Primes: 28mm f1.8 or 35mm f2

menthel

menthel

Messages
6,732
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, was out the other day with some friends and realised that if I needed to get them all in frame I had to stand a very long way away with my 50mm f1.8. We were in a bowling alley so the light was awful!

What one of the 2 above lenses would be better for such situations? Anyone know of anywhere they are in stock?
 
Why limit yourself to 28mm when you could have a 20mm f1.8? :)

I have Siggy 20mm f1.8 and 30mm f1.4, love them both.
 
menthel said:
This lens has my attention... Its as cheap as the 28mm canon. Now how does one squeeze such things past the wife...
Click to expand...

it's only small.... :whistling:

and the bokeh is very, very pretty.... ^_^
 
I went through this thought-process about 25 years ago and after much consideration ended up going for 35mm f/2 on both my SLR and Leica bodies.
Why?
28mm is a compromise focal length - neither one thing or another, not really wide enough when you need wide, not really standard when you need a normal angle of view.
If you want a wide angle, go for 24mm or wider.
If you need a good standard lens with a normal angle of view then 35mm is best.
Why f/2 and not a faster lens?
Because the f/2 is relatively easy to manufacture and so tends to be of a much better quality than faster optics of the same focal length... besides, the faster lenses aren't terribly good wide open anyway, so you'd tend to stop down to get the best out of them...

The 'old' AF-Nikkor 35mm f/2 is still £250-ish if bought new...
My Summicron 35mm f/2 is an astronomical £2065...
 
Why does choosing a lens always become so hard!!! Thanks for the advice over the 35mm Rob.
 
itsdavedotnet said:
sigma 30mm 1.4 is real nice too ^_^
Click to expand...

i guess this is really a question for itsdavedotnet.........have you ever tried using a wide fast prime in a club, if so how have you found it? I'm thinking a 30mm or wider 1.8 or 1.4 could really be interesting..
 
I used to own the 28 f1.8 and loved it, though as pointed out by Arkady, its a compromise FL as its not really wide enough and you still have to stop down to get sharper images, though I was happy with it at f1.8. I also noticed some barrel distortion and purple fringing from f1.8 to about f2.2 depending on lighting.

About the stigma counterpart, I personally wouldn't touch it, this is based on my own, personal experience with a few Stigma lenses.
The sigma 30 is also a DC lens which is not compatible with FF. I always think of the future when buying somethingk especially lenses.

I don't have any experience with the Canon 35 f2 so I can't say anything.

Why don't you go to a shop and try the lenses you mentioned. In the end. its your call...
Try the lenses, weigh the pros and cons, buy whichever you choose and be happy!
 
I promise that I will stop saying this...:lol:

Every time I read about Sigma woes I think that I must have been very lucky to buy Sigma 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 150mm f2.8, 12-24mm and even a 28-300mm and to have got an optically excellent lens every time, ok, the 28-300mm is not excellent and is merely adequate to good but the others are great lenses IMVHO.

If anyone does get a dodgy Sigma I'd recommend that they send it straight in for adjustment and they should then have an optically excellent lens. :love:
 
What about a secondhand Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, you then get 34 prime lenses in one!

I used to have the Canon 35mm on a 40d, and although really liked shooting at that focal length, I often wished I had something slightly wider.
 
nickwatson said:
What about a secondhand Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, you then get 34 prime lenses in one!

I used to have the Canon 35mm on a 40d, and although really liked shooting at that focal length, I often wished I had something slightly wider.
Click to expand...

I already have a sigma 18-50 f2.8 for that. It is more for those even lower light situations and for me to play with! ;)
 
I and others have had various problems with Sigma lenses...not so much from an IQ perspective as from build-quality (they die for no good reason on occasion) and from the lens-coatings being utter rubbish, meaning lots of flare and CA in situations where a Nikkor lens would cope easily.
 
Arkady said:
I went through this thought-process about 25 years ago and after much consideration ended up going for 35mm f/2 on both my SLR and Leica bodies.
Why?
28mm is a compromise focal length - neither one thing or another, not really wide enough when you need wide, not really standard when you need a normal angle of view.
If you want a wide angle, go for 24mm or wider.
If you need a good standard lens with a normal angle of view then 35mm is best.
Why f/2 and not a faster lens?
Because the f/2 is relatively easy to manufacture and so tends to be of a much better quality than faster optics of the same focal length... besides, the faster lenses aren't terribly good wide open anyway, so you'd tend to stop down to get the best out of them...

The 'old' AF-Nikkor 35mm f/2 is still £250-ish if bought new...
My Summicron 35mm f/2 is an astronomical £2065...
Click to expand...

I considered the very same thing as I spend my life at f2 and chose the f1.8 for the usm as it comes in handy a lot, if I had cash it'd be a 35L and 20mm
 
silverstar189 said:
i guess this is really a question for itsdavedotnet.........have you ever tried using a wide fast prime in a club, if so how have you found it? I'm thinking a 30mm or wider 1.8 or 1.4 could really be interesting..
Click to expand...

not for 'club work', no, groups like that are usually at f4 or 5.6 anyway...

reportage stuff and a long term project that I'm doing, yes, I'll often bash on the 50 1.4...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top