Fast prime for Croped body advice (24-35mm)

[sootzzs]

Hi all,

All this talking about Sigma's new 24-35 F2 "zoom" reminded me how much I need a faster lens for low light situations. I have a 60D (but plan to move to full frame in a year or two) and my fastest lens is 50 1.8 II, which as you can imagine is too short for many situations ( moreover, the AF is horrible in low light). Mostly, I miss a fast lens in close dimly lit spaces (cafes, tight streets, etc...). I did tried to use old manual 28 F2.8 lenses adapted to EF (I have an EF-s screen to aid MF) but in dim, dynamic situations I really struggle with the focus (also, F2.8 is not that wide for a really dim light).

I am a very budget conscious so my options are limited at best to 500-600$ and must be an FF compatible for the future.

I'm pondering between Canons 24-28-35 IS options (35 is F2 of course). Also there is the new super cheap Yongnuo's 35mm F2 Canon clone which seems to be nice for the price (115$). I lean toward the 35 IS USM but wonder won't it be too tight for my needs. Is there that much difference (in low light) between F2.8 and F2, especially considering the new IS Canon put in them (I understand the stop motion factor but I will be shooting in many different situations so can't predict it)? Or should I just buy Yongnuo and play with it till I'll have a FF?

Any input from crop users (or any) of one of these lenses would be really appreciated. Thanks!

Roman

 

[Gnocchi]

What about eg 28 1.8 ? And the diff. between f2 & f2.8 is one stop, that's twice the light!

 

[sootzzs]

What about eg 28 1.8 ? And the diff. between f2 & f2.8 is one stop, that's twice the light!

Well, the 28 1.8 is a bit outdated and the IQ seems to be lacking.
Yep, I understand it twice the light. Hence the dilemma.

 

[wsmith96]

You may want to consider either the sigma 24 or 35mm art lenses. I don't have experience with either, but the review sites show the 35mm is an excellent lens and I'm assuming 24 is similar. Just remember that even at 35mm, it won't be very wide on your 60D.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You may be able to upgrade to a gray market 6D for the price of a lens, or close to it. FF bodies will want a 1.6 X longer lens for the same view, so you may find all your lenses much wider than you are used to. Gaining X stops with a FF body will make a big difference as well.

If you can, bank the money until you can move to FF and then decide what lens you need.

A 35mm lens on FF will give the field of view of a ~22mm lens on a crop. The kit 24-105mm lens on FF may be all you will need to start.

 

[neuroanatomist]

For a crop body and assuming you're not fixed on a prime lens, you might consider the very good Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8.

EDIT: oops - missed the FF compatibility need when reading the OP on my phone.

 

[FTb-n]

My choice would be the new 35 2.0 IS. On crop, it compares to a 56 mm FF lens which is in that "normal" range that most find to be very handy. Of course, this all depends upon your shooting style.

Shortly after purchasing my 60D, I bought the old 35 2.0 for a wedding (as a guest, not the photographer). It proved to be a very handy focal length and the speed was quite helpful. Some closeup shots surprised me with nice pop due to the small DOF.

The original 35 had soft corners on FF, but worked well on crop which only "sees" its sweet spot. The new 35 2.0 IS, is much nicer lens for both crop and FF. It's sharp to the corners for crop, focuses quickly, has more appealing bokeh, and the IS can be an asset for creative controlled blur images. This is currently my "low light" lens for both crop and FF. (An updated 50 1.2L or 50 1.4 is on my wish list -- if it's ever introduced.)

 

[TeT]

Canon 20-35mm 2.8 L; can get off of eBay for less than $500.00 used from reputable sellers who will take returns.

*also on eBay if it is not as advertised or broke you can return through eBay for full refund.

this is a cheap option for that range. although 2.8 might be too slow...

 

[Arty]

My choice would be the new 35 2.0 IS. On crop, it compares to a 56 mm FF lens which is in that "normal" range that most find to be very handy. Of course, this all depends upon your shooting style.

Shortly after purchasing my 60D, I bought the old 35 2.0 for a wedding (as a guest, not the photographer). It proved to be a very handy focal length and the speed was quite helpful. Some closeup shots surprised me with nice pop due to the small DOF.

The original 35 had soft corners on FF, but worked well on crop which only "sees" its sweet spot. The new 35 2.0 IS, is much nicer lens for both crop and FF. It's sharp to the corners for crop, focuses quickly, has more appealing bokeh, and the IS can be an asset for creative controlled blur images. This is currently my "low light" lens for both crop and FF. (An updated 50 1.2L or 50 1.4 is on my wish list -- if it's ever introduced.)

I completely agree. I used the older 35F2 on crop bodies, including the 60D, but the new lens is even better in low light. The IS helps. It is my favorite lens for low light, and great on full frame as well. AF is fast and accurate and the lens is very sharp.
If Canon comes out with an IS version of a 50F1.8, I will snatch it up. IS really helps when you may want to use slow shutter speeds.

 

[sootzzs]

My choice would be the new 35 2.0 IS. On crop, it compares to a 56 mm FF lens which is in that "normal" range that most find to be very handy. Of course, this all depends upon your shooting style.

Shortly after purchasing my 60D, I bought the old 35 2.0 for a wedding (as a guest, not the photographer). It proved to be a very handy focal length and the speed was quite helpful. Some closeup shots surprised me with nice pop due to the small DOF.

The original 35 had soft corners on FF, but worked well on crop which only "sees" its sweet spot. The new 35 2.0 IS, is much nicer lens for both crop and FF. It's sharp to the corners for crop, focuses quickly, has more appealing bokeh, and the IS can be an asset for creative controlled blur images. This is currently my "low light" lens for both crop and FF. (An updated 50 1.2L or 50 1.4 is on my wish list -- if it's ever introduced.)

I completely agree. I used the older 35F2 on crop bodies, including the 60D, but the new lens is even better in low light. The IS helps. It is my favorite lens for low light, and great on full frame as well. AF is fast and accurate and the lens is very sharp.
If Canon comes out with an IS version of a 50F1.8, I will snatch it up. IS really helps when you may want to use slow shutter speeds.

Thanks guys.
That were my thoughts I was just afraid it is too narrow for close spaces on crop body.

Mt Spokane:
While I do like to move to FF, it will take some time as most of my lenses are EF-S and probably not worth too much today (even the 15-85). I think any of these primes would be useful on FF when it day comes.

Sigma's Art looks like an amazing lenses but a bit too expensive for me now. Also, from what I've read the 35 IS is quite remarkable and gives the shooter a possibility to shoot at less than 1/4 of a sec hand held! I'm not sure you can do that with either of the Sigmas.

 

[gregorywood]

My choice would be the new 35 2.0 IS. On crop, it compares to a 56 mm FF lens which is in that "normal" range that most find to be very handy. Of course, this all depends upon your shooting style.

Shortly after purchasing my 60D, I bought the old 35 2.0 for a wedding (as a guest, not the photographer). It proved to be a very handy focal length and the speed was quite helpful. Some closeup shots surprised me with nice pop due to the small DOF.

The original 35 had soft corners on FF, but worked well on crop which only "sees" its sweet spot. The new 35 2.0 IS, is much nicer lens for both crop and FF. It's sharp to the corners for crop, focuses quickly, has more appealing bokeh, and the IS can be an asset for creative controlled blur images. This is currently my "low light" lens for both crop and FF. (An updated 50 1.2L or 50 1.4 is on my wish list -- if it's ever introduced.)

I can't really add much to this assessment. I have both the 6D and 7D and the 35mm f/2 IS is an often used lens on both bodies. It's sharp, and can be used wide open on either body. It's a keeper for me (and that's saying something).

Greg

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Just get it. The 35mm f2 IS is one of the best non-L lenses

 

[nc0b]

As Mt. Spokane suggested, get a FF 6D now, play with what you have, and then decide. I have been to Easter Island, Machu Picchu and Alaska in the past 7 months. I shot 80% with my 6D and 24-105mm f/4. Indoor stuff I often shot at ISO 12,800, which included museums, botanical gardens, etc. Generally I shoot the 24-105mm at f/5.6 or f/8 since often I need some depth of field. Fast lenses were much more significant in the film days. Sure you may want paper thin DOF at times, but that can be overrated. When I do portraiture, with the head turned say 20 degrees, I don't want one eye in focus and the other one blurry.

When I shoot indoor dance I use the 6D and 70-200 f2.8 IS II. If the dance couple is close and tightly framed at 70mm, I cannot shoot that at f/2.8 and have both the woman and man sharp. When I shoot BIF with the 400mm f/5.6, I do much better with the 6D than my 60D, for whatever reason.

On trips I always have a 2nd or 3rd body, rather than juggling lenses, but for me the 6D is my "go to" body. I have seen them for $1200 new and $999 used.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

First of all: Stay away from YongNuo 35mm F2, because image quality is terrible.
The need to be compatible with full frame in the future, leaves you few options:

EF28mm F1.8 has poor picture quality, when more open than F2.8
EF24mm F2.8 IS is a great option.
EF28mm F2.8 IS is a great lens, but not really wide-angle APS-C
EF35mm F2 IS is a great lens, but it is not at wide angle for APS-C

Amazingly, Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 Art will work on full frame cameras without black corners between 28-35mm.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Mt Spokane:
While I do like to move to FF, it will take some time as most of my lenses are EF-S and probably not worth too much today (even the 15-85). I think any of these primes would be useful on FF when it day comes.

Sigma's Art looks like an amazing lenses but a bit too expensive for me now. Also, from what I've read the 35 IS is quite remarkable and gives the shooter a possibility to shoot at less than 1/4 of a sec hand held! I'm not sure you can do that with either of the Sigmas.

I'd go for the 35mm f/2 as a lens useful on both cameras. I tend to stay away from Sigma because I was bit by incompatibilities years ago, and they still are happening. There is no guarantee that they will work on future Canon cameras, I had to dump a few that could not be updated.

 

[tayassu]

+1 for the 35/2.
Great lens and I love the 35mm FL on crop.

 

[Luds34]

What about eg 28 1.8 ? And the diff. between f2 & f2.8 is one stop, that's twice the light!

Well, the 28 1.8 is a bit outdated and the IQ seems to be lacking.
Yep, I understand it twice the light. Hence the dilemma.

To me, especially on my crop bodies and in the context of shooting in low light (indoors in the evening), there is a world of difference between f/2 and f/2.8. Also, keep in mind the f/1.8 is another full third faster then f/2.

As for the 28mm f/1.8. It seems to get a bit of a bad rap because it doesn't possibly shoot brick walls perfectly, and like a lot of the older lenses, does suffer a bit in the CA department wide open. I purchased this lens a few years ago, after a lot of research, to use on a 2Ti and was very happy with the purchase. I too went back and forth between 28mm and 35mm FL and ultimately decided to error on the side of caution, and go wider and was very glad I did. Like you I had a 50mm already so that helped push towards the 28mm.

 

[sootzzs]

What about eg 28 1.8 ? And the diff. between f2 & f2.8 is one stop, that's twice the light!

Well, the 28 1.8 is a bit outdated and the IQ seems to be lacking.
Yep, I understand it twice the light. Hence the dilemma.

To me, especially on my crop bodies and in the context of shooting in low light (indoors in the evening), there is a world of difference between f/2 and f/2.8. Also, keep in mind the f/1.8 is another full third faster then f/2.

As for the 28mm f/1.8. It seems to get a bit of a bad rap because it doesn't possibly shoot brick walls perfectly, and like a lot of the older lenses, does suffer a bit in the CA department wide open. I purchased this lens a few years ago, after a lot of research, to use on a 2Ti and was very happy with the purchase. I too went back and forth between 28mm and 35mm FL and ultimately decided to error on the side of caution, and go wider and was very glad I did. Like you I had a 50mm already so that helped push towards the 28mm.

Don't forget the IS of the 35. It seem to be more than enough compensation for the F1.8 vs F2. As I told before my only concern is it will be too tight on a crop, but I think this is my choice. I will try to find a good deal next week when I'll travel to England. At around 400GBP it is 75GBP cheaper that I can get it here (Israel) so it seems like a good deal to me.

Thanks!

 

[Luds34]

Don't forget the IS of the 35. It seem to be more than enough compensation for the F1.8 vs F2. As I told before my only concern is it will be too tight on a crop, but I think this is my choice. I will try to find a good deal next week when I'll travel to England. At around 400GBP it is 75GBP cheaper that I can get it here (Israel) so it seems like a good deal to me.

Thanks!

Absolutely. However it depends on what one shoots and how steady ones hands are. On the wider end, I haven't found IS terribly useful (occasional video is the exception). My good photography buddy has the new 35 f/2 IS and really enjoys it on his 7D2.

Since you said you plan to jump to FF, the 35mm FL is probably more useful for you in that regard as well!

Good Luck!