24mm, 28mm , 30mm or 35mm on Canon?!?!

F

Ferj

Messages
1,655
Edit My Images
No
Along with my body upgrade (pretty sure I am going for the 7D now) I am looking to purchase a wide prime as I often find my 50mm not quite wide enough. I shoot primarily portraits. As far as I can tell my choices in my budget are:

Canon
28mm f1.8 USM £380
28mm f2.8 IS USM £420
24mm f2.8 IS USM £458
35mm f2 IS USM £470

Sigma
30mm f1.4 DC HSM £380
28mm f1.8 EX DG £360
24mm f1.8 £430

I have had some Sigma lenses in the past and found them a bit slow & noisy but I haven't used any of their new ones. In my mind I am thinking go 24mm to get the widest option but is there much difference between 24mm & 28mm on a crop body? Do I need IS with the focal length and improved ISO of the 7D over my 40D's is it going to be a waste? If anyone has experience with these lenses it would be really appreciated!
 
How wide do you need. 7D is a crop, I found 24mm not that wide on my 50D but perfect on my 5D (although I have a 14mm for ultra wide)
 
If it helps at all...

I owned the Sigma 30mm f1.4 which as you may know is an APS-C only lens. I found mine to be sharp from f1.4 and the only negative things I can say about it are that it's a bit chunky and the focus ring seems a bit gritty when focusing manually, I couldn't say anything too negative about the image quality though, I found it to be very good and although reviews mention field curvature I never found it to be a real world issue.

Just out of interest I also owned the Sigma 20mm f1.8 which I believe is a similar design to their 24 and 28mm f1.8's. I found that it wasn't as sharp at f1.8 as the 30mm was at f1.4 but it was perfectly usable at f1.8 after sharpening and extremely sharp when stopped down just a little.
 
Byker28i said:
How wide do you need. 7D is a crop, I found 24mm not that wide on my 50D but perfect on my 5D (although I have a 14mm for ultra wide)
Click to expand...

Its more to get groups of people in, environmental portraits etc but I don't want to go distorting people!
 
24mm
 
tbh 24 on crop is actually just like a wide standard, its not wide by any means. Youd be better off with 18mm or lower.
 
When you say 'wide' I guess it's down to personal preference.

With a 1.6 crop I'd be reluctant to go longer than 24mm

I use 24mm on a 1.3 crop 1D3 and it will just about stay on the camera rather than have me switching to a wider lens.
 
Maybe I should consider the 20mm f2.8 usm then? Anyone any experience using this for portraits?
 
Ferj said:
Its more to get groups of people in, environmental portraits etc but I don't want to go distorting people!
Click to expand...

Probably 24 then. Do you use Lightroom? They have pretty decent profiles for,lens correction.
 
Byker28i said:
Probably 24 then. Do you use Lightroom? They have pretty decent profiles for,lens correction.
Click to expand...

Cheers, yes I have the Adobe CC package. I had been looking at zooms like the 17-40 f4L but I like the wider aperture of primes, maybe the 24 will be good middle ground?!?!
 
Unfortunately not, I don't know any local Canon users! I've been reviewing images on Flickr and out of all of them the 24mm actually seems to have the nicest images that look like my kind of style. I certainly don't think I would want to go any longer as there would be minimal benefit/difference to the 50mm
 
Another option... should you wish to consider it... :D

You can get an Olympus Zuiko 24mm f2.8 for under £100 and it'll work via a simple adapter and you can even get focus confirmation adapters both in the region of £5-10. A much cheaper option is the Zuiko 28mm f2.8 which you can normally find from £20-30.

I tried my 28, 50 and 135mm Zuiko's on my 5D and all performed well, the catch is that they're manual focus and of course only the 50mm is available with a wider than f2.8 aperture.
 
I think you need to be aware of how wide 24mm is on a crop. It just isnt wide. Its the same as 35mm on 1.5 crop. Which is not wide. But it is good for full length portraits or groups of people. Portraits, as in proper portraits with 35mm are ok. its not ideal due to the distortion and lack of compression. My suggestion to you is to google "canon 35mm flick" and then you will find a flickr group for just a 35mm lens. You can see how wide that looks then as that is what you will get with a 24, kind of as its still a 24mm obviuosly and cropped so you may see more distortion with a 24.

My real suggestion would be go to a full frame 5d classic if you are doing portraits. but thats another topic. :)
 
mart77 said:
I think you need to be aware of how wide 24mm is on a crop. It just isnt wide. Its the same as 35mm on 1.5 crop. Which is not wide. But it is good for full length portraits or groups of people. Portraits, as in proper portraits with 35mm are ok. its not ideal due to the distortion and lack of compression. My suggestion to you is to google "canon 35mm flick" and then you will find a flickr group for just a 35mm lens. You can see how wide that looks then as that is what you will get with a 24, kind of as its still a 24mm obviuosly and cropped so you may see more distortion with a 24.

My real suggestion would be go to a full frame 5d classic if you are doing portraits. but thats another topic. :)
Click to expand...

You shouldn't and what we're talking about shouldn't be distortion as such but perspective.

Assuming that you stand in the same spot with a FF 5D and 35mm lens and an APS-C camera with a 24mm lens (with a x1.6 crop = 38mm FoV) what you'd get is pretty much the same image (only 3mm apart and of course ignoring the aperture setting and the effects on the DoF you see.) One good thing is that with the APS-C camera you'll only be using the centre of the lens which should be the best bit and any nastiness towards the corners may be cropped out.
 
the compression changes, a crop of a 24mm to 35mm is not the same as a 35mm on full frame. The framing is the same and it looks the same zoom but the compression is different. A big forehead at 24mm is still a big forehead when cropped to 35mm.
 
woof woof said:
Another option... should you wish to consider it... :D

You can get an Olympus Zuiko 24mm f2.8 for under £100 and it'll work via a simple adapter and you can even get focus confirmation adapters both in the region of £5-10. A much cheaper option is the Zuiko 28mm f2.8 which you can normally find from £20-30.

I tried my 28, 50 and 135mm Zuiko's on my 5D and all performed well, the catch is that they're manual focus and of course only the 50mm is available with a wider than f2.8 aperture.
Click to expand...

Not a bad suggestion however I would need AF at least some of the time so I think they will be out!
 
mart77 said:
the compression changes, a crop of a 24mm to 35mm is not the same as a 35mm on full frame. The framing is the same and it looks the same zoom but the compression is different. A big forehead at 24mm is still a big forehead when cropped to 35mm.
Click to expand...

No. Try it and you should see that a FF v crop image is the same if you account for the crop factor. So, just to keep the numbers simple... if we look at FF v MFT (to have x2 crop instead of the brain taxing x1.5 or x1.6 APS-C) a FF shot at 50mm and f2.8 will look pretty much identical to a MFT shot at 25mm and f1.4. The only difference wil be down to the build and character of the lens... bokeh etc.

If you want I can post examples. I have lots of FF v APS-C v MFT test shots from comparing 20D, 5D and MFT.
 
Last edited:
My 16-35 f2.8L is almost perfect on a cropped sensor - would recommend it :)
 
Tried it you, you are right, I stand corrected and learnt something new, thanks !:banana:
 
How about going for the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, really nice lens, IS and covers all ranges.

Had one when I owned a 40D and 7D, its probably the ideal lens for Canon crop sensor cameras.
 
Last edited:
Op said he wanted a prime, so I've been ignoring the zooms, but the f2.8 wide zooms offer a lot.
 
Chucked that suggestion in because I don't think from the primes mentioned the OP would see much difference in IQ, in fact the 17-55mm would be better than most.
 
I would find a f2.8 prime is a bit slow for my use, as mentioned above I would prefer a f2.8 zoom. However I have used 3 copies of the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and each time I used it I found it a pleasure to use, this would be my choice - although it's not very wide!
 
I'm a prime lover but I can see the appeal of zooms and you could - and I sometimes do - argue that if you are thinking of getting a non macro f2.8 prime you should think about a f2.8 zoom.

But primes are... nice :D

Personally I would never consider the Canon 17-55mm because it's just too big and when mounted on a DSLR it would instantly remind me why I no longer own a Canon DSLR setup.
 
woof woof said:
Just out of interest I also owned the Sigma 20mm f1.8 which I believe is a similar design to their 24 and 28mm f1.8's. I found that it wasn't as sharp at f1.8 as the 30mm was at f1.4 but it was perfectly usable at f1.8 after sharpening and extremely sharp when stopped down just a little.
Click to expand...

In my experience with the Sigma 24mm 1.8 its partly a lack of sharpness wide open and partly a reduction in contrast that you can fix someone in post if you don't like the look.

Personally I think the main reason to pickup the 24mm and 28mm is there close focus distance, that's why I picked up the 24mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top