Best Canon Prime?

[Ed P]

Hi gang -- first post.

What lens to most consider the "best prime" for the 400D/450D/500D (Rebel) series cameras?

If I wanted a lens for portraits, indoor work (actual focal length of 30-50 mm), fast aperature, macro work?

Thanks!

[VTEC_EATER]

Hi gang -- first post.

What lens to most consider the "best prime" for the 400D/450D/500D (Rebel) series cameras?

If I wanted a lens for portraits, indoor work (actual focal length of 30-50 mm), fast aperature, macro work?

Thanks!

You probably aren't going to find that all in one lens.

Portrait would mean a longer focal length than 30-50mm and that doesn't bode well with interior work.

Fast aperture is great for portraits and interior work, but not so great for Macro work. The shallow depth of field along with the close focusing will render your image into a sea of color with no focus. Most fast aperture lenses only stop down to f/16, and they typically don't have the closest focusing distances.

50mm Micro lenses are nice and cheap and work well, but they don't leave you with a lot of working distance, thus many choose a longer focal length like 100, 150, or 180mm so the lens doesn't cut off your light. This doesnt work well for interior work, or have the fastest of apertures t f/2.8.

You would probably need to prioritize what is most important to you so you can at least achieve 2 of the 4 things you are looking for.

[Ed P]

With my old film SLR, I have a 50mm f1.8 that I used to use a LOT. Inside work, portraits, semi-macro. I loved how bright it was, and how shallow I could make the depth-of-field.

What is the best fast (aperature of 1.4-2.0), fixed-focal-length, that will result in something in the 28-50mm range (actual, which I know is something like 17 or 30 in today's cropped-sensor world)?

In other words, something to augment the kit lens.

I'll add the other end (telephoto) later.

My biggest priority is IQ and detail/sharpness.

Thanks!

[VTEC_EATER]

35/1.4L without question. Its not very good a macro work though.

The 35/2 is better at macro work, though still only at 1:4 reproduction. Its certainly cheaper and it will be see in its build and image quality.

[TheWengler]

Anyone ever used the Tokina 35mm f/2.8 macro lens? Certainly a compromise, but maybe worth a look. For macros you're going to be right on top of your subject, and it doesn't have the f/2 that you wanted.

[Ed P]

Thanks VTEC.

Do you have some model numbers of specific lenses I could look up for more details?

Also, the $100 50mm 1.8 "II" lens I see out there -- is that 50mm, or do I have to multiply it by the 1.6 so it's actually 80mm (in the old 35mm world)?

[TheWengler]

Also, the $100 50mm 1.8 "II" lens I see out there -- is that 50mm, or do I have to multiply it by the 1.6 so it's actually 80mm (in the old 35mm world)?

You have to multiply everything by 1.6, so it's actually 80mm. All the lenses are listed with their actual focal lengths so you have to do the math to figure out what it will be on your specific camera.

[VTEC_EATER]

It is still a 50mm lens. That never changes. However, with the crop factor, the lens "frames" similar to an 80/85mm lens. Unfortunately, you still get the depth of field of a 50mm lens. So your depth of field is actually greater with the crop cameras vs. your old film camera.

So the 35/1.4L will frame like a 50mm, but have the depth of field like an f/2 lens even though you are shooting at f/1.4. Its not as complicated as it sounds, really. If you see comparison shots between the two different formats it is much more clear. For example, take a look at this thread so you get a better understanding:

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38138

[Ed P]

Thanks again, VTEC.

I just need to re-learn a bit... and do a little converting in my head. Learned to use SLRs over 20 years ago, with film and "real" numbers <grin>.

I haven't even selected a camera yet -- but I do like the 500D (T1i) and Nikon D5000 in terms of price/performance (from what I've read, anyway). But I figured it makes sense to research lenses too, before I make a selection.

I know most cameras come with "decent" (read: inexpensive, but not bad) kit lenses which will be fine for most things. But I remember using my fixed-50 a LOT in my old Olympus SLR days, especially when I wanted to get creative with DoF, and for portraits.

I'm amazed at how expensive things are now too -- a decent SLR back then was $200-$300, and lenses were about the same. Now they're all 2x-3x times that, for just an "average" DSLR. Of course, that WAS over 20 years ago... :)

[VTEC_EATER]

Well, take inflation into account and your $200-300 camera back in 1989 would be $345-515 for the body. But what all did that get you in 1989? An SLR with some basic auto metering functions and that's about it. Did you even get autofocus for that price? Now you have cameras that can shoot 4-5 frames per second, ISO ranges from 100-6400, HD video, auto-bracketing, metering options up the ying-yang, etc... You can buy a D5000 (body only) for about $550. That's just about your $300 figure from 1989.

Lenses are lenses. They don't really go down too much in value, but who knows what time may tell. With film the technology never really changed or made great advancements. Now with digital sensors you have optics that were once impeccable and are now just mediocre on these 18-24 megapixel cameras. The flaws are really starting to show. So lens updates are becoming much more common. Where you may have been able to use the same lenses for 20 years with film, that's not really the case with digital. New auto-focusing motors, new coatings, new optical designs, etc. are always coming out to keep up with the increasing demand of the sensors. Its pretty crazy.

If new lens prices are a bit high, the used market is huge and there are a lot of great deals out there to be had.

[cdifoto]

I'm amazed at how expensive things are now too -- a decent SLR back then was $200-$300, and lenses were about the same. Now they're all 2x-3x times that, for just an "average" DSLR. Of course, that WAS over 20 years ago... :)
Digital is less expensive than film ever was.

[Ed P]

Digital is less expensive than film ever was.

Certainly, when you consider film and processing. No argument there!

I just figured it makes sense to examine what the lens selection, quality, cost etc. are of the cameras I'm looking at:

Canon 500D (T1i)
Nikon D5000
Olympus E-620

In other words, the "mid-range" of cameras, I guess--if you consider the range everything from super-zooms (non DLSRs like the Canon SX1 and SX20, and Panasonic FZ35) to the upper level DSLR (such as Nikon D90 and above, and Canon 50D and above).

It's really quite fascinating the features you have to compare now compared to 20+ years ago!

But whatever camera I end up with, I know I will want at least one FAST 25-35mm prime, which will "match" my old 50mm f1.8 (which I used a LOT). So I'm looking into those for all cameras on my list.

Thanks all!

[VTEC_EATER]

Certainly, when you consider film and processing. No argument there!

I just figured it makes sense to examine what the lens selection, quality, cost etc. are of the cameras I'm looking at:

Canon 500D (T1i)
Nikon D5000
Olympus E-620

In other words, the "mid-range" of cameras, I guess--if you consider the range everything from super-zooms (non DLSRs like the Canon SX1 and SX20, and Panasonic FZ35) to the upper level DSLR (such as Nikon D90 and above, and Canon 50D and above).

It's really quite fascinating the features you have to compare now compared to 20+ years ago!

But whatever camera I end up with, I know I will want at least one FAST 25-35mm prime, which will "match" my old 50mm f1.8 (which I used a LOT). So I'm looking into those for all cameras on my list.

Thanks all!

Nikon has a 35mm/1.8 for $200. It's pretty good from what Ive been told. Canon hasn't made a competing lens, however they have the 35L and Nikon has not made a competing lens to that one either. But both still make the 35mm f/2 lens, so who knows where things are going.

The lens debate thing is something that will drive you mad. Nikon has better zooms, Canon has better wide angle primes and specialty lenses like a 1-5:1x Micro lens or a 17mm TS lens.

Of course all this top dog stuff is $1500+ per lens. If you aren't willing to fork over that kind of cash on a lens, then don't worry about the lens shortfalls of one company to another. Both Nikon and Canon have a large range of lenses that will work with most any of their cameras, and it is only going to get larger. If you can't find something by either of the first party manufacturers, you have companies like Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Cosina, Voigtlander, Zeiss, etc. who make lenses as well.

[adam75south]

sigma has a great 30mm f/1.4, about as close to a 50mm equivalent as you get with a crop camera.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=320&sort=7&cat=38&page=1

[Ed P]

Thanks Adam.

Is that Sigma lens auto-focus and IS? on Canons? If so, can you also manually focus?

(Obviously, I'm a noob regarding lenses for DSLRs -- remember, I'm researching lenses to help me select a DSLR!). :)

[Elisha]

The HSM ones have full time manual focusing.

[Nickcanada]

Nikon has a 35mm/1.8 for $200. It's pretty good from what Ive been told. Canon hasn't made a competing lens, however they have the 35L and Nikon has not made a competing lens to that one either. But both still make the 35mm f/2 lens, so who knows where things are going.

The lens debate thing is something that will drive you mad. Nikon has better zooms, Canon has better wide angle primes and specialty lenses like a 1-5:1x Micro lens or a 17mm TS lens.

Of course all this top dog stuff is $1500+ per lens. If you aren't willing to fork over that kind of cash on a lens, then don't worry about the lens shortfalls of one company to another. Both Nikon and Canon have a large range of lenses that will work with most any of their cameras, and it is only going to get larger. If you can't find something by either of the first party manufacturers, you have companies like Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Cosina, Voigtlander, Zeiss, etc. who make lenses as well.


Not really true. Canon has a 35mm 2.0, and a 28mm 1.8 USM.

I'd recommend the sigma 30mm 1.4 or the Canon 28mm 1.8 over the Canon 35mm 1.4L for a crop camera. Especially if this is your first DSLR.

I used to have the 35mm 1.4 and now I have the sigma 30mm 1.4 and I don't feel like I'm missing much, if anything.

[VTEC_EATER]

Not really true. Canon has a 35mm 2.0, and a 28mm 1.8 USM.

Well, Ill be damned. I did not know about the 28/1.8.

[laydros]

I'm amazed at how expensive things are now too -- a decent SLR back then was $200-$300, and lenses were about the same. Now they're all 2x-3x times that, for just an "average" DSLR. Of course, that WAS over 20 years ago... :)

I think there are a couple of points on this... the one that has already been mentioned is the savings in digital vs. buying and processing film. And the camera companies have to put more money into the cameras to get the sensors and stuff inside. The inflation comes into play, and the new features (IS, aspherical lenses, multi-shot, etc.)

But I think one other thing to bear in mind is that we are using fancier lenses than we used to. A pretty normal film kit involved a 28/2.8 and a 50/1.8, those two lenses together now are only going to run you a little over $300. If Canon still made f/2.8 and f/3.5 85 and 135 lenses those would be pretty cheap too.

As for the original question, the Sigma 30/1.4 or the Canon 28/1.8 sound like winners. They both have USM/HSM so they will AF quickly and quietly, and allow full time manual override. You read reviews of the Sigma AF being off, but that seems to get better (worst case you have to send it back for adjustment) and the Canon sometimes gets reviews of being soft around the corners (but this could be pixel peeping). The Canon 35/2 is considered a very sharp lens, and is a good bit cheaper than the other two. It lacks HSM. It is pretty much the same glass as the old beloved 35/2 FD, which currently sells as much used as it's AF younger brother.

I also would consider something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. That is pretty much the equivalent of 28-80mm on film, with max (and pretty sharp) f/2.8 the whole way through. I find myself wanting a fast wide prime, but for the same $400 I would spend on the Canon 28/1.8 I have the bulk of the "normal" focal range with f/2.8.

With that said, I plan on picking up the Canon 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4 as my next lens, but I don't miss them a ton.

Any of the above listed lenses would be good for normal length and low light. Some are better for macro than others, but none are anywhere near 1:1. The Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro is an excellent lens, and worth every bit of the $600 tag. I have the older non-USM version and love it.

For portraits the 30ish range is kinda short, you want something in the 50-80 range. I have the cheap 50/1.8 (easy to tack on to the kit for $100) and the Canon 85/1.8. The 50 is pretty junky in terms of build quality, but is the same tried and true normal kit lens that Canon included from the 70's till the mid-late 80's. Super sharp, and great for low light.

[michaelb]

Hi gang -- first post.

What lens to most consider the "best prime" for the 400D/450D/500D (Rebel) series cameras?

If I wanted a lens for portraits, indoor work (actual focal length of 30-50 mm), fast aperature, macro work?

Thanks!


..

....But whatever camera I end up with, I know I will want at least one FAST 25-35mm prime, which will "match" my old 50mm f1.8 (which I used a LOT). So I'm looking into those for all cameras on my list.

Thanks all!

I would echo the above suggestions:

1. Sigma 30 1.4. I've got the Sigma 50 1.4 and its a fantastic lens. The 30mm is supposed to be very good as well. There are sometimes focusing issues with Sigma lenses on Canon bodies though. I had to send my Sigma to them and now it focuses perfecly on my 40D and 5D.

2. Canon 35 f/2. Sort of a "sleeper" lens. Around $200-250 in the used market. Most say its very good optically but the AF is on the slower and noisier side. Very small and compact.

3. Canon 28mm f/1.8. Runs around $400 in the used market. It has USM which means fast/quiet focusing, but I've heard alot of mixed reviews on this one and overall the 35 f/2 gets better ratings optically. I suspect that there is a lot of copy variation with this lens.

4. If you considering a macro lens look at the Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro lens as well. Goes for about $350 on the used market at its a steal at that price. It will be like a 100mm lens on 1.6X crop format. Its one of the best Canon lenses I've ever used; very fast AF, nice bokeh, super sharp, compact. As good as any of my L's. Makes a nice portrait lens as well.

[Ed P]

Wow, great feedback all, thanks very much!

Lots to look at here...