I recently reinvested into a dSLR system after a year hiatus. Right away, I picked up the 40D, 35 f/2, and the 85 f/1.8. Yes, this is another "help me pick x lens" thread. I have spent many hours reading about Canon lenses over the past few years and I know many of them (even the ones I haven't owned - which is unfortunately a fair number) quite well. However, I am extremely interested in buying a WA prime rather than a zoom, which I had done previously. This is for a couple reasons, namely I like the generally larger and constant apertures of primes, I prefer "foot zoom" and I like the higher IQ. Primes also help me to solve problems through creativity rather than twisting the wrist. Of course, if I can't find a good WA solution in the prime category, I'll just go zoom.
So I need your help. I need help choosing a WA prime, preferably rectilinear. Unfortunately a lot of them are pricey as we get wide, but oh well. Note: I'd likely use this lens to shoot people in their environment. It will be sort of a street candid lens, if you will.
Here's my list of candidates: Canon 24 f/2.8
Canon 24 f/1.4L
Canon 20 f/2.8
Sigma 20 f/1.8
Tokina 17 f/3.5
Tamron 14 f/2.8
Sigma 14 f/2.8
I'm not sure if I really need something as wide as 14mm, but I threw them in there. The Tokina has been discontinued, is difficult to find and is f/3.5 anyways. Apparently there are major QA issues with both the 20s listed. I can take a gamble. The 24L looks really appealing to me, but how much wider is it than 35mm? Anyone have a guide to show this? It's also the most expensive lens listed. The 24 f/2.8 would be a good option to explore that focal length.
Comments? Other lenses not listed? I was looking at fisheyes, but not entirely sure I want to go that route. Help me here!
I liked it, but i think ill like a 35L more financially, because I dont think id be using it as much as a 35 or 50 lens to justify the 24L's price because its so wide that its only good for architecture, landscape, funky fov shots. Its not really good for portraits as the fov makes people look funky.
If I had lots of money, id get the 24L again.
As for differences...there is a bigger/big difference b/n the 24 and 35, than say a 35 and 50 which are almost alike.
I don't have the 40d but do have the 30d and the canon 30mm f/2. The 30 was just too long on a 1.6 crop camera for everyday use. I picked up the sigma 20 f/1.8 (32mm ff equivalent) a few days ago and I think this is the perfect focal length for the 1.6 crop. There's been a number of reviews regarding less than stellar IQ of this lens but most would agree that by f/2.8, it's pretty good. So far, I think I got a good copy and am satisfy with its f/1.8 performance. I think the 20's IQ at f/1.8 is as good as the 35's IQ at f/2.0. At the very least, you can think of the sigma 20mm f/1.8 as a comparable canon 20mm f/2.8 that will give you the added advantage of f/1.8 when you need it. The big surprise when I got this sigma 20mm f/1.8 is its size and weight for a 20mm lens. My walkaround lens for the past 6months has been the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the sigma 20mm is much bigger and much heavier. And compared to the 30mm f/2.0, the sigma 20mm f/1.8 is a monster!
By the way, if you want to explore focal lengths before putting alot of money down on any one, why don't you find a used kit 17-55, they are a dime a dozen, and see where your comfort zone is.
On a 40D the 20mm is wide-ish but that's about all (equivalent to a 32mm on a full frame). Anything longer is not wide enough to bother with and a 35mm offers standard perspective with no wide angle effect at all.
To get a wide angle effect you'll be paying for a lens that is very wide and yet you'll only use a small portion of it. That works but it is very uneconomical because Canon wides get worse as the focal length gets shorter.
You'd do better with a 10-22mm zoom and some tape to stop the zoom ring moving until you realise that primes are not always worth it
I use a 24L as my walk-around low-light on my 40D. It gives you about the same angle of view as a 35mm on a full-frame, which is what I prefer as a "general" prime (rather than the typical recommended 50mm equivalent "normal" view). Image quality is excellent, even at 1.4. It's an expensive lens though.
f1.4 is as fast as it gets... TWO stops faster than f2.8 so it's pretty crazy. I may upgrade to the new 5D replacement when it becomes available, and at that time I'll most likely replace the 24L with a 35L.
Thanks everyone. I was thinking that the 20mm would do the job.
The 35 f/2 is a good normal lens, this I have found.
I owned the Tokina 12-24 and used the EF-S 10-22 with my 30D when I had it. I have a good feel for the UWA on a crop. I want something that's wide I but don't need something on the order of 10-20mm just yet. If I do, I'll just pick up one of those zooms and use the prime indoors.
Shrug, maybe I'm being stubborn with this prime thing. It seems that there aren't many prime solutions here. I'll think about the sigma 20mm though.
I've had the Sigma 20mm for a while and though I've enjoyed it's quality and speed I felt it wasn't quite wide enough so I bought the 10-20. So far I haven't noticed much difference in the IQ but I really miss the speed sometimes.
What I don't miss however is the AF. The HSM makes a lot of difference - The 20mm is crying out for it really. Had they added HSM and sort out their QC problems I think the 20mm 1.8 would be a lot more popular.
Stunnaz wrote:
I use a 24L as my walk-around low-light on my 40D. It gives you about the same angle of view as a 35mm on a full-frame, which is what I prefer as a "general" prime (rather than the typical recommended 50mm equivalent "normal" view). Image quality is excellent, even at 1.4. It's an expensive lens though.
f1.4 is as fast as it gets... TWO stops faster than f2.8 so it's pretty crazy. I may upgrade to the new 5D replacement when it becomes available, and at that time I'll most likely replace the 24L with a 35L.
my thoughts exactly. for crop, 24L for me but if i went to FF, ill probably swap it out for the 35L. 24L would be nice on FF too but its too expensive to keep both
