it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful



The 24mm = 38.4 mm equivalent on a crop. This is quite close to the traditional 35mm lens many cameras ship with like the fuji x-100


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 17, 2011)

Darkn3ss said:


> Too often do I see people with mediocre glass but a prosumer camera, and feel that that is the best that they can do because they cannot afford a better lens. Flip that mentality my friend! A sharp "L" glass on a JPG only camera will give you better results than mediocre glass on a camera that can take pictures in RAW format any day. Plus, the T3i jpg's look sharper with the same lenses than a 7D anyways, because the 7D is meant to be taken and processed in RAW, not JPG, so corners were cut.


I think you are confused. The T3i can output RAW files just fine, as do all the DSLRs in Canon's lineup (T3 too).


----------



## Darkn3ss (Aug 17, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Darkn3ss said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're right, I misspoke when I said JPG only. My intention was JPG intended. I find that most people that buy xxxxD and xxxD bodies only want JPG, and aren't hard-core photoshoppers. Take a picture, and it's fine. When using JPG, I find that the xxxxD/xxxD are actually quite a bit sharper than the xD cameras in JPG. I've never used a 1Ds3 yet, so I cannot comment on that, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was the same scenario.


----------



## Taym (Aug 18, 2011)

nismohks said:


> although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....
> 
> it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful


How would you guys comparevthis 24mm 1.4L with the 35mm, 1.4L still by Canon? I would guess a 35mm is closer to "normal" and would also be such on a FF, should one decide to eventually upgrade... Right?


----------



## nismohks (Aug 18, 2011)

Taym said:


> nismohks said:
> 
> 
> > although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....
> ...



i was deciding between the 24 and 35... but eventually i chose the 24.
why?
because i often go out for dinner with friends and i do some concert photography both scenario which often demands a large aperture. as such the wider 24 is more useful for me and i can still fit in a few ppl in my shot where as had i got the 35 i'd be just picking out individual people. i like composing wide.

another reason is that i have a 50 f1.4 that although is not L, serves me fine for low light.
the difference in perspective between 35 and 50 is quite little so with respects to the cash outlay, i deemed that the 24 would give me a more unique perspective.

food photography using the 24 is absolutely awesome i must say







i am going to upgrade to FF when the 5d3 comes out which will make my 24 quite wide, but im cool with that.
i love night street photography and for my style of shooting, the 24 is fantastic to be able to get the ambiance of the scenery as well as its activities. 

failing that, theres always foot-zoom so it's all good 

at the end of the day it depends on what you like to shoot and what you plan to use it for.

If the 24 is too much for you and you arent sure if you will move up to FF, i recommend the sigma 30 f1.4. great price, decent resale should you wish to sell later and performs quite well too. my mate has one and if i werent planning to go to FF later, i wouldve picked that up much earlier


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2011)

Taym said:


> How would you guys comparevthis 24mm 1.4L with the 35mm, 1.4L still by Canon? I would guess a 35mm is closer to "normal" and would also be such on a FF, should one decide to eventually upgrade... Right?



The angle of view from the 24mm is about 25% wider than the 35mm lens. Both would be 'normal' on a crop body (38mm and 56mm equivalent). On a FF body both are wide angle lenses (although 35mm is at the longest end of 'wide angle' while 24mm is at the shortest end, and wider that that is usually called 'ultrawide angle').

Performance of the two lenses is pretty similar, it really comes down to the focal length you need. If you have a zoom lens covering the range, set it to 24mm for a while then to 35mm for a while and see which you like the best. Personally, I chose the 35L.



nismohks said:


> If the 24 is too much for you and you arent sure if you will move up to FF, i recommend the sigma 30 f1.4. great price, decent resale should you wish to sell later and performs quite well too. my mate has one and if i werent planning to go to FF later, i wouldve picked that up much earlier



How many great shots did you miss out on because you didn't 'pick up [the Sigma 30/1.4] much earlier'? I'm a firm proponent of buying the lens(es) you need for the body you have. Lots of people are 'planning to go FF soon' but unless 'soon' means I'm getting the new body next month, it's all relative. What if the 5DIII doesn't appear until late 2012? Or 2013? What if a 7DII comes out first, and has a feature set and price you can't resist, and there goes your savings for the 5DIII? 

Not sure I agree on the resale value of the Sigma 30/1.4. At least on my local CL, Sigma lenses seem to take quite a hit on the second-hand market. High-end Canon lenses do seem to hold value pretty well (L series, and the top end EF-S lenses, too).


----------



## nismohks (Aug 19, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> How many great shots did you miss out on because you didn't 'pick up [the Sigma 30/1.4] much earlier'? I'm a firm proponent of buying the lens(es) you need for the body you have. Lots of people are 'planning to go FF soon' but unless 'soon' means I'm getting the new body next month, it's all relative. What if the 5DIII doesn't appear until late 2012? Or 2013? What if a 7DII comes out first, and has a feature set and price you can't resist, and there goes your savings for the 5DIII?
> 
> Not sure I agree on the resale value of the Sigma 30/1.4. At least on my local CL, Sigma lenses seem to take quite a hit on the second-hand market. High-end Canon lenses do seem to hold value pretty well (L series, and the top end EF-S lenses, too).



well some people, myself definitely included, can't really afford to buy things 'for the moment' and so they gotta somehow look at the future too to see what would suit their needs better. obviously if you can afford to buy lenses for the gear you have now, and repurchase them when your needs change, then good for you. i do photography as a hobby and for the most part of since doing it, ive been studying so funds haven't been the easiest to acquire. 

even though a 7d2 may come out first and it has a great feature set, i still wouldnt get it as im looking for a full frame camera. no matter the features and extra etc, both cameras will still be fundamentally different what with the 7d with a crop and the 5d being a full framed camera. for me, it's a no brainer as i want to start a side business doing photography to complement my day job, but then again everyone is different so once again it depends on where people see themselves in the future with photography.

i guess resale will differ depending on where you are, but in australia they aren't too bad since the market for them is not as big as in the states and we dont have many options for local purchase or even just to test gear. most aussies have to buy from overseas (US or Hong Kong) as it is simply much cheaper than local pricing and so 2nd hand gear generally holds their price well here as there is a market for those who are unable to easily purchase equipment.

anyway just my 2c, i wish the OP will be able to find what they want and be able to enjoy it


----------



## epsiloneri (Aug 19, 2011)

nismohks said:


> well some people, myself definitely included, can't really afford to buy things 'for the moment' and so they gotta somehow look at the future too to see what would suit their needs better. obviously if you can afford to buy lenses for the gear you have now, and repurchase them when your needs change, then good for you.



I think the point is that you actually _don't_ lose much money (probably much less than you think, anyway) by catering to your current needs rather than hypothetical future, especially if you can find good used lenses that don't lose value at all. Some lenses work as well for both APS-C and FF, but if you plan to stay APS-C for a while, then you are probably much better served by, e.g., buying better suited EF-S zooms than more expensive wide/normal L-zooms that are heavier, somewhat wrong focal range, and don't produce much better quality on the APS-C than the APS-C-optimised EF-S lenses. It mostly depends on how much photography you plan to do before your FF upgrade.


----------



## Taym (Aug 19, 2011)

nismohks said:


> although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....
> 
> it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful



Ok, based on this review and test, no surprise there:
http://www.lenstip.com/245.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM.html

24mm 1.4L seems quite sharper than 35mm 1.4L. Still taken over from the above review, here are the two charts (left 24mm, right 35mm):


----------



## Taym (Aug 19, 2011)

... also, guys, what is your recommendation here. Look at the 50mm 1.2 diagram, and compare it with those above. Price for these three lenses is high but relatively similar. Leaving aside the focal length, would you give up some picture sharpness at f/1.4 and get the 50mm f/1.2L, to gain the baility to shoot at f/1.2? In other words, if focal length itself was not a particularly big issue for you and you could be happy with both, say, 35mm and 50mm, would you prefer the additional sharpness or the ability to go down to f/1.2L?

50mm 1.2L and 35mm 1.4L respectively:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> nismohks said:
> 
> 
> > well some people, myself definitely included, can't really afford to buy things 'for the moment' and so they gotta somehow look at the future too to see what would suit their needs better. obviously if you can afford to buy lenses for the gear you have now, and repurchase them when your needs change, then good for you.
> ...



Exactly - and for many, that FF upgrade remaing 'soon' for a LONG time. For example, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS delivers better optical quality than either the 24-70mm f/2.8L or 24-105mm f/4L IS (when comparing all on a 1.6x body), and provides a true general purpose zoom (wide to short tele, whereas 24mm on APS-C is not wide angle).

As for losing money, I wanted an ultrawide lens before I had a FF body, got the EF-S 10-22mm. Sold it nearly a year later, after getting my 5DII, for a loss of $50 - and that was before the jump in lens prices earlier this year. If I sold it today, I'd have made a profit (after less than 18 months of ownership).


----------



## YoukY63 (Aug 20, 2011)

Taym said:


> Ok, based on this review and test, no surprise there:
> http://www.lenstip.com/245.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_24_mm_f_1.4L_II_USM.html
> 
> 24mm 1.4L seems quite sharper than 35mm 1.4L. Still taken over from the above review, here are the two charts (left 24mm, right 35mm):



Thanks for the figures, but be carreful when you compare tests from different reviews.

In these tests, 24mm and 50mm can be compared together because they have been made on the same sensor: Canon 50D (15MP).
On the other hand, the 35mm has been tested on a Canon 20D (8MP)! So it is very logical that numbers seems lower than for the 2 other guys.
So regarding linear pixel density, the ratio between both cameras is 1.356.
To "compare" these results, you have to divide results from the 24mm and the 50mm by 1.356.

After that, I don't think you will see the 35mm as weaker than the 2 other ones...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Aug 20, 2011)

I'm not going to quote reviews or comment on camera specs. My suggestion is based on my own experience with crop and FF cameras. I have a 30D, 40D, 60D and 5D. I own or have owned many of the lenses mentioned here. I carry the *28mm f/1.8 EF USM* prime lens for the exact reason you want one and I love using it. It's a well made lens that isn't cheap and isn't super expensive. (I like the saying that L stands for _Expensive as L_!) I have several other zoom L lenses that cover the same focal length (and I love/use them also) but the 28/1.8 is a great lens on _both the crop and FF cameras_. I much prefer it to the 50mm prime lenses I own. I use it a lot in low light. Keep in mind that low light sometimes requires some manual focus skill regardless of the lens or camera. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## bainsybike (Aug 27, 2011)

I like the Sigma 30mm. This one taken at F1.4 with a 50D.


----------



## bainsybike (Aug 27, 2011)

Sorry - didn't work! I tried to insert an image using the icon at the left of the second row, and typing in its full path name. What did I do wrong?


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Aug 27, 2011)

You didn't upload it to a web server, and I can't access your K:\ hard drive over the Internet. You need to have it hosted somewhere before you can display it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2011)

Upload your image to this forum using the Attachments and other options link below the text entry box.


----------



## bainsybike (Aug 27, 2011)

Thank you, gentlemen. I'll try again! Sigma 30mm at F1.4.


----------

