File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
soup /p/,
I've got a 400D/xti and have a chance to pick up this lens for $190 USD. Canon EF 35mm F/2 Lens Thoughts?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 350D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsPhotographerunknownImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2005:10:23 20:16:51Exposure Time1/2 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length67.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width640Image Height425RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
No, you need Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM AutoFocus Wide Angle Lens
>> Anonymous
>>126280
agreed
>> Anonymous
FOUR HUNDRED AMERICAN DOLLARS
>> Anonymous
OP here. Anon is right, the 28 f/1.8 is $400 USD, more than twice what I might pay for the 35. Though I know it's a much better lens, more than $200 is out of my price range atm. That in mind, is it worth it?
>> Anonymous
Well think about it this way, If you buy this 35mm now, down the road you might with you saved that $200 towards a different lens. Might as well get something really good now, then something you'll have to replace later. Browse your local craigslist.

Try looking at some of the zooms in your price range. SIgma 17-70 2.8-3.5 is damn good for the price.
>> Anonymous
>>126294SIgma 17-70 2.8-3.5 is damn good for the price.

Only someone who bought that piece of shit would say that.

The performance is laughable for the price. No OS and no constant aperture, for the same price you can get the Tamron 17-50 2.8, and I wouldn't even buy THAT either.
>> Anonymous
>>126278
Is made of fuckwin.
Beside the noise, the manual focus ring is awesome.
Don't pick it up for the f/2. If you want low light. Don't buy lunch for a week and get the 50/1.4

Pick it up because it's 56mm equivalent and can double as a fast wide prime on your film camera if you still have one.

Not good for astro-photography unless you have have a full frame as it actually seems too dark compared to my 100/2.8. But eh, what was I thinking?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>126355
Again, don't buy this lens for the wrong reasons. 28/1.8 is probably the way to go.
If you don't have the cash, got for 50/1.4. It's simply a superior tool.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiPhotographerunknownFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.5Owner NameunknownSerial Number1220733201Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1288Image Height1936Pixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:02:04 23:32:33Exposure Time5 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVLight SourceTungstenFlashNo FlashFocal Length35.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModePartialSharpnessUnknownSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeUnknownFocus ModeManualDrive ModeContinuousFlash ModeOffCompression SettingUnknownMacro ModeNormalFlash Bias-2.00 EVWhite BalanceTungstenExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed256Camera Actuations-437649280Color Matrix129