Hi everybody!
I visit this site really often and I really appreciate it.
I have an eos 40d, a canon ef 50mm 1.4 and a 70-200 f4 L is that really satisfy me.
I have also a 28-105 3.5/4.5 which I use almost only 28 and 35mm and at F8.
Even like that I'm not really satisfied all the time.
I would like to replace it by a prime, in the budget under $500.
I read a lot but for the real Life use I can hardly décide myself.
I hesitate between:
Canon ef 35mm f2
Canon ef 28mm F1.8
Canon ef 28mm F2.8
Canon ef 24mm f 2.8
According to the quality références that I have with my 50mm and 70-200, which one would you recommend me?
Thank you!!!
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='Philippe Castagna' timestamp='1306494982' post='8851']
Hi everybody!
I visit this site really often and I really appreciate it.
I have an eos 40d, a canon ef 50mm 1.4 and a 70-200 f4 L is that really satisfy me.
I have also a 28-105 3.5/4.5 which I use almost only 28 and 35mm and at F8.
Even like that I'm not really satisfied all the time.
I would like to replace it by a prime, in the budget under $500.
I read a lot but for the real Life use I can hardly décide myself.
I hesitate between:
Canon ef 35mm f2
Canon ef 28mm F1.8
Canon ef 28mm F2.8
Canon ef 24mm f 2.8
According to the quality références that I have with my 50mm and 70-200, which one would you recommend me?
Thank you!!!
[/quote]
Canon EF 35mm f2. Nice little lens. Focusses fast and accurate, sharp. With back light backgrounds (light through trees/foliage) the bokeh can get very busy with shapes, but otherwise the lens behaves well. Not always the most contrasty lens (back light).
Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM, most users seem to love it, most reviews seem less impressed.
Canon EF 24mm f2.8: most owners love this lens over the other small wide angle primes.
I have the 35mm f2 myself already, and I like it for certain close up stuff, and sometimes city/landscape photography. I will most probably add the 24mm f2.8 to my lenses, as its small size and good optics make it a nice moderate wide angle lens on APS-C and a nice wide angle close up candidate (with 12mm extension tube).
I'd go for the 24mm f2.8, to give a 35mm-ish equivalent on your APS-C camera. And in case you would want 2, I'd consider the 35mm f2 with it.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1306497803' post='8852']
Canon EF 35mm f2. Nice little lens. Focusses fast and accurate, sharp. With back light backgrounds (light through trees/foliage) the bokeh can get very busy with shapes, but otherwise the lens behaves well. Not always the most contrasty lens (back light).
Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM, most users seem to love it, most reviews seem less impressed.
Canon EF 24mm f2.8: most owners love this lens over the other small wide angle primes.
I have the 35mm f2 myself already, and I like it for certain close up stuff, and sometimes city/landscape photography. I will most probably add the 24mm f2.8 to my lenses, as its small size and good optics make it a nice moderate wide angle lens on APS-C and a nice wide angle close up candidate (with 12mm extension tube).
I'd go for the 24mm f2.8, to give a 35mm-ish equivalent on your APS-C camera. And in case you would want 2, I'd consider the 35mm f2 with it.
[/quote]
Hi Brighcolours!
Thank you for your detailed answer.
Originally I was thinking about the Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM for the angle of view, the usm and the fact that I have already the lens hood (same as the 28-105) and the polarizer.
However, as you highlight, the delta between the test and the users review is far too important. I'm a bit lost with this lens.
The 35 looks to be my second choice (my "dream" lens is the 35 L 1.4) However I found sometimes that I prefer the angle of view of the 28mm on the 40D...
In final, the image quality, within my budget, is for me the most important.
How really compare the 35 vs the Canon EF 24mm f2.8?
Maybe you and somebody else could bring his "stone" to help me with the final choice <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='Philippe Castagna' timestamp='1306500735' post='8855']
Hi Brighcolours!
Thank you for your detailed answer.
Originally I was thinking about the Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM for the angle of view, the usm and the fact that I have already the lens hood (same as the 28-105) and the polarizer.
However, as you highlight, the delta between the test and the users review is far too important. I'm a bit lost with this lens.
The 35 looks to be my second choice (my "dream" lens is the 35 L 1.4) However I found sometimes that I prefer the angle of view of the 28mm on the 40D...
In final, the image quality, within my budget, is for me the most important.
How really compare the 35 vs the Canon EF 24mm f2.8?
Maybe you and somebody else could bring his "stone" to help me with the final choice <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
I can't help you there yet, in terms of just how good the 24mm f2.8 is, as I do not own the 24mm f2.8 yet.
Focal length wise, it is the difference between 35mm moderate wide angle and normal prime.... so the classic 35mm and 50mm for full frame.
The reason I am considering it in future (the Canon 24mm f2.8) is because I want a lens for wide angle close-up stuff, and this compact one may just be good for that (and it will double nicely as street photography lens), and the very positive user accounts:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showp...t=2&page=2
If you prefer a wider view than the 35mm will give you, then that is the way to go for you. And my personal choice would be the 24mm f2.8.
Posts: 67
Threads: 9
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
Hi Philippe,
I'd like to know why you are considering fast lenses in the first place. Is it for
- shooting moving objects at available light?
- bright viewfinder image?
- nice bokeh?
- shallow depth of field?
Otherwise, if you are persuing maximum resolution at f/8, then simply get 24mm, 28mm, 35mm plus image stabilization with the 18-55 IS for 100€.
It's amazing how well certain modern zoom lenses compare with decade old prime lens designs! At those three focal lengths and f/8 most prime lenses are only a tad if anything better considering distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration but in terms of resolution some good zooms have an edge.
You won't definitely be satisfied by the build quality of the 18-55. But then, it's value for money. 100 bucks is a low investment into an option to find out what focal length you might prefer in the longer term. And you can save 400 bucks for a 28/1.8, 17-55, 16-85, 24TS or whatever.
I think it is quite rewarding, to know one's hot spots in focal length range. I'm a wide angle and zoom guy. When travelling I shoot 50% of all frames at 18mm (APS-C) and <10% >85mm. The 28/1.8 and 24/1.4 would be my dream lenses on full format, alas I hate carrying and changing lenses.
Regarding the quality of the 28/1.8, here is an interesting quote, which sheds some light on this lens from a full format perspective
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=8324"]My lihttp://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=8324nk[/url]:
Quote:BTw the 50mm 1.8 on FF is less sharp than a 28mm/1.8 on crop where it counts, namly wide open. True, when stopped down the 50mm becomes much sharper at the borders and has less CA than the 28mm, but who buys a 1.8 lens to use it at f/5.6 ?
Just my 0,01 "stones".
Ralf
[quote name='Kodachrome 25' timestamp='1306511319' post='8858']
Hi Philippe,
I'd like to know why you are considering fast lenses in the first place. Is it for
- shooting moving objects at available light?
- bright viewfinder image?
- nice bokeh?
- shallow depth of field?
Otherwise, if you are persuing maximum resolution at f/8, then simply get 24mm, 28mm, 35mm plus image stabilization with the 18-55 IS for 100€.
It's amazing how well certain modern zoom lenses compare with decade old prime lens designs! At those three focal lengths and f/8 most prime lenses are only a tad if anything better considering distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration but in terms of resolution some good zooms have an edge.
You won't definitely be satisfied by the build quality of the 18-55. But then, it's value for money. 100 bucks is a low investment into an option to find out what focal length you might prefer in the longer term. And you can save 400 bucks for a 28/1.8, 17-55, 16-85, 24TS or whatever.
I think it is quite rewarding, to know one's hot spots in focal length range. I'm a wide angle and zoom guy. When travelling I shoot 50% of all frames at 18mm (APS-C) and <10% >85mm. The 28/1.8 and 24/1.4 would be my dream lenses on full format, alas I hate carrying and changing lenses.
Regarding the quality of the 28/1.8, here is an interesting quote, which sheds some light on this lens from a full format perspective
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=8324"]My lihttp://forum.photozone.de/index.php?app=forums&module=forums§ion=findpost&pid=8324nk[/url]:
Just my 0,01 "stones".
Ralf
[/quote]
Hi Ralf,
thank you for your answer which is more than 0,01 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Instead thinking what I can do with one lens on different angle of view, I prefer think about the use of one lens according to the light available.
The fact that I use the 28-105 at f8 is only due that until I reach F8 I do not appreciate the result.
I use the 50mm f1.4 indoor in low light, for portrait or even outdoor, between f4 and f8 for landscape and I really feel good with this way of working.
I just want another lens to work with the same philosophy but with a wider angle of view and the "same" level of sharpness and quality.
Posts: 67
Threads: 9
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
0
If your priority is an as fast as possible lens, than I guess I know which one you will get. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
My last hopeless attempt to talk you into a 'slow' zoom <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />:
Did you consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8 definitely non-VC?
[quote name='Kodachrome 25' timestamp='1306517386' post='8860']
If your priority is an as fast as possible lens, than I guess I know which one you will get. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
My last hopeless attempt to talk you into a 'slow' zoom <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />:
Did you consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8 definitely non-VC?
[/quote]
Well, in the eventuality of a zoom, I was originally interested by the Canon 17-40L which is a bit above my budget and "only" F4.0
When I was younger, I was a Nikonian and really happy with my Tamron 90mm mounted on my FA. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
I just check the test on PZ (of course <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />) for the 17-50 non-VC and VC also (just to understand your remark)and it looks a good alternate....
I never imagine anything else than a canon EF... I need to read more on the Tamron.
It looks that it is matching the result got with a prime, like the 70-200 F4Lis.. did it?
Anyway, Thank you for your approach... Really constructive!
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
[quote name='Philippe SXM' timestamp='1306518682' post='8861']
Well, in the eventuality of a zoom, I was originally interested by the Canon 17-40L which is a bit above my budget and "only" F4.0
When I was younger, I was a Nikonian and really happy with my Tamron 90mm mounted on my FA. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
I just check the test on PZ (of course <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />) for the 17-50 non-VC and VC also (just to understand your remark)and it looks a good alternate....
I never imagine anything else than a canon EF... I need to read more on the Tamron.
It looks that it is matching the result got with a prime, like the 70-200 F4Lis.. did it?
Anyway, Thank you for your approach... Really constructive!
[/quote]
The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro actually is a better idea than the Tamron, even though some reviews might make one think different.
People that have tried both, noticed how the Sigma does better at wide angle (less problematic CA, more contrast). In fact, it is more contrasty over the full range. It is also better built, focusses more accurately and more silent, and it also can focus closer.
So... in case you would go for a standard zoom with f2.8, try a Sigma 18-50 macro... it is a nicer lens.
The follow up, the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS HSM. is a;also a very good lens for its type. But it offers image stabilization in the mix.
The Canon EF 24mm f2.8 almost certainly will give a bit better results than that tamron, mostly due to contrast. Only noticable when shot side by side, of course.
I do have an f2.8 standard zoom myself (the original first version, the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC (non-macro). Very nice lens still, but primes just are nicer to use. More compact, more fuss free without having to zoom to a certain focal length, it is hard to define why I prefer primes over a handy standard zoom. And I for sure will be getting that EF 24mm f2.8, to be able to do close up stuff anyway (can't do that with the standard zoom, its physical length is just too big).
That is personal anyway... But again, if you are pondering about getting a standard zoom, the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 is the better lens compared to the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. And the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is preferable over the Tamron VC.
Interesting info also. Thank you.
But let come back to my original idea... A fast prime.
What about the Sigma 30 f1.4. I read in PZ that the center is outstanding when the border is really not at the same level.
What is the result on the field with real situation.
As I would like to use it from lowlight, walk around and landscape, do you this that, even the mitigate test result, it could fit my need?
|
