File :-(, x, )
Cheap, wide prime for crop Anonymous
So uh, is there no cheap and wide prime for crop cameras?

Something 24-28ish equivalent that is at most 2.0 and doesn't cost over $500.

What the hell? Do I have to get a crop UWA zoom or what? Canon by the way.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1D Mark IICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:06:12 15:04:37Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height734RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Nothing cheap. Yes you have to get a crop UWA.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
im in the same boat as you, i ended up getting a 20mm 2.8 and whilst its not too fast i find it suits me so far on my 30D

of course itll be much much more interesting on ff :D

other than that and the 24mm theres no other prime wide angle which fuckin sucks.

perhaps a 3rd party option may arrive in the future?
>> Anonymous
Is it too much to ask for a 15/16/17/18mm and fast crop lens?

Will it cost too much or do they just figure people won't buy it?

I would buy it. -_-
>> Anonymous
Sigma 20/1.8.
Canon 20/2.8
Tamron makes a 14/2.8 that, while expensive, is cheaper than the Canon 14/2.8.
Any 24mm, still wide but kinda an awkward focal length.

Also look at old manual focus glass... the EOS mount takes more different types with adapters than any other 135-film based autofocus mount, IIRC correctly.
>> Anonymous
>>165020
>Will it cost too much or do they just figure people won't buy it?

This. Very few people buy primes, period, and most hardcore prime users aren't the sort to go for gimmicky ultrawides. Not that everyone using an ultrawide is using it as a gimmick, but 95% of people looking for an ultrawide for their Digital Rebel will.
>> Anonymous
>>165019i ended up getting a 20mm 2.8 and whilst its not too fast i find it suits me so far on my 30D

Eh, that thing costs the same price as a Tamron 17-50 which is also 2.8. So uh, unless the 20mm has REMARKABLE optical qualities it doesn't really stand out.

If it were 1.8, I'd fucking buy it.
>> Anonymous
>>165024and most hardcore prime users aren't the sort to go for gimmicky ultrawides.

Hmm, 24-28mm isn't ultrawide. It's just "normal wide". I just want a little more space than a 50mm.
>> Butterfree
>>165016
shoulda got a sony. plenty of cheap a-mount lenses
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>165021Sigma 20/1.8.

Ooh, that looks pretty good. $400.

But at this price, I will have to consider a zoom.
>> Anonymous
>>165028
24mm is definitely ultrawide. I'd put 28 as sitting on the border, like 40mm does for normal or 60mm does for medium tele. Not sure whether to put it with wide (like 40mm is normal) or ultrawide (like 60mm is for medium tele).

If you're looking for a bit more space than 50mm on a crop, well, going to 24mm or even 28mm equivalent is a lot of space. Do you know you want to go that wide, or would a more moderate wide or normal do? Because that gives you a lot more options.
>> Anonymous
>>165030
Go with it. The f/1.8 Sigmas are very good lenses, focus close, are radically fast for their focal length and price, and zooms make previsualizing much harder.

Look at value not from the standpoint of "what focal lengths do I get" but from the standpoint of "what sort of images I'll be able to make with it," and the Sigma stands out.
>> Anonymous
15mm fisheye
>> Anonymous
>>165031

Okay fine, maybe not 24mm but 28mm is normal wide in my book. So 20mm is close enough I guess.

Now I have to wonder why Canon's 20mm 2.8 is more expensive than Sigma's 20mm 1.8. o_O
>> Anonymous
>>165042
>Canon

That is why.
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>165025
nah, i got it at about half retail (430nz, 340us?) compared to retail of about 850nzd at its cheapest and seeing as i looorve primes i snapped it up!

optically its not amazing, but suitable.
i prob shouldve got the tamron, but i know if i get a zoom ill start getting "lazy" ;)
>> Anonymous
>>165074

Tamron 17-50 = $409
Canon 20mm 2.8 = $419
Sigma 20mm 1.8 = $409

Anything not the US doesn't count.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
suh-weet
>> Anonymous
>>165085
That's a sweet shot, but what focal was used or that?
>> Anonymous
>>165347

canon 20mm 2.8
>> Anonymous
>>165085
on crop or not quite?
>> Anonymous
>>165352

oops, forgot link

http://www.flickr.com/photos/angeloangelo/1769495455/sizes/o/

Camera: Canon EOS 30D
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/350)
Aperture: f/4
Focal Length: 20 mm
>> Anonymous
>>165356
Thanks, much appreciated
>> Anonymous
So the Sigma 20mm takes 82mm filters and is only good starting at 2.8.

Fuck that shit. I'm going Canon 20mm.
>> Anonymous
>>165085
that's actually a really great photograph. how come none of you /p/hags take photos like that? besides pskaught... wherever he is...
>> Anonymous
>>165363
Not to mess more with your decision... you probably already said your point of view on it but..
have you looked into the EF 28 F1.8?
>> Anonymous
>>165368
disregard this, i suck cocks. just noticed pskaught's new thread today
>> Anonymous
>>165363

The Sigma is good and you have the option of using it wider when you need to. The better choice.
>> Anonymous
>>165369have you looked into the EF 28 F1.8?

It's too close to 50mm equiv. I want wider.

>>165372The Sigma is good and you have the option of using it wider when you need to. The better choice.

The Canon is EF so it's always 20mm. Just like the Sigma.
>> Anonymous
>>165368
>that's actually a really great photograph. how come none of you /p/hags take photos like that?

No it isn't, you dipshit.
It's an OK photograph, but it's basically a snapshot that's been artfully cropped.

Then again, maybe I just hate that kind of landscape since it's what 90% of inland California looks like and I see it basically every fucking weekend.
>> Anonymous
>>165363
1. Better to have a shitty f/1.8 than no f/1.8 at all.

2. "Only good by" figures can usually be safely disregarded. The technical flaws they measure are usually not visible in real-world photographs.

Yes, most lenses are noticably better stopped down some. But yes, you can use them wide open and no one will be able to tell the difference without looking at them side by side.

3. If the Sigma takes to f/2.8 to get "good," then the f/2.8 Canon will take until f/4 or more probably.

The size is a legitimate issue, though.
>> Anonymous
>>165388

Fair enough about not having 1.8 at all but

>> 3. If the Sigma takes to f/2.8 to get "good," then the f/2.8 Canon will take until f/4 or more probably.

Some lenses are just better wide open than some stopped down. The Sigma is quite poor at 1.8 and The Canon is better at 2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>165390
Is the Canon really "better" than the Sigma at f/2.8?

And what are you deciding this on? MTF charts?

http://flickr.com/search/?q=canon+20%2F2.8&ss=2&s=int
http://flickr.com/search/?s=int&ss=2&w=all&q=sigma+20%2F1.8&m=text

Pick the one that looks best to you/most appropriate for the work you plan to do with it. That's the better lens at any aperture.
>> Anonymous
>>165388Yes, most lenses are noticeably better stopped down some. But yes, you can use them wide open and no one will be able to tell the difference without looking at them side by side.

That isn't always true. I had one lens (a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8) that was so poor wide open that you could actually see haze on the LCD without magnification. It was so soft at f/2.8 the photos were unusable. Might as well have had an f/4 lens that was sharp and weighed half as much.

Most camera manufacturer's primes (Nikon, Canon, etc, not Sigma) are perfectly usable through the entire aperture range. I own or have owned a Nikon 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 105mm f/2.8 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. All of them were better wide open than most zooms are at their best. They did get better when you stopped down a bit, but they were 100% usable wide open. That plus my mixed experience with Sigma lenses would make me very hesitant to buy an expensive Sigma prime, especially when it has a reputation for being soft wide open.
>> Anonymous
>>165403
I don't really pay much attention to zooms, so I can't speak for them. But this isn't a zoom we're talking about, it's a prime.
>> Anonymous
>>165408
I wasn't saying anything about zooms specifically, I was just pointing out that there most certainly are lenses that are useless wide open.