File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Is the Canon 28mm 2.8 a decent lens if I want a wider prime but can't afford the Canon 28mm 1.8 ($420) or the Sigma 30mm 1.4 ($430)?

I know, I know, these "old" lens designs are supposed to be as good as they are, but I'm just worried that it's freaking over 20 years old and hasn't seen an update ever.

I pretty much want the same thing as my 50mm 1.8 but wider for indoors group shots.

The 28mm 2.8 is a bit slow I guess for a prime but it's the most affordable option I can find (short of buying a used manual focus one). It's also only $180 so it's easy to stomach.

Let me know, please /p/
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Oh also, I found the 24mm 2.8, but this one is more expensive, $300.

Maybe the extra 4mm is worth it but I would rather have best image quality possible.

Which is better optically between the 2?
>> Anonymous
The 28 f/2.8 is probably what you want. Although the 35 f/2.0 is good for taking pictures of people and close-up photography. Keep in mind I've never used these or any SLR lens.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24mm-f-2.8-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28mm-f-2.8-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx
>> Anonymous
I'm getting the 24 2.8 because it was rated as having better sharpness and color than the 28. The 28 is nice but personally I find it too close to the 50 1.8 range-wise. Plus I'm getting the 24 for about $200 so it's not really much of a different price-wise.
>> wut
>>193311
>>The 28 is nice but personally I find it too close to the 50
yeah, what's 20odd degrees more on the horizontal between friends
>> Anonymous
Yes, it is.

If a lens design hasn't been updated in a long time, that's usually a good sign. It means it works well and no one sees a reason to mess with it.
>> Anonymous
>>193266
Go look at sample shots on Flickr and decide for yourself.

Also, one (the 28mm) is normal, meaning it approximates human vision. The other (the 24mm) is a slight wide. Which one do you want? Either one will make a great main, workhorse lens. The 28mm would be slightly better for portraits (normal instead of wide, probably better corrected) but not in any way that should really deter you unless the 24mm's correction sucks.
>> Anonymous
Bleh, I put my kit lens at 24mm and 28ish, really not wide enough for what I want.

I want 24 or at least 28mm equivalent and they don't make those ;_;

Need to save up for a zoom that starts at 17mm.
>> Anonymous
indoor group shots? stop worring about your gear and shoot already.

if you have to, buy a flash and bounce.
>> Anonymous
28mm is wide.
>> Anonymous
>>193518
On 135 film, yes it is. On a ~1.3x crop sensor, yes it is. On a 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, or 2x crop sensor, it's normal. On a little 1/2.5" sensor, it'll give the same field of view as a 168mm lens would give on 135.

But nevermind all of that except the 1.6x crop sensor the OP is presumably asking about, because it's a Canon camera and he mentioned the 30/1.4. And on that, it's normal.
>> Lipids !fzs0apbpqo
     File :-(, x)
I have the 35mm f/2 and it's pretty sweet. The extra partial stop from 2.8 to 2 is very helpful. It works as a neutral 50mm type lens...

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number1721131620Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:15 09:21:18Exposure Time1/750 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeAI FocusDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed160Camera Actuations-1874657200Color Matrix132
>> Lipids !fzs0apbpqo
     File :-(, x)
...as well as close up work.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number1721131620Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:15 09:21:35Exposure Time1/350 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeAI FocusDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed160Camera Actuations-1874657168Color Matrix132
>> Hatefag
>>193561
Interesting subject, but that is some blurry-ass shit, son.

>>193562
This is more like it. Nice and crisp.
I approve of this photo.
>> Lipids !fzs0apbpqo
>>193566
You do realize it's shot at large aperture and thus most of the image is blurred, right?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
because you guys should trust this link:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3pjf7v

The FF viewing angle on 50mm is 47 degrees
1.6x 24 is 59 degrees
1.6x 28 is 51 degrees
1.6x 35 is 42 degrees

So pick your poison. The actual best one that most don't want to hear about is the sigma 30/1.4, but good luck landing one that works.

I have the 35/2 and it's a little too close, and I was agonizing buying the 28/1.8. It is twice the price ($400), but USM, "better" built, looks nice. But the problem is that it's worth both a 35/2 and 28/2.8 combo. Ummmm.

Also, 35/2 on film makes for fuckwin portraits.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:22 20:08:31Unique Image ID6227ea6ee6cb6e642bc67286d62d13a3
>> Anonymous
>>193566
>Interesting subject, but that is some blurry-ass shit, son.
Fucking noob. LRN2DOF

>You do realize it's shot at large aperture and thus most of the image is blurred, right?
>> Anonymous
>>193576
Yes, I do. Unfortunately the focal point of the image is out of focus. In fact, it would appear that the entire image is out of focus. If you think I'm wrong, please circle the part of the image that you think is crisp and in focus.

>>193584
Go fuck yourself. Then read the above response. Then get fucked in the ass by a prison inmate with a 15" dick and hyper-AIDS.
>> Anonymous
Does the sigma 30 1.4 work for full frame?
>> Anonymous
>>193587
>Go fuck yourself. Then read the above response. Then get fucked in the ass by a prison inmate with a 15" dick and hyper-AIDS.

lmfao SO FUCKING BUTTHURT
>> Anonymous
>>193588
Not in the way you want it to.
>> Anonymous
>>193590
You mean it's made for crop bodies then?
>> Anonymous
>>193591
Yes. There will be enough vignetting if you stick it on a full-frame body, if it doesn't bust the mirror or something like that.
>> Anonymous
>>193591
Why don't you try asking google nicely?

Anyways, everyone, the-digital-picture hates the 35/2 so don't get it.
>> Lipids !fzs0apbpqo
     File :-(, x)
>>193583
The 35mm doesn't have the USM which makes it a little noisy but the image quality is pretty amazing for the price. You're getting nearly the benefit of a f/1.8 lens for a dirt cheap price. Compared to the plastic mount lenses the 35 f/2 is quite a step up. It has no USM but the focusing ring isn't a flimsy piece of shit like on the 300D package lens. The 35mm as you can see is also the lightest and has the cheapest filters.

I highly recommend it.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiFirmware VersionFirmware 1.1.1Owner NameunknownSerial Number1721131620Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:07 20:15:06Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height2592RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeAv-PriorityFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeAI ServoDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed256Camera Actuations-1878130640Color Matrix132
>> Lipids !fzs0apbpqo
>>193587
I honestly think that's a pretty sharp photo for the camera and lens. Might be a little out of the DOF or somesuch.
>> Anonymous
>>193603
Guys cut it out. No one gives a shit anymore.

>>193597
After I got my 35/2 repaired, it was focusing even faster (it was new before), but still, AF is lound and xti mirror is loud. I take a shot indoors, and everyone turns their head. Annoying as hell. That's the main reason why I was think of selling both and going for a 40D+28/1.8.
>> Lipids !fzs0apbpqo
>>193606
It's a clear disadvantage if you're trying to work indoors. I'm never shooting in quiet situations so it doesn't matter to me.
>> Anonymous
>OP here if you like that
http://www.outwar.com/rec/mystikal
>sign up and you will like this
>> Anonymous
Does anyone here who have the 28/1.8 on a crop sensor actually share their experience?

I'm afraid that 45mm might be just a bit on the wide side.
>> Anonymous
>>193623

If you have the kit lens, put it at 28 and see through viewfinder.

If you don't have the kit lens, put your hands on each side of your head and that's kind of what you get where your hands stop.
>> Anonymous
>>193629
>that's kind of what you get where your hands stop.
What if my hands are fat, uguu~

I can do that, no problem. What I mean is, does someone here actually have it and use it regular illy. It makes no sense for me to go for a week with the shitty kit lens on 28 to get a sense for that. Other people have and they can attest their experience.
>> Anonymous
>>193631
43mm equivalent is the "true normal," so I don't see how 44.8 would be "on the wide side."
>> Anonymous
>>193631I can do that, no problem. What I mean is, does someone here actually have it and use it regular illy. It makes no sense for me to go for a week with the shitty kit lens on 28 to get a sense for that. Other people have and they can attest their experience.

uh.. some people prefer working with ultra wide, some normal, some telephoto...

it's all personal preference, why are you asking other people

you said

>> I'm afraid that 45mm might be just a bit on the wide side.

then put kit lens and see if it's too wide, lol