Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: 50mm or 35mm on APS-C

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,329
    The 40mm is right in the middle of your 30mm vs. 50mm options, but with a slower (still semi-fast) aperture. It doesn't matter how sharp the 40mm is, if it doesn't take the shots you want. What was making your lean towards the 30mm?

    For low-light or thin depth of field, the Sigma has a two-stop advantage there. A chunk of the DOF advantage is eaten up by it being a wider lens. At wider focal lengths it's hard to get significant background blur to isolate your subject. The f/1.4 compensates for the wider view, and the wider view allows you to optionally come in closer, and regain a thinner DOF. So that's 1 for the Sigma.

    Since you opted to look at the 30 or 40mm lenses, we can assume you're not interested in the single subject portraits shots (for which the 85mm was suggested), or that you're concerned about usability in tight indoor spaces. For tight-spaces and group shots the 30mm would be advantageous. So that's 2 for the Sigma.

    Perhaps you liked the idea of a lens that looks like a classic 50mm field of view on a fullframe. Again, that goes to the Sigma. Some people consider the 50mm classic view boring, and would consider this 1 against the Sigma.

    The 40mm seems like a nice lens if you need STM for movies on a T4i, or if you're budget limited to $200.

    Search the flickr pools for both lenses, and see which one grabs you more.
    (Sigma 30mm or Canon 40mm)

  2. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    The 40mm is right in the middle of your 30mm vs. 50mm options, but with a slower (still semi-fast) aperture. It doesn't matter how sharp the 40mm is, if it doesn't take the shots you want. What was making your lean towards the 30mm?
    I was looking for a sharp lens which can I use for full person portraits or group photos. Also it will be great if that works as a standard purpose too. Considering all these and based on the suggestions I felt 30mm will be a best fit for an APS-C body. It will be 50mm equivalent of full frame.

    When I came to know 40mm felt like it is good alternative to the 30mm 1.4 provided not looking for the 2 step speed.

  3. #13
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,032
    30mm would be good for group shots, but I'd be careful about getting too close to a single person. Whatever is closest to the camera can be accentuated and no one likes a picture where their nose looks big!

    Dave

  4. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Melbourne,Australia
    Posts
    60
    My 2 Cents on the matter is that if you are considering going up to F2.8 then get the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8. It gives you a nice range and I am sure everyone will vouch for its outstanding image quality.

    I have a 60D and 17-55 f2.8 is my highly used lens. I have a 50mm F1.8 (great value for money but not good as the 17-55 optically). I was eying the Sigma for a while just for the f1.4 but I opted to get a Cheap studio strobe and a softbox (50$ all together) from eBay and a Yongnuo flash ($40) for when i out and about.

    I am very happy with the image quality and value for money for my setup.

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    1
    Yes I can vouch for the 17-55, you basically get prime lens quality, and IS (4 stops if your steady). And the 2.8 aperture is plenty wide though for that thin dof look I resort to my 50 1.8 set to around f/2 seems to be just right for portraits. If u want a wider look then the new sigma 35 is the way to go. The pancake is good too but if you're going for a prime then you might as well get one thats fast.

    Quote Originally Posted by DSLR_Newbie View Post
    My 2 Cents on the matter is that if you are considering going up to F2.8 then get the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8. It gives you a nice range and I am sure everyone will vouch for its outstanding image quality.

    I have a 60D and 17-55 f2.8 is my highly used lens. I have a 50mm F1.8 (great value for money but not good as the 17-55 optically). I was eying the Sigma for a while just for the f1.4 but I opted to get a Cheap studio strobe and a softbox (50$ all together) from eBay and a Yongnuo flash ($40) for when i out and about.

    I am very happy with the image quality and value for money for my setup.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,329
    You're suggesting lenses 3 time the original poster's budget of around $400.

  7. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Melbourne,Australia
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidEccleston View Post
    You're suggesting lenses 3 time the original poster's budget of around $400.
    I agree its more than the original budget (which i clearly didnt read about, My bad) but saying its 3 times is a bit of exaggeration.

    Original Budget = 400$ and 17-55mm is around 840 (that's what I paid). Anyways .. I agree you have a valid point.
    Last edited by DSLR_Newbie; 12-18-2012 at 10:35 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •