f/1.8 Primes for canon, below 50mm?

gothgirl

gothgirl

Messages
1,589
Edit My Images
Yes
So I have a nifty fifty STM which is great

Also have the 17-55 f/2.8 which is also fabulous.

But... I could really do with something in the 1.8 a little more open than the 50mm.

I've seen a couple of shorter primes that can be had for about a couple of hundred, like the Sigma EX 28mm f/1.8

Are any of them worth it ?
 
When I still had a Canon crop body, I had the Sigma 30 f/1.4 EX DC which was fabulous.

However, I had to send back the first copy that I received because it was incredibly soft. When I got the second copy, all was well. So if you go for this lens, my advice would be to make sure there is a return policy in place.
 
I have the 30mm 1.4 sigma it is a great lens and great condition but I am selling due upgrading to full frame if your intrested
 
Moreorless said:
I'd imagine because he wants to shoot wider than 50mm with an aperture faster than F/2.8.
Click to expand...
Maybe, then again there might be another reason, which may be solvable without going to the expense of a wide aperture lens, oh and its gothgirl, so I'd imagine the OP is female :)
 
Canon do a 35mm, without looking I cant remember if it;s a 1.8 or f2.0, really good lens.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Canon do a 35mm, without looking I cant remember if it;s a 1.8 or f2.0, really good lens.
Click to expand...
Canon's 35mm is f2. You have the option of the old version which can be had for around £200 but it's rather slow to autofocus, or you can have the new 35mm f2 IS, which is massive, well build but is rather expensive.
You can also get the Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art, which can be found secondhand for £4-500. And this is a full frame lens.
There are two versions of the Sigma 30mm f1.4. The older Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC HSM and the newer Art version. The older one can be found for less than £200, but as described above it's a bit hit and miss with quality. I've tried one and found that it also distorts when you're close up, which I didn't like. The Art version is more expensive, but the quality and build it better.

There's also the Canon 28mm f1.8 USM but it's not cheap.
Sigma did do a 24mm and 28mm f1.8 but these are old designs so they'll be a bit hit and miss. If going for an older Sigma, you're probably better off with the 30mm.
As suggested, the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 would be a good option if you sold your 17-55.
 
Not too keen on dropping a few notes on an art lens , hence looking at a cheaper prime.

The next thing I was going to upgrade was my 55/250 stm to the canon 70-200 2.8L

So if I did that I’d have a big gap in focal ranges with. The sigma art.

I’d have 18-35 then 70-200

So minus the prime , I’d be missing everything between 35-70

Getting tiring this photography lark

Is there not just a 1.8 / 2.0 / 2.4 lens that goes from 18-200 or 35-200 then I can just sell the damn lot of them and not have to be constantly changing lens :LOL::naughty:
 
Last edited:
gothgirl said:
Not too keen on dropping a few notes on an art lens , hence looking at a cheaper prime.

The next thing I was going to upgrade was my 55/250 stm to the canon 70-200 2.8L

So if I did that I’d have a big gap in focal ranges with. The sigma art.

I’d have 18-35 then 70-200

So minus the prime , I’d be missing everything between 35-70

Is there not just a 1.8 / 2.0 / 2.4 lens that goes from 18-200 or 35-200 then I can just sell the damn lot of them and not have to be constantly changing lens :LOL::naughty:
Click to expand...

The 70-200 f2.8L is a beast and rather expensive. It's very good, but so heavy if you're hand holding for an event. I have a love/hate relationship with it, the images are so good, but
What do you shoot?
Do you photograph events that need you to switch between focal lengths alot?
If so, this is the reason many event and wedding togs have two bodies, one with a wider lens and one with a longer lens.
If you don't want to swap lenses, then buying another prime probably isn't going to help with that.

There is one other cheap option. The Yongnuo 35mm f2. This will cost less than £100 but the quality isn't as good as the Sigma or Canon offerings.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 (older non-Art version) is probably the best option, then save up for a 70-200.

But if you primarily shoot events, I'd prioritise getting a 70-200 over a wide prime.Your 17-55 is a good all round lens and covers the wide angle fine and the 50mm STM is great, so don't bother replacing those.
If you concentrate your efforts and budget on finding a good value 70-200 (like the f2.8 Mk1 IS), even the f4L or a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or Tamron 70-200 f2.8 is going to be an upgrade over the 55-250.
 
If I were shooting crop Canon, I'm sure I would own the Sigma 18-35/1.8 zoom!!

The only lens I have had experience with in your criteria was the (now older) 28mm f/1.8 USM I had it on the 5D2 & thought it was a great lens in all honesty.
 
gothgirl said:
Not too keen on dropping a few notes on an art lens , hence looking at a cheaper prime.

The next thing I was going to upgrade was my 55/250 stm to the canon 70-200 2.8L

So if I did that I’d have a big gap in focal ranges with. The sigma art.

I’d have 18-35 then 70-200

So minus the prime , I’d be missing everything between 35-70

Getting tiring this photography lark

Is there not just a 1.8 / 2.0 / 2.4 lens that goes from 18-200 or 35-200 then I can just sell the damn lot of them and not have to be constantly changing lens :LOL::naughty:
Click to expand...

I will ask again, why f1.8?
 
MatBin said:
I will ask again, why f1.8?
Click to expand...
Short answer? Because it's quicker.
And I'm more likely to get the shots I want in low light with a 1.8 than a 2.8, but I want something more open than my 50mm when shooting in close quarters.
 
gothgirl said:
Is there not just a 1.8 / 2.0 / 2.4 lens that goes from 18-200 or 35-200 then I can just sell the damn lot of them and not have to be constantly changing lens :LOL::naughty:
Click to expand...

There very likely is one almost like that in a video world. You might need a second mortgage for that :)
 
gothgirl said:
Short answer? Because it's quicker.
And I'm more likely to get the shots I want in low light with a 1.8 than a 2.8, but I want something more open than my 50mm when shooting in close quarters.
Click to expand...
OK maybe, but a 1.8 shot wide open will have less dof so you may find you miss the focus point, admittedly WA lenses can have a greater dof (when compared to longer focal lengths etc) but maybe shooting with a 1 stop higher ISO would solve the problem and save you some cash? It's also possible that a 1.8 lens wide open is softer than a 2.8 wide open, depends on lens of course.
Just something to think about.
 
Last edited:
ABTog said:
Sigma did do a 24mm and 28mm f1.8 but these are old designs so they'll be a bit hit and miss. If going for an older Sigma, you're probably better off with the 30mm.
Click to expand...

I looked at these back when I had DSLR's and as far as I remember hit and miss though these lenses (arguably) may be they were generally regarded as being in the same ballpark or even as being better than the equivalent Canon lenses. As well as 24 and 28mm f1.8's Sigma also did a 20mm f1.8 which I had and liked very much. It was a bit soft at f1.8 but sharpened up nicely and most of these softness issues are pixel peeping issues anyway... maybe... probably... and the lens was excellent across the frame when stopped down. I also had the APS-C only Sigma 30mm f1.4 which I found to be very good, the only criticism I can make of that lens is that when manually focusing the ring feels gritty but I think they were all like that rather than it being a fault.

Another option is a manual legacy lens for use via an adapter, but this is only an option if the op is willing to accept manual focus and will probably be f2.8 rather than f1.8 in many cases.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It was a bit soft at f1.8 but sharpened up nicely and most of these softness issues are pixel peeping issues anyway... maybe... probably... and the lens was excellent across the frame when stopped down.
Click to expand...

Which is sort of the point I made in my post above, it rather negates buying a 1.8 lens if you intend to use it wide open.
 
MatBin said:
Which is sort of the point I made in my post above, it rather negates buying a 1.8 lens if you intend to use it wide open.
Click to expand...

Did your read my comment about pixel peeping and sharpening? You may not agree on those points but I still own "soft" lenses today and guess what, no one away from internet forums will ever notice or care. Not that the 20mm f1.8 I had was unusably soft as it wasn't and a few seconds in my software of choice lead to a sharper image. I took some of my favorite pictures ever with that lens :D Lenses like it wont be up to the latest larger f1.4 primes for stuff like astro but for general low light and wide aperture shooting they may well be easily good enough.
 
soeren said:
What about the brighter viewfinder?
Click to expand...

I've not really noticed the difference YMMV of course.

woof woof said:
Did your read my comment about pixel peeping and sharpening? You may not agree on those points but I still own "soft" lenses today and guess what, no one away from internet forums will ever notice or care. Not that the 20mm f1.8 I had was unusably soft as it wasn't and a few seconds in my software of choice lead to a sharper image. I took some of my favorite pictures ever with that lens :D Lenses like it wont be up to the latest larger f1.4 primes for stuff like astro but for general low light and wide aperture shooting they may well be easily good enough.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree, one man's (ok pc version one person's) definition of acceptable may not be another's. Tbh sometimes a "soft" lens is better than a "sharp" one because of application, colour rendition, contrast etc, depends on your point of view or budget etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top