should I sell my 16-35 2.8 and get the 28mm 1.8?

[mrjames]

Sorry the title was a little bit of thread-bait, it's unlikely i'll ever sell the 16-35, but I might...


basically, I like shooting with really shallow depth of field, I love the 50 1.4 shot at f2, but I'd like to shoot at 35mm, or slightly wider- but want to know whether f2 is really going to look dramatically different than 2.8, as I already have a lens that can do 35mm 2.8

my dilemma is that I shoot a lot of events, in low light usually but often in good light too, I like to get in close and shoot with a particular cinematic look in mind (see the screen grab below)- I use a 1dmk3 with 16-35 and a 5d with 50mm at f2, i'll still shoot at f2 even in good light, I love the super shallow depth of field with the 5d/50mm at f2, it's a great look for cutting through a crowd of people and just highlighting something important, but i'm finding it's just a little bit too zoomed in- ideally I'd be shooting at 35mm to get a little bit more ambiance in the shots- but my question is, I own a lens that does 35mm at f2.8, but is there really a noticeably shallower depth of field shooting at 35mm f2 or 28mm 1.8 vs shooting the 16-35 at 2.8- or will I really need to step up to the 1.4 to get something that's really an upgrade? I need a zoom lens on the second body for versatility, I think the 24-70 range is perfect so the 16-35 lives on the 1d (21-45mm equivalent, so shorter, but useable) and it just really isn't doing it for me and i'm having trouble deciding where I want to go with my set up, the shots are nice, but they have no wow factor- i'm sure it's the depth of field that's lacking (or lack there-of). I will try the 16-35 on the full frame and see how I like it keeping it locked at 2.8 and 35mm, but then i'm without a mid range zoom lens option. I guess the 35 1.4 would be the ultimate lens here, but really can't afford that any time soon- so I was thinking if I got to like the 35mm on full frame then I could perhaps get the 35mm f2 (no focus override, could be a problem, also noisy focus), or the 28 1.8

which would leave me with the 16-35 on the 1d, and the 35 f2/28 1.8 on the 5d

I'm also considering other more radical options- which are discussed below

So my 3 options really are:

1- canon 28 1.8/35 2 (or save for 35 1.4) and use on 5d, keep using 16-35 on 1d even though it doesn't thrill me.
would have a small, light prime lens as a walk around for the 5d. Could also use it as a 50mm lens on the 1d, letting me use the 16-35 on the 5d, in case I want to use a wide angle zoom rather than a mid range zoom

2- sigma 18-35 1.8 and use on the 1d as if it was a 24-70, also could use it on full frame as a 35mm 1.8
I then have a good fast zoom lens that would work well on a crop camera, as i'm thinking of getting something cheap to do video with.

3- get a tamron 24-70 VC and use on the 5d and maybe get a sigma 30 1.4 to use on the 1d- then I get a mid range zoom, and shooting the 30mm at 1.4 on the 1.3 crop will look similar to shooting the 50mm at f2 on full frame
also have a stabilized lens which would be good if I started shooting video




my current camera and lens line up is as follows:

canon 5d
canon 1dmk3

canon 70-200 2.8 IS
sigma 150mm
canon 50mm 1.4
16-35 2.8 II

 

[LongLensPhotography]

You have mentioned a lot of APS-C lenses that will be extremely limited or may not function properly on your bodies. The 28/1.8 is one of the worst primes Canon made. Your options are Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Canon f/2 IS or one of the 24-70mm. I suppose you are not happy with 16-35mm performance. They look fairly bad against 70-200mm II sharpness.

 

[mrjames]

You have mentioned a lot of APS-C lenses that will be extremely limited or may not function properly on your bodies. The 28/1.8 is one of the worst primes Canon made. Your options are Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Canon f/2 IS or one of the 24-70mm. I suppose you are not happy with 16-35mm performance. They look fairly bad against 70-200mm II sharpness.

thanks for the reply- it's not that i'm unhappy with the 16-35, far from it- it's just that it's not f2. I see a massive difference in the look of the image (and by that I mean, aesthetic quality, not sharpness) shooting at f2 vs 2.8 on the 50mm. I rarely ever open it up past f2.2, so as i'm so used to the background melting away, i'm frequently troubled to see the 16-35 shots coming back with such deep depth of field. So basically i'd love that shallow depth of field look I get from the 50mm, but just a little wider- but I just want to know whether the 35mm f2 will get that for me, or if it's going to have to be the 1.4. I know a wider lens will have a deeper DOF than a 50mm, so no doubt the 35 f2 would have more depth of field than the 50mm, but the 1.4 version, being 1 stop extra (35 at 1.4, vs 50mm at 2) might make up for that difference? Ideally i'd not have to spend £600 to get what I want, if the f2 would be good enough. I know with the 50mm, there's a huge difference between 2.8 and f2, but then f1.4 isn't much of a difference- there's a bigger difference between 2.8 and f2, than there is between f2 and 1.4- I guess the law of diminishing returns also applies to bokeh!

lens 'performance' doesn't matter so much to me, only really concerned with the 'look', but I have now thrown out the idea of the old 35 f2, the new 35 IS I think is too expensive for an f2, so I think it's either the 28 1.8 or the sigma 35 1.4- I think i'm edging towards the sigma though.
but ideally i'd like the 24-70, and the 35- both on full frame cameras. But since that's not going to happen in a long time I suppose a good combo would be 28 1.8/35 1.4 on the 5d, and the 16-35 on the 1d, maybe switched with the 24-70. I use the 70-200 on full frame for grabbing candids, but usually at the 70mm end, so the 24-70 on a 1.3 crop would have some good reach actually, and put the 16-35 on and i've still got a fairly wide shot. 24-70 on full frame is the perfect range, but on 1.3 crop it's just a little long- hence why I was looking at the sigma 18-35, similar range, much wider angle of view on the 1.3 crop, and actually slightly shallower depth of field compared to the 24-70 on the 1.3 crop


maybe I should sell the 1d- i've been complaining about it on these forums for the past year I do love the 1d series though, it's been totally bulletproof and it was my first real camera- put 30,000 shots through it now so I feel an emotional attachment to it that does cloud my judgement on it.
i'd pick up a 1ds3 tomorrow if the iso range was a little higher, if it went to 6400 i'd have it, but 3200 is too limiting.

 

[mrjames]

I might actually just buy a 35 f2 and try it out, they're cheap enough anyway

 

[a1ex2001]

I might actually just buy a 35 f2 and try it out, they're cheap enough anyway

And if you can ignore the slightly clunky af it's a really solid lens sharp wide open nice contrast and should go someway towards achieving the look you are after.

 

[mrjames]

And if you can ignore the slightly clunky af it's a really solid lens sharp wide open nice contrast and should go someway towards achieving the look you are after.

i'm pretty excited to try it, although I know that me and the non USM design are going to fall out, especially with the loud focus motor...

maybe I should try the 28 1.8

or

I read that the sigma 30mm 1.4 art can be used on full frame, with extremely minimal vignetting, if so that would be the perfect solution- so i'll try and find one out- a slight crop in for a 35mm focal length would clean up any corner issues too- and it would definitely work fine on the 1d, giving a 39mm focal length- so that on the 1d and a 24-70 on the 5d?

i'm still also considering the sigma 18-35 1.8- I couldn't use it on full frame (except at 35mm, where it actually works fine as a prime lens) but I could use it on the 1d, where I could use it at 28mm 1.8 so it would frame like a 35mm, and with a bit of wiggle room for zooming in or out. I think that combined with a 24-70 on the 5d would be a good combo, although considerable overlap in focal length, and it would be debatable whether 28mm 1.8 on a 1.3 crop would be better than 35 f2 on full frame

maybe the only real answer is another full frame body, a 24-70 on one and a 35mm prime on the other

 

[mrjames]

ok i've narrowed it down to the tamron 28-75 2.8, sigma 30mm 1.4 (use it on the 1d), and canon 35 f2- all can be bought for around £200

I know this is completely getting away from the original idea of a fast wide angle, but the 28-75 would be so useful, on either the 1d or the 5d and might be a better way to spend my limited budget to get me through the next few events.

1d + 28-75, and 5d with 50mm (35mm f2 later on) and 16-35 when I need to go wide, that way I wouldn't have to use my 70-200 to grab candids when shooting events- because usually I put the 70-200 on the 5d and shoot around 70-100mm , but the tamron on 1d would cover that range nicely

edit: I really like the idea of the 24-70/28-75 on the 1d, great range

edit 2: I really like the idea of the 30mm 1.4 on the 1d, it will frame like a 39mm, so a fair bit wider than the 50mm full frame, and better AF on the 1d, higher iso on the 1d, and useable f1.4


before having 2 cameras I used to shoot with only a 50mm, 150mm and a 14mm on the 1d (18mm, 195mm and 65mm equivalent) with lots of cropping on the 14mm, got the 17-40 for that range, swapped it for the 16-35- loved it at the time then started using the 50mm on a 1ds2 full frame and loved it so much that I no longer liked the images I was getting out the 1d, bought the 70-200

some things I know right now:
- I need 2 cameras, or I need one camera and a pocket full of lenses
- I would like to run with 3 f2 primes (50, 100 and 28) but a zoom lens might be necessary
- the 24-70 range on full frame is perfect as a walkabout lens, but not as nice as primes in that range- and f2.8 at 3200 can be limiting, I can hand hold at 1/30 no problem but people move...f2 is also nice for bokeh
- the 16-35 is too wide on full frame as a walk around lens, wide shots usually want deep focus anyway so shooting f4 5.6
- 30mm 1.4 on 1d will be 39mm, so actually quite a lot wider than the 50mm, and if shot at f1.4 similar DOF to the 50mm at f2 full frame, and the 1d has much better focus than the 5d- might be a good option for £200 compared to the 35mm 1.4 on full frame which costs 3x as much


i'm doing a big festival event fairly soon, shooting pretty much every day for a month- so might actually buy all those lenses and just go nuts and see what I like and what I don't- I really don't mind buying and selling, and getting stuff used means you can try it out and sell it on for what you paid for it. If I end up really liking the focal range of the 16-35 on the 1d then i'll know to get the sigma 18-35 1.8 for the 1d, if I like the 28-75 i'll know to upgrade to a 24-70 canon or Tamron VC. If I find that 2.8 isn't fast enough i'll get f2 primes.

I'll probably shoot over 10,000 frames for this job, so i'll check the exif data and patterns will emerge, it'l tell me whether I prefer to shoot at 28mm or 35mm. At the moment I don't think of my lenses as focal lengths, I think of them as situations, and I try and maneuver myself into the correct situation for the lens I have on the camera, then adjust zoom if needed, I regularly find myself getting into position to fire away with the 50mm and find myself too close, that's why i'm looking for the 35mm.

if sigma do really come out with their f2 24-70, I'll be all over it at any price

 

[mrjames]

I figured out what I want to do.

I bought a 28-70 2.8, and I bought a 30mm 1.4 (sigma), I can try both of them out and see how I get on- the 30mm is a stop gap to use only on the 1d as i've decided to definitely get the sigma 35mm 1.4 to use on the 1d and the 5d, but i'm thinking i'll use them like this

28-70 on the 5d as a walk about in good light
the 30mm 1.4 on the 1d as a 40mm equivalent in low light, slightly wider than the 50mm on FF, and shot at f1.4 should be equal depth of field to the 50mm at f2 (use the 35mm 1.4 when I get that)

put the 28-70 on the 1d when I want to get a little more reach, and switch to the 50mm on the 5d (or use the 35mm when I own one)

use the 35mm on the 5d, and the 50mm on the 1d for a wide and tele 1.4 prime set up for super low light work



i'll probably upgrade the 28-70 to a tamron 24-70 VC at some stage, and i'll add in a 100mm f2
then i'll have the 3 main zooms and 3 fast primes, everything I need at the moment