Small lens

[danm]

I love my big lenses, 16-35, 24-105, and the 70-200 f/2.8 II I'll pick up this year (and a 24-70 IS if they release it). But sometimes I miss the days of having just a small prime on the camera.





Suggestions? I have a 5 year old 50mm f/1.4 which I like, but unfortunately the focus ring slips, I'm not sure whether it's worth fixing, or maybe getting a new copy. Any other small, good lenses?

[danm]

I love my big lenses, 16-35, 24-105, and the 70-200 f/2.8 II I'll pick up this year (and a 24-70 IS if they release it). But sometimes I miss the days of having just a small prime on the camera.





Suggestions? I have a 5 year old 50mm f/1.4 which I like, but unfortunately the focus ring slips, I'm not sure whether it's worth fixing, or maybe getting a new copy. Any other small, good lenses?

[neuroanatomist]

EF 85mm f/1.8 - small, light, sharp, and has ring USM (more reliable that the micromotor/clutch combo that failed in your EF 50mm f/1.4).

[wickerprints]

These days, EF lenses tend to be made with large front filter diameters. 77mm seems to be the preferred size because it works well with a lot of focal length to f-number combinations.


That said, if the 24-105/4L IS is your idea of "large," a lot of lenses are at least as big, including many L primes.


If you're looking for a small prime, the EF 85/1.8 USM is a good starting point. Excellent optical performance, fast AF, large maximum aperture, good value, and compact. It's better than the EF 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8 II. Indeed, I think it's the best EF non-L prime shorter than 100mm. But it does have a significantly longer focal length than the "normal" 50mm, and if you are using an APS-C body, the framing can be quite tight.


Another way to go is manual focus. That will really revive the small prime feel. There are several options for third-party lenses with or without adaptation. Zeiss makes EF-mount designs, for example.

[danm]

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look at that 85/1.8. I have a 5DmII so am full frame, the 85 might work well.


How much larger is the 85/1.2 in comparison? I can see pictures of the two, I'd like to hear from somebody who has handled them.


I'm going to get a 24mm TS-E for ultimate manual control, but they're on back order at all the sellers for some reason. I know this isn't a small lens either.

[wickerprints]

85/1.2L II is *large*. And HEAVY, more than twice the weight of the 85/1.8.


You can see a more direct comparison here:


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Product-Images.aspx?Lens=397&LensComp=106&LensComp2=103





The TS-E 24/3.5L II is on backorder everywhere because it is a very high-demand lens relative to its production level. It's a specialist item and Canon probably wasn't expecting it to be as popular as it is.

[Sean Setters]

If you want a really small prime, I'd suggest looking at the 35mm f/2--it's cheap, small, yet yields very good image quality for the price.


Here's a shot using the 35mm at f/5


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4070/4243491326_395ec2c24d.jpg ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/budrowilson/4243491326/)

[Daniel Browning]

Any other small, good lenses?


Since you are full frame, there are many excellent options

Sigma 20mm f/1.8

Sigma 24mm f/1.8
Sigma 28mm f/1.8
Canon 35mm f/2
Canon 85mm f/1.8

[SupraSonic]

1 EF 20mm USM


2.EF 50mm MKII(the plastic lens)[:P]

[danm]

This is so funny. I look at all these great selections, read Bryan's reviews, and catch something like 'if you can only afford ...', or 'it will catch your memories just fine ...', and then think 'if I'm going to fly, might as well go first class'.


Oh well, I just wish Canon could make a smaller, top drawer lens I guess.

[neuroanatomist]

Oh well, I just wish Canon could make a smaller, top drawer lens I guess.






Well, that's the thing. L-series lenses are 'top drawer' for a reason - they have larger apertures, better IQ, and better build quality than mid-range lenses of similar focal lengths. Larger apertures and better IQ mean bigger glass and more elements to correct aberrations, meaning more size and weight, and better build means more weight. It's just physics, and to throw in a Star Trek reference, "Ye<span>cannaechange the laws of physics!"

[danm]

I'm a physicist, so I would never do that. Unless it suited me, of course [:D]





But Canon could still make, say a 50mm L lens, f/2, that was crazy good, relatively small and light. F/1.2 whatever must have a paper sheet thin focal plane. Does anybody really use it at that setting? My f/1.4 is usually unusable at f/1.4.





They must feel that they have to differentiate by making some crazy wide open lens. Seems like there's room for a competitor here.

[Jon Ruyle]

But Canon could still make, say a 50mm L lens, f/2, that was crazy good, relatively small and light.


I think the f/1.4 has good enough IQ to be an L, it just lacks build quality. Same goes for the 85 f/1.8. Probably if these lenes were built like L lenses, they wouldn't be so light.


But your point is taken: high quality slow lenses do not seem to be in style.


Perhaps it getting an excellent figure on a lens is expensive, and if it has to be expensive anyway, might as well make it fast. Perhaps there is no market for slower lenses than the ones they make already. It is something I've wondered about, too, but I don't know the answer.

[Sheiky]

I'm not sure, but the way I see it: I think building an F4 cheap, but L-quality lens is probably not much more expensive than an F2.8 lens with the same quality. I guess there is more cost involved in getting a high IQ by eliminating lenserrors and fualts than by making it just a little bit faster. My guess...





Plus of course, you don't want to give L-quality to people who buy the cheapest camera...marketing...