Which is the best "normal" prime for a Crop Camera?

[Gothmoth]

Go out and play for yourself. Take the same picture on the 7D with the RAW + L setting and let me know a single time that the L looks nearly as good as the raw. If you have a friend with the 600D, then try that as well, same subject, same glass, and compare JPG to JPG.

i think what you mean is "and let me know a single time that the JPG looks nearly as good as the raw"... ?
otherwise the sentence makes no sense to me. but my english is not that good...

well my RAW straight out of cam look 90% of the time worse then the JPG´s.
because RAW must be processed.. that is why we have all the tools like lightroom and C1.

don´t get me wrong im a die hard RAW shooter.
but what you wrote makes no sense to me.

For my money, I'd rather have less post and get a JPG immediately. Well, until about 3 weeks ago with Windows 7 added RAW to their list of native file formats!

i don´t know what the RAW codec from M$ has to do with the postprocessing of RAW files?
the only thing the codec does is enabling windows to show a preview of the RAW files.
canon users could find a free codec who does the same for quiet some time.

and if you really want to speed up things get this:

http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/

so M$ finally released a RAW codec to preview files in the windows explorer.
took long enough if you ask me.... :
i never use the windows explorer.... it sucks as image viewer and sucks as filemanager.

 

[Darkn3ss]

By "L" I meant a large sized "L" JPG. There are 6 JPG settings on all of the cameras, L, M and S, and I don't know what the other two options are honestly.

Whether it was corners cut, or different chips used, or whatever, the 600D and 60D that I've had certainly produce much nicer JPGs in my opinion than any 7D I've had, and to date I've had a single 600D, 60D and four 7D's. None have been returned for problems, just bought when needed, and sold after they were no longer needed.

All I'm saying is that people should stop spending $1400+ on a body and then $500 for a lens, when $1400+ on a lens and $500 on a body will yield MUCH nicer results!

 

[jspiteri]

I had a 50mm for a while and found the focal length too tight for day to day use so, like you, looked for the 50 equivalent.

I dismissed the Sigma 30mm 1.4 simply because its not a future proof investment as it is not full frame compatible.

I was tempted by the sigma 28mm 1.8 so picked one up from warehouseexpress, unfortunately it front focused quite dramatically on my 550D so I returned it and replaced it with the Canon 28mm 1.8.

As much as i would have loved to get L glass i didn't have the budget or a lens to use in the mean time. The Canon 28mm 1.8 however has been surprisingly good (despite the mixed reviews). Focus is fast, silent and consistently accurate. The centre image is tack sharp and the colours are good. It gets my vote as a great 50mm equivalent.

 

[bycostello]

curious to know why you feel you need a normal lens?

 

[pedro]

Planning to go FF again (was shooting a Contax 139 Quartz back in the film days...1982!) I purchased the 28 f/2.8 which is half the price of the 1.8. I did not want to spend too much, but as there are excellent streetphotographers like new york based Markus Hartel using it, so it was way enough for me. ;-) Having the 50 f/1.4 in my line up it will do for a fine street lens when the 5Diii is halfway thru its product cycle...I could bite the bullet already and go for an excellent 5Dii, but I am dreaming of a 5Diii providing some very fine ISO 25600 and very usable ISO 51200. For extreme lowlight photography in b/w (Robert Frank style). So there is joy in the waiting ;-)

 

[aj1575]

I had exactly the same problem. My 50 was to long, and I wanted a "normal" lens on a crop camera. I finally went for the Canon 35 f2. It performs very well, and is affordable. So I never regreted that I bought it.

I also considered the Sigma 30mm f1.4, APS-C only didn't bother me, since I probably will never go FF, but the close focusing is just too bad (something like 0.5m, 1:10 macro!), I can't comment on the focusing issue, but it seems to be a problem. The Sigma 28mm f1.8 is alos nice, and an okay performer for the price, the problem here was, that it is almost as big as Canons L-glass. The Canon 28mm f1.8 is to expensive for its performance; not very sharp, lots of CA's. The drawback of the 35mm f2 is the noisy autofocus, but I got used to it very fast.
So, the 35mm f2 is for me the go to lens in this segment.

Of course, there is the 35mm f1.4L, but there is also a 5D mark II and a mark III soon, and a 1D, and expensive Leica glass (without autofocus!), but if you like to or have to stick to a budget, and don't have to own (or buy) just the most expensive stuff out there, you will be very happy with the 35mm f2.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have a 7D and want to get a fast prime lens that would be close to the equivalent of a 50mm on a FF camera. I have a 17-55 f/2.8, so I want it faster than that.

This will be my "learn composition & photography the old school way" with a standard length prime, zoom with your feet, etc. I would also use this for indoor pics of the family, children, dogs. Possibly indoor events like kids plays, or sports in a poorly lit gym when I want a wider angle shot (I have an 85 f/1.8 and a 50 f/1.4 and those usually handle the indoor sports stuff)

Sharpness & accurate focus are important to me.

There are several lenses in this range to choose from, and they all get mixed reviews from what I have read. I can't see a clear winner.

For those of you that have any of these lenses, I could use some of your advice, thoughts. I am tempted to rent them all and compare them, but that would be somewhat of an expensive experiment.

I assume the 35 f/1.4L is the best, also Zeiss lenses but that is beyond what I would want to spend. (unless someone could convince me to spend 3x the money 8) )

I am looking at the following lenses
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4
- Canon 28mm f/1.8
- Canon 35mm f/2

Any other suggestions?

Thanks in advance for your responses.

First, there was nothing magical about 50mm on FF. The only reason it got called the classic/standard/normal etc. was because a standard 50mm lens is THE easiest lens to make and it's very easy and inexpensive to make one that is super sharp stopped down just a little. So it might be more rightly referred to as the simplest/cheapest focal length than the classical/standard/magical/etc. So they used the be the kit lens years ago. I have to say it was never my favorite or ideal focal length on FF. When I had a 35-70mm zoom it was used far, FAR more at 35mm or 70mm. So I wouldn't go after a 30-35mm prime on APS-C just to be at THE standard FF focal length. If you happen to truly like that focal length, ignoring all the talk, then that is a different matter.

I don't think the canon primes that are non-L and non-mark II when a mark II has been released that are wider than 35mm are very good. The 35mm f/2 is good optically but the AF isn't so fast or amazing. Never used a sigma 30 1.4, supposed to have great center sharpness, heard everything from AF is way off to it's perfect so not sure what to make of that.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thanks for the replies. I just read through reviews on all the lenses again. Yes, they are all compromises, so I remain undecided. I was thinking, if I'm going to spend 35L money, I might as well jump up further and buy a used 5D or 5DII and use my 50mm f1.4 and skip the "normal range" on the crop camera thing. Now I'm talking crazy.

I'm really just looking at this because I have an itch to go more old school and learn on a "normal range" fast prime. My 17-55 f/2.8 really covers my general purpose lens in this area for the most part. So I guess that is why I don't want to spend the money to get the L lens.

So, I think I'll rent the 28mm f/1.8 (best of the 3 as you suggest) and if I'm good with the sharpness of the pictures and my experience with the lens I'll go with it. I think if I don't like that lens, I wouldn't like the others enough to buy them either.

Thanks again.

The 35 1.4 has much better focusing system than the 50 1.4.
Ideally, I'd try out 35 1.4 on a 5D2 .

 

[papa-razzi]

curious to know why you feel you need a normal lens?

Not to confuse need with want - I don't need a normal lens, I want one. I have two zoom lenses that cover that focal range.

I have read from several places that the normal 50mm is close to what the naked eye sees, and that length prime is a good learning lens to learn and practice the basics of photography. Being a fast lens allows experimentation with depth of field.

So it is as simple as that. I want it to play around with and learn.

 

[Rocky]

First, there was nothing magical about 50mm on FF. The only reason it got called the classic/standard/normal etc. was because a standard 50mm lens is THE easiest lens to make and it's very easy and inexpensive to make one that is super sharp stopped down just a little. So it might be more rightly referred to as the simplest/cheapest focal length than the classical/standard/magical/etc. So they used the be the kit lens years ago.

Actually, there are a few "Magical" reason behind the 50mm standard lens. The diagonal of a FF is 43.3mm. In the old days, 45mm is the standard focal lenth for fixed lens camera. Also the angle of view of 45mm is also almost the same as the "clear view" angle of human eye. Leica was using 50mm as standard lens since day one. In the 30's comes the SLR (Exakta). Due to the frange focal length, that make it impossible to make 45mm focal length for the camera. So 55mm was forced to be the focal length for its standard lens. This focal length was adopted by almot all SLR maker until the 60's. As techology gets better, SLR maker finally was able to make 50mm as standard lens.
As for the price, 50mm is always the cheapest due to high volume, not due to the ease of design or manufacturing. All the design cost and manufacturing tooling are shared by millions of lenses. That makes it almost zero overhead. As for ease of design, for SLR it is easier to design a good 60mm lens than a 50mm lens due to the frange focal length. But 60mm is a little too narrow for general use.

 

[Loswr]

First, there was nothing magical about 50mm on FF. The only reason it got called the classic/standard/normal etc. was because a standard 50mm lens is THE easiest lens to make and it's very easy and inexpensive to make one that is super sharp stopped down just a little.

A 'normal' focal length is one that provides a perspective that nearly mimics what humans typically perceive. Psychophysical studies have shown that when presented with a large print or piece of art, most people have a tendency to stop and view that image at a distance that corresponds to an angle of view along the diagonal around 53° - and that's the angle you get when your focal length equals the diagonal measure of your image substrate (whether film or sensor, of whatever size). For a FF sensor, that focal length is 43mm - so, technically, 43mm is 'normal' and 50mm happens to be close enough to that. Historically, the Leitz Optical Factory used a 50mm fixed lens on their first 35mm camera - thus, the Leica was born and 50mm has been 'normal' (for the 35mm format) ever since.

When I had a 35-70mm zoom it was used far, FAR more at 35mm or 70mm. So I wouldn't go after a 30-35mm prime on APS-C just to be at THE standard FF focal length.

I suspect that's true for most people - grab the EXIF-analyzing software of your choice and look at your zoom lens stats, and I bet most of your images are at the ends of the range.

 

[Eagle Eye]

+1 for the 35mm f/2. If you're wanting to go a little old school, this is your lens. The IQ is superior to the 28 f/1.8. Yes, the autofocus is a little loud, but who cares? The shutter of a camera is loud too.

 

[nismohks]

although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....

it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful

 

[jseliger]

+1 for the 35mm f/2. If you're wanting to go a little old school, this is your lens. The IQ is superior to the 28 f/1.8. Yes, the autofocus is a little loud, but who cares? The shutter of a camera is loud too.

How do you feel about it compared to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which looks similar enough for me to ask the question?

EDIT: Plus, it gets a lot of love elsewhere, although I get the impression that the differences between the various lenses in this range might be pretty minimal in actual use.

 

[mackguyver]

although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....

it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful

I couldn't agree more - I love it, too, and it's the perfect FL for me on a crop sensor (60D).

 

[koolman]

although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....

it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful

The 24mm = 38.4 mm equivalent on a crop. This is quite close to the traditional 35mm lens many cameras ship with like the fuji x-100

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Too often do I see people with mediocre glass but a prosumer camera, and feel that that is the best that they can do because they cannot afford a better lens. Flip that mentality my friend! A sharp "L" glass on a JPG only camera will give you better results than mediocre glass on a camera that can take pictures in RAW format any day. Plus, the T3i jpg's look sharper with the same lenses than a 7D anyways, because the 7D is meant to be taken and processed in RAW, not JPG, so corners were cut.

I think you are confused. The T3i can output RAW files just fine, as do all the DSLRs in Canon's lineup (T3 too).

 

[Darkn3ss]

Too often do I see people with mediocre glass but a prosumer camera, and feel that that is the best that they can do because they cannot afford a better lens. Flip that mentality my friend! A sharp "L" glass on a JPG only camera will give you better results than mediocre glass on a camera that can take pictures in RAW format any day. Plus, the T3i jpg's look sharper with the same lenses than a 7D anyways, because the 7D is meant to be taken and processed in RAW, not JPG, so corners were cut.

I think you are confused. The T3i can output RAW files just fine, as do all the DSLRs in Canon's lineup (T3 too).

You're right, I misspoke when I said JPG only. My intention was JPG intended. I find that most people that buy xxxxD and xxxD bodies only want JPG, and aren't hard-core photoshoppers. Take a picture, and it's fine. When using JPG, I find that the xxxxD/xxxD are actually quite a bit sharper than the xD cameras in JPG. I've never used a 1Ds3 yet, so I cannot comment on that, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was the same scenario.

 

[Taym]

although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....

it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful

How would you guys comparevthis 24mm 1.4L with the 35mm, 1.4L still by Canon? I would guess a 35mm is closer to "normal" and would also be such on a FF, should one decide to eventually upgrade... Right?

 

[nismohks]

although in a slightly different league of the 35/f2, i absolutely LOVE my 24/f1.4 on my 7D....

it's a totally wonderful lens and lives on my camera most of the time now as i find that it's just right for framing and it can also focus quite close which makes it very versatile for my uses. if you plan to be stuck on photography for awhile i recommend getting this lens because it makes using a crop body much more joyful

How would you guys comparevthis 24mm 1.4L with the 35mm, 1.4L still by Canon? I would guess a 35mm is closer to "normal" and would also be such on a FF, should one decide to eventually upgrade... Right?

i was deciding between the 24 and 35... but eventually i chose the 24.
why?
because i often go out for dinner with friends and i do some concert photography both scenario which often demands a large aperture. as such the wider 24 is more useful for me and i can still fit in a few ppl in my shot where as had i got the 35 i'd be just picking out individual people. i like composing wide.

another reason is that i have a 50 f1.4 that although is not L, serves me fine for low light.
the difference in perspective between 35 and 50 is quite little so with respects to the cash outlay, i deemed that the 24 would give me a more unique perspective.

food photography using the 24 is absolutely awesome i must say

i am going to upgrade to FF when the 5d3 comes out which will make my 24 quite wide, but im cool with that.
i love night street photography and for my style of shooting, the 24 is fantastic to be able to get the ambiance of the scenery as well as its activities.

failing that, theres always foot-zoom so it's all good

at the end of the day it depends on what you like to shoot and what you plan to use it for.

If the 24 is too much for you and you arent sure if you will move up to FF, i recommend the sigma 30 f1.4. great price, decent resale should you wish to sell later and performs quite well too. my mate has one and if i werent planning to go to FF later, i wouldve picked that up much earlier