Wide angle prime?

[Jayson]

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]

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]

Forget budget... there is ONLY ONE! [:O]

[Backland Photography]

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]

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]

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]

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:


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]

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]

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]

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.








Here's a 100% crop.











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.








A 100% crop:











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 and PictoColor's iCorrect EditLab Pro, both plug-ins for Photoshop and PS Elements. I also use iCorrect Portrait, which is very ingenious and works well on skin tones.











Pretty clever software, both of 'em.