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.... ;-)
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.... ;-)
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.
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'm probably going to sell it and my Canon 75-300 IS 4.5-5.6 and pick up either a 100mm 2.8 Macro (still debating on if it'll be the "L" IS or not) or maybe an extreme wide angle (looking at the 4.5mm Sigma). I've found that the old 100mm 2.8 Macro taking amazing pictures for the price and I've also found I have a LOT of fun with my Canon EF-S 10-22mm. I'll probably get the macro first tho.
Originally Posted by Cory
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.
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.
No motion blur there. However ...
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.
George Slusher
Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Eugene, OR
<p class="MsoNormal"]@ George Slusher
<p class="MsoNormal"]<o>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.<span> 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).<span> On these APS-C
sensor cameras, you need to have a 24mm or smaller focal length to be
considered wide angle.</o
<p class="MsoNormal"]<o
<p class="MsoNormal"]@ Jayson
<p class="MsoNormal"]Within your budget there are only really two Canon
manufactured options, the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM and the EF 24mm f/2.8.<span> 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).
<p class="MsoNormal"]<o
under $700, the 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF and the 24mm f/1.8 EX
Aspherical DG DF Macro.<span> 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.<span>
But again, on a Rebel or XXD body, I’d opt for the 20mm if I couldn’t
afford to go wider.</o
<p class="MsoNormal"]The thing I’d be worried about with these Sigma’s is that at
f/1.8 they are probably more prone to flare than their f2/8 Canon
counterparts.<span> So, if you plan to use
these much outdoors (i.e. landscape photographs) you might be more satisfied
with the slower Canon lenses.<span> If you are
looking for something that does better in low light and gives you mega-bokeh,
then go with either Sigma.
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."
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.
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).
George Slusher
Lt Col, USAF (Ret)
Eugene, OR
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
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.
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.
If you're forgetting budget, there are several. The 14/2.8LII is a fine lens, as is the 35/1.4L.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
