Wide angle prime? [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

Jayson

09-14-2009, 12:33 AM

So, I have been looking at purchasing a wide angle prime. I have the 50mm on order, the 85mm and the 100mm macro. I want to get a wide prime to do full body shots and stuff like that and am waivering on what to choose. I don't have the cash to purchase an L lens and am looking at the $700 and under range. I have read Bryan's reviews and am leaning toward the 28mm f1.8, but am questioning the sharpness. The center looks pretty good, but the edges as he explains are a little iffy.

Does anyone own this lens and care to share a happy or horror story? If not this lens, then does anyone have a particular suggestion as to any other wide angle prime? Why do you think it is better than the others? If you have any photos I would love to see them.

Thanks for the help in advance.

Jayson

crosbyharbison

09-14-2009, 01:21 AM

I'd look up some other reviews on canon's offerings; TDP is good it just isn't the final word on every subject. Also take a look at some third party options.

hotsecretary

09-14-2009, 01:28 AM

Forget budget... there is ONLY ONE ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)! [:O]

Backland Photography

09-16-2009, 05:07 PM

Hello Jayson,

Now that Canon has a new offering with the updated 24 T&S it may be that the old 24 T&S price will drop (if there are any new left in stock or if you find a clean used lens) to the point were it is affordable for you. We own the old version and luv it.

Though this lens would not be my first choice as an 'only prime' at this focal length, the possibilities of shots that it providesmay make it a lens for consideration, again, if the price drops to your range.......

Cheers...

luck101

09-16-2009, 09:10 PM

i actually want to try and get the 28mm 1.8 also. i assume that wide open, it must be really soft on the edges. i looked at the MTF charts, at F/8, looks good from corner to corner. wide open is the weakness of this lens. i personally dont care since i would use it as an "inside" lens for candids and dont need sharpness as much unless im doing landscapes or something like that.

also for what camera? if u have a x1.6, look into the sigma 30mm 1.4. im looking into that one also because its 2/3 extra stops for low light =]

Keith B

09-17-2009, 10:33 PM

I went through a bunch of full body shots I have taken and most were around 30-35mm. I think 24 is kind of wide and starts to distort things a little. I used to have the 24 1.4 mkI and I didn't care for it doing full body. But if you think it is your cup of tea you can pick a used one up on eBay for about $800. It isn't as good as the mkII but it is still really, really good and way better than the 28mm.

I use my 16-35 most of the time for full body shots. When budget allows I'm going for the 35 1.4.

George Slusher

09-29-2009, 12:45 AM

Unfortunately, you didn't say which camera you're using. What's "wide angle"on a full-frame camera could be "standard" on a 1.6x FOVCF body. Here are some examples:

20mm on 1.6x = 32mm on FF
24mm on 1.6x = 38mm on FF
28mm on 1.6x = 45mm on FF
30mm on 1.6x = 48mm on FF
35mm on 1.6x = 56mm on FF
50mm on 1.6x = 80mm on FF
85mm on 1.6x = 136mm on FF

It will also depend upon how far you are from your subject. If you're in a room in a house, that's very different from outside at a playground. Studios are usually somewhere between. In the "old days" (35mm film!), we called an 85-100mm lens a "portrait lens," because it was useful for head & shoulder shots that looked natural, at least to Americans. (People who grew up elsewhere might be more used to a closer perspective, for example.) For full-body shots, we used 35mm, a person is a bit more than twice as tall as her head & shoulders--ergo, you have to use a bit less than half the focal length. We called a 50mm lens "standard" as it produced an image that looked pretty much as it would to us with our eyes and brains. (Remember that perspective doesn't depend upon the lens but merely upon the relative position of the camera, subject, and background.)

So, if you're using a 1.6x camera, a 30mm lens would be "standard," 50mm would be "portrait," and 20mm would be "wide."

Is there a reason for using primes? Do you need the extra speed/wider aperture? Don't be fooled by the myth that "primes are better quality" than zooms. The best primes may be, but many are not. The 24-70mm f/2.8L is higher quality than many Canon primes in the same focal length range, for example, unless you go to the very expensive L primes, which cost more than the zoom. If you don't need the wider aperture, the 17-40mm f/4L zoom is $765 new, less used.

Having said that, here are a few primes that aren't too expensive

Canon 20mm f/2.8 USM ($500)
Canon 24mm f/2.8 ($325) old design, but can do a nice job for the price--a lot less than the 24mm f/1.4L II! I recently replaced this.

Sigma 24mm f/1.8 EX DG DF ($479)
Canon 28mm f/1.8 ($500)

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM ($439) I have this lens--it is very nice!
Canon 35mm f/2 ($320) old design, not USM, but it still works, and is quite cheap. I also have this one.

Once you figure out what focal length(s) you need, you can make your choice.

Another word about wide apertures: They can be less-than-useful when photographing people if you're close, as the person's entire face/body may not be in focus. Here are some examples, computed with DOFMaster ("http://www.dofmaster.com/):

35mm @ f/1.4, 6 ft: 5.77-6.25 ft, that's about 3 inches in front and behind the focal distance.

50mm @ f1/4, 6 ft: 5.89-6.12 ft, or about 1.5 inches each way! If the person's eyes are in focus, her ears and tip of her nose may not be.

Use a shorter focal length:

28mm @ f/1.4, 6 ft: 5.65-6.39 ft

or narrower aperture:

35mm @ f/2.8, 6 ft: 5.56-6.51 ft

50mm @ f/2.8, 6 ft: 5.78-6.24 ft

or back off:

35mm @ f/1.4, 10 ft: 9.38-10.7 ft

50mm @ f/1.4, 10 ft: 9.69-10.3 ft

etc.

When you're considering "full body" shots, remember that the subject's face and feet are at different distances from the camera. Focus on the eyes and the lower torso may go out of focus. You have to experiment to see what works for you.

nrdavis

09-29-2009, 10:42 AM

Jayson, I own this lens. It is quite sharp (my copy produces results very similar to Bryan's), and focuses pretty quickly. Focus accuracy is dead-on. My personal, anecdotal experience says the lens is slightly softer than my 17-55/2.8 IS.

If you are in the market for a used one, personal message me, and maybe mine could become yours...

Jayson

09-29-2009, 11:01 AM

I shoot with a 1.6 crop body. The rebels for now, but soon a XXD.

Here's the story. I purchased the Tamron 17-50, but didn't test it a whole bunch when I got it. By the time I got around to it, my return exchange with B&H was up and I was stuck with an AF that didn't sync with either of my cameras. I have since sent it to Tamron USA 3 times and hopefully will be talking to a rep about a replacement lens this time around. (They have been very nice by the way.) If not, I am stuck with a lens that I can only manual focus, so I wanted something not too expensive for full body shots. I tried taking some homecoming shots of the kids, but had to back up a mile with my 50mm.

I am in the market for a XXD body and still need to check if the Tamron problem can be fixed with the microadjustment feature. If none of that pans out, one of the primes is headed for my bag.

Thanks for everyone that has responded. George, thanks for the indepth response. That helped a ton. Does the 35mm f2 focus pretty fast (I am thinking like the 50mm 1.8)? nrdavis, I will keep you in mind if this Tamron thing doesn't get resolved.

Jayson

George Slusher

09-30-2009, 03:25 AM

ARRGH! My browser crashed just before I was to post this, so I had to redo it.

Does the 35mm f2 focus pretty fast (I am thinking like the 50mm 1.8)?

Fast compared to what or for what? It's a lot like the 50mm f/1.8, as both are non-USM lenses. The brighter image in the viewfinder helps autofocus, that's for sure. It should be fast enough for studio work, etc, where the subject isn't moving. For sports, it may be fast enough, if the subject isn't moving quickly toward or away from the camera. I haven't tried it in AI Servo mode on my 30D, just AI.

Here's a shot taken at our 4-H Fair in 2008. The rider's face is blurred because I don't have a release. The light in the arena is really crappy--rather dim plus hard to do a white balance, as the big overhead lights vary in color. (They're probably different ages.) Even the angle of reflection can change the color balance (see the green patch on the ground), especially if a bit of daylight gets in through the open doors. Canon 30D, Canon 35mm f/2, 1/800 sec, f/2, fluorescent WB, ISO 3200. (The last is why it's so noisy.) It was processed with Digital Photo Professional to boost the brightness, etc.. I sometimes deliberately underexpose to get the higher shutter speed, then boost the image. Usually, I take RAW + JPEG (might as well), but not in this case, as it would slow down the camera too much. I used manual exposure, as the changing background (light colored wall) and open door would fool the autoexposure. <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"](E.g., if the horse wasn't in the way, the camera would have seen the open door, which was very bright.) Edit: oops! That referred to a different photo I had considered posting, taken at the other end of the arena, where the big overhead door was wide open. The door is closed in this one.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Pole Bending/IMG_1823_dpp_c_800-gb.jpg

Here's a 100% crop.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Pole Bending/IMG_1823_dpp_100pc.jpg

It's extremely noisy, but the focus is more-or-less OK. The horse was moving toward me, but not too fast, as it had just made a quick turn around the pole. (The rider was penalized 5 seconds for knocking down the pole.)

I haven't used that lens for portraits in reasonable light--about the only time I drag it out is for low/crappy light. If I would stop down the 35mm f/2, today, I'd use my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, instead, which is a much higher-quality lens. Back then, I didn't have the 17-55mm but did have the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. However, here's a shot at ISO 1600, again in crappy lighting (indoor riding arena at our stable), but the subject was still, so I could use a slower shutter speed (1/50 sec) @ f/2.2.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/RRR Lessons/IMG_0301_800.jpg

A 100% crop:

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/RRR Lessons/IMG_0301_100pc.jpg

Not too bad for a lens for which I paid $203.50, including the hood and a 52mm Hoya Super HMC UV filter. (The hood + filter would cost about $50 new, maybe $35-40 used.) I expect that I'd get more than that for it, now.

As a matter of interest, here's the first shot "improved" a bit with Noise Ninja ("http://www.picturecode.com/) and PictoColor's iCorrect EditLab Pro ("http://www.pictocolor.com/editlabpro.htm), both plug-ins for Photoshop and PS Elements. I also use iCorrect Portrait ("http://www.pictocolor.com/portrait.htm), which is very ingenious and works well on skin tones.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Pole Bending/IMG_1823_dpp_nn_editlab_c_800_gb.jpg

Pretty clever software, both of 'em.

Sean Setters

09-30-2009, 09:37 AM

I just bought the 35mm f/2 and now it's in the mail. I bought it to use on my second body for dimly lit wedding receptions. We'll see how that goes.... ;-)

Jayson

09-30-2009, 10:15 AM

Thanks for the examples. I have noise ninja and it is awesome. I noticed you have the Sigma 30 1.4. I have been shying away from the 3rd party lenses since my recent issue with my Tamron, but looking at all of the positive reviews of this lens, I can't help but be interested. Do you have anything using that lens? Thanks.

Sean, that lens is very interesting as most of my photos with my Kit lens are in the 28 to 35 range. With both the 35 f2 and the Sigma being roughly $100 apart, might be an interesting comparison. I don't think I will be going full frame anytime soon so I don't' have a problem with the sigma only being APS-C.

Thanks.

Cory

10-02-2009, 03:21 AM

George Slusher

10-02-2009, 06:15 AM

I have a Sigma 30mm 1.4 and, while I do like it, I found that one of the other lenses I have does just as good a job for my purposes (primarily dimly lit indoor shots). The Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS does just as well for me and is more versatile (being a zoom rather than a prime).

I have both, as well. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is great, but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has one major advantage: it's 2 stops faster. If you're shooting static scenes, there's no real need for it, but it's very helpful with moving subjects. Note the action shot above was taken at 1/800. I've found through bitter experience that anything slower than 1/400 will show motion blur. I can reduce the problem by following the horse, but that only helps with the horse's body (and perhaps the rider). The horse's legs move relative to its body. For example, a leg that's got a foot on the ground will be moving backward relative to the horse's body at the same speed as the horse is moving forward relative to the ground. The leg(s) the horse is moving forward for the next stride are also moving relative to the horse's body. In something like barrel racing, the top speed is over 20 mph. (A Thoroughbred race horse is doing roughly 40-45 mph at the finish.) Here's an example where the horse is galloping at full speed across the field. Canon 30D, Canon 85mm f/2 @ f/2, 1/500, ISO 1600.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Pole Bending/IMG_8883_dpp_800_gb.jpg

To show the effect of panning with the horse, here are two 100% crops, first of the saddle area, the second of the horse's front legs.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Pole Bending/IMG_8883_dpp_100pc_saddle.jpg

No motion blur there. However ...

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Pole Bending/IMG_8883_dpp_100pc_legs.jpg

Note the blur on the right (nearer) leg, which is moving to the left relative to the frame and the blur on the left (further, more in front) leg, which is moving to the right relative to the frame. An f/2.8 lens at the same ISO would have required a shutter speed half as fast, 1/250. The motion blur would literally have been double, as the legs would have moved twice as far during the exposure.

On the other hand, f/1.4 has such a shallow depth of field that it can be problematic if the subject has a lot of depth, is very close, or is moving toward or away from the camera.

I've found that about f/2 is a good compromise for what I do, as shown above. Fortunately, shooting equestrian events, I'm usually 20-30 ft from the subject, maybe more, so I can get a reasonable DOF with a short focal length lens:

35mm @ f/2, 20 ft: 16.8 - 24.6 ft (DOF 7.8 ft)

35mm @ f/2, 30 ft: 23.4 - 41.8 ft (DOF 18.4 ft)

30mm @ f/2, 20 ft: 15.9 - 26.9 ft (DOF 11 ft)

30mm @ f/2, 30 ft: 27.1 - 48.8 ft (DOF 27.1 ft)

Even at f/1.4, the 30mm lens would have a reasonable DOF:

30mm @ f/1.4, 20 ft: 16.9 - 24.4 ft (DOF 7.5 ft)

30mm @ f/1.4, 30 ft: 23.6 - 41.2 ft (DOF 17.6 ft)

In the case of the 85mm shots above, the DOF is still pretty good, as I was a lot farther away. (That's why I used the 85mm lens, of course.) For a particular camera and for the same aperture, a 30mm lens at 20 ft will have about the same DOF as a 60mm lens at 40 ft, a 90mm lens at 60 ft, etc.

On the other hand, get up close and the DOF really drops. (I used 7 ft for 35mm, 6 ft for 30mm, to get the same size of the subject on the sensor.)

35mm @ f/2, 7 ft: 6.57 - 7.49 ft (DOF 0.92 ft)

30mm @ f/2, 6 ft: 5.58 - 6.49 ft (DOF 0.91 ft)

30mm @ f/1.4, 6 ft: 5.69 - 6.34 (DOF 0.65 ft = 7.8 in)

That would probably mean that a person couldn't be entirely in focus, unless they were facing the camera head-on.

Black_Dog

10-02-2009, 05:14 PM

I’m sure the 35mm f/2.0 and 30mm f/1.4 are both excellent
lenses but the question at hand is about wide angle primes. On a Rebel or XXD body, they are normal
lenses, not wide angles, (i.e. converted perspective of 56mm and 48mm (respectively)
on a full 35mm sensor). On these APS-C
sensor cameras, you need to have a 24mm or smaller focal length to be
considered wide angle.</o:p>
</o:p>
 Of these two, I’d go with the 20mm because I just
don’t find the 24mm is wide enough over an APS-C sensor for the shooting I would
use it for (landscapes, interior shots).
Aside from Canon, Sigma has a pair of attractive lenses
under $700, the 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF and the 24mm f/1.8 EX
Aspherical DG DF Macro. When I was
shooting film I used to own a Sigma 24mm f/2.8 that I dearly loved – razor sharp,
bright, good color, well constructed.
But again, on a Rebel or XXD body, I’d opt for the 20mm if I couldn’t
afford to go wider.</o:p>
 So, if you plan to use
these much outdoors (i.e. landscape photographs) you might be more satisfied
with the slower Canon lenses. If you are
looking for something that does better in low light and gives you mega-bokeh,
then go with either Sigma.

George Slusher

10-02-2009, 10:12 PM

On a Rebel or XXD body, they are normal
lenses, not wide angles, (i.e. converted perspective of 56mm and 48mm (respectively)
on a full 35mm sensor). On these APS-C
sensor cameras, you need to have a 24mm or smaller focal length to be
considered wide angle.

Perhaps you didn't read my first posting of <span class="ForumPostTitleDate"]Mon, Sep 28 2009 8:45 PM, where I explained just that.

So, if you're using a 1.6x camera, a 30mm lens would be "standard," 50mm would be "portrait," and 20mm would be "wide."

Read further and you'll see that I mentioned the same lenses you did.

<span class="ForumPostTitleDate"]It's possible that the original questioner (Jayson) doesn't need a "wide angle" lens, at all. It would depend upon what he wants to do, as well as his camera. Notice that he said,

So, I have been looking at purchasing a wide angle prime. I have the
50mm on order, the 85mm and the 100mm macro. I want to get a wide
prime to do full body shots and stuff like that and am waivering on
what to choose.

Compared to what he has, 30mm would be a lot wider and may be what he wants. Perhaps what he wants to do would be done with a 50mm lens on a full-frame camera. I was trying to answer Jayson's specific question, not make a generalized statement about what is and is not "wide angle."

Of these two, I’d go with the 20mm because I just
don’t find the 24mm is wide enough over an APS-C sensor for the shooting I would
use it for (landscapes, interior shots).

But Jayson never mentioned landscapes nor interior shots. What he wants to do may well be different from what you or I usually shoot.

If not, I am stuck with a lens that I can only manual focus, so I
wanted something not too expensive for full body shots. I tried taking
some homecoming shots of the kid but had to back up a mile with my
50mm.

Those are what many of us would have used a "standard" or "normal" lens for with 35mm film cameras, depending upon the distance. A 30mm lens would allow Jayson to be be 3/5 of the distance he was with the 50mm distance. I've used a 35mm f/2 lens on my 30D to do just what he's talking about, again, depending upon distance.

A 20mm (equivalent to 32mm for full-frame) may be too wide or have too much distortion for Jayson's purposes. One way for him to find out would be to use a zoom, like the 18-55mm kit lens or 17-85mm or the like, to see what focal length(s) would suit his purposes.

Here is an example of why Jayson may--or may not want a 20mm lens for full body shots. The original was shot at 28mm with a Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS with a 580 EX flash. Next to it is the same shot cropped to simulate a 30mm lens, then a 35mm lens. The last simulates 20mm. Of course, that's wider than the original, so I scaled down the original and added a border to get it to the same display size.

http://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Full Body/IMG_9963_28mm_300.jpghttp://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Full Body/IMG_9963_30mm_300.jpghttp://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Full Body/IMG_9963_35mm_300.jpghttp://homepage.mac.com/gslusher/.Pictures/DigitalPictureForum/Full Body/IMG_9963_20mm_300.jpg

I don't think that I would have chosen 20mm for that "full body shot." Of course, a different distance would give different results. If one had a 28mm lens, one could get the same main subject framing as the "35mm" shot (#3) by moving to 80% of the distance. That would change the perspective, of course.

The rest of the discussion, including my detailed postings, were in response to specific questions and comments from Jayson (re: does the 35mm f/2 focus quickly) and Cory (Sigma 30mm f/1.4 vs Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS).

Jayson

10-03-2009, 12:04 PM

Thank you guys for all of the posts. I understand that I named the title of this thread "Wide angle prime", but what I am looking for is portrait stuff. I am getting into that and weddings and have the 17-50 Tamron if I need to get stuff wider than the 28mm lens. I will just have to manual focus. As for the lens choice, I think I am either going to get the 28 1.8, the Sigma 30 1.4 or the canon 35 2.0. I haven't decided which one as of yet because I am still waiting on the service from Tamron on my 17-50. If it works with the AF I will get the least expensive, which I believe is the 35 f2. If not, probably the other two. Most of my pictures taken without the 50mm are in this range.

Thanks everyone for all of the information and pictures. They helped a ton.

Jayson

Cory

10-05-2009, 02:48 AM

I have both, as well. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is great, but the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has one major advantage: it's 2 stops faster. If you're shooting static scenes, there's no real need for it, but it's very helpful with moving subjects.

That's the thing, I'm not taking pictures of moving objects (or not very quick ones at least), thus I found the 1.4 didn't give me any more advantage than using the 2.8 with IS. If I were planning on using it for action shots more I might hold on to it, but I'd rather get my hands on a macro as I find myself using the girlfriends far, far more.

nrdavis

10-10-2009, 12:54 PM

I have owned both the Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM and the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX HSM lenses.

The Canon lens was fairly sharp stopped down, and focused quickly, but it was quite soft, and showed heavy vignetting wide open at f/2.8.

The Sigma lens was VERY soft wide open, and only marginally better stopped down. Center sharpness is good stopped down, but corner sharpness never gets very sharp. It is also a huge, heavy lens for being a 20mm prime. I would say it is only f/1.8 in name, it is virtually unusable until stopped down to at least f/2.8.

If you're truly looking for a wide angle prime (on a crop sensor body) the 20mm f/2.8 is probably your best best (small, light, fast, fairly sharp) and will act as a 32mm f/2.8 on your crop sensor body.

If you have the cash, however, the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the sharpest lens I have ever seen on Canon's 1.6x DSLRs. I have two copies at my disposal and they are equally sharp, fast-focusing, Image Stabilized and effectively 27.2mm on a 1.6x DSLR. I know it's not a prime lens, but it's a great lens.

peety3

10-10-2009, 07:54 PM

Forget budget... there is ONLY ONE ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)! /emoticons/emotion-3.gif
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

If you're forgetting budget, there are several. The 14/2.8LII is a fine lens, as is the 35/1.4L.

justThorne

10-10-2009, 08:22 PM

Well, if you're forgetting budget, consider the 24mm TSE II ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-TS-E-24mm-f-3.5-L-II-Tilt-Shift-Lens-Review.aspx). That thing is a serious life-changer. Rented one for a month this summer and have been saving up for my own ever since!

Notably, I've been using the 24mm f2.8 for about five years and have been really happy with it (especially after I had it calibrated), but it's finally crapping out. The MF ring has become totally disengaged. But point being, it was a good price for a workhorse that lasted me five years, though its cheap construction is likely to catch up with it.