Looking for a wide prime.

[Chaotic Beds]

Ok, so my current (and first ever) lenses are the 60mm Macro and the Tokina 11-16mm. After some experience with them, and due to financial issues, I want to downgrade. I already know that the 60mm is going to be replaced with the 50mm 1.8... I'll miss the macro capabilities, but the AF hunting is annoying... and, well, money.

I'm not sure about what to do to cover my wider needs. I thought the 11-16 UWA would make for some cool artistic shots, then realized it's not so practical on a day-to-day basis. And, again, money. I'm thinking about the Canon 28mm 2.8 - the price is right - but I'd also like wider for my crop-framer. I'm also considering the 24mm - the price is slightly less right but still workable.

I'm interested in any opinions on those two lenses, or any comparable third-party lenses... I'd ideally like a focal length in the low-mid-ish 20's, and absolutely must have an aperture of 2.8 or wider for low light and/or handheld shooting. Otherwise, I'm not too picky on features.

Any input?

[OsmosisStudios]

Keep in mind, even 28 or 24 is getting you into the mid 30s and low 40s with the crop factor. The only way to get reasonably wide with a prime is to go very wide and those get VERY expensive.

[sk66]

unless you got a great deal on the lenses originally, I doubt the "downgrade" is going to save/make you much money.
(selling used and buying new)

You might consider the Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8, but I don't see it being a "money saver" in your situation.

[RichardTaylor]

I am happy with my Canon 24 F2.8, however I use it on a 5D.
As previous posters have said it all depends it is how wide you need.

I really don't see a solution to meet all your needs, if 24mm is not wide enough, fopr a crop camera.

[inkista]

Since nobody's bothered to ask before telling you a lens might be too wide or whatever for your needs: what are you typically shooting? What do you want these lenses for?

I think the 28/2.8 or 24/2.8 might be useful if you want to go street shooting with a normalish-prime, but f/2.8 is not that fast for available light, which is why those lenses are so cheap, and you'll already have a 50/1.8. Not to mention, the EF-S 60mm Macro USM blows all three of those lenses out of the water when it comes to sharpness.

I also agree with Richard that you're not really going to be getting much, money-wise out of this that would make giving up the lenses you've got worthwhile, necessarily. But I do agree that the lenses you've got more much more specialized and narrow-focused in use than what you're probably looking for.

Primes are nice, but for general purpose use, particularly with a walkaround lens, a zoom might fill the function you need a bit better. Something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 might be what you're really aiming for, and saving up your pennies would be better than sinking your money into lenses that are likely to just frustrate you by being (again) of narrow use. I actually think a cheap 18-55 IS kit lens might be more useful for you than either of those primes, if you're thinking of a walkaround lens.

[Chaotic Beds]

A little late replying here.... I just spent damn near 36 hours straight editing my student film, minus a 3 hour nap and short breaks here and there. Fun times!

First I'll thank you all for contributing here, 'tis appreciated! I'm still too exhausted to reply to every specific point, but... yeah.

I get what you all are saying... But in my situation, I have to make a lot of compromises. Crop frame's field of view vs. lens's perspective, wider aperture vs. cost, etc.

Inkista sort of looked at this with my perspective on the issue. My current lenses, which I absolutely love in some ways, are too specialized. They sounded good on paper, but with some real world experience, I realize I chose the wrong lenses to start with.

I'm wary of going with a zoom... With my shooting habits, I'd rather put my money towards wider aperture and higher image quality than towards the convenience of a zoom. I can deal with primes no problem, I don't mind walking around to get the framing I want. I'm definitely a mover, I can't even really use a tripod because it's too limiting. I carry one sometimes, but I shoot too many angles and heights that a tripod (or at least, those affordable to me - i.e. the one that was given to me) can't even begin to cover.

Heck, when I only had a point and shoot, I generally shot with it fully zoomed out wide, and only zoomed in if I couldn't get closer to my subject... Generally. On that camera, that was the equivalent field of view of a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera. If I go with, for example, a 24mm on my crop frame, that would be a fairly similar field of view. There's the compromise of having a more exaggerated perspective than a 35mm lens on a full frame, but again, that's where I'm at. Compromises.

If I had my way, I'd have a full range of lenses, a bounce-able flash, a tripod that can get low to the ground, etc, etc. But as it is, I'm too broke to invest in anything. I got a DSLR and a couple lenses with extra school loan money. Otherwise, I struggle to do anything beyond keep myself fed, my car filled with gas, and my bills paid.

[inkista]

Hey, no worries, I'm a prime shooter, too. It sounds to me like the 24/2.8 might be more your speed, if you prefer wider-than-normal. The 24 on a crop is pretty much like a 35 on a full frame, and to me, a 35 is a great general-purpose lens: close focusing, wide enough for landscapes, and long enough for portraits. As f/2.8 primes go, to me, a 35mm is your jack of all trades, so on a crop a 24mm could be a very good fit for you. The only issue you might have with it is distortion for portraits, so make sure you've got some kind of software to fix distortion if you need to.

There is one more option to look at, but this requires that you be completely insane like me. And that would be adapting a manual focus lens. You lose autofocus, you lose wide-open metering, and you lose aperture control from the body (i.e., you can only shoot in M and Av modes, and you have to set the aperture with a ring on a lens, so no partial-stops). But an Olympus Zuiko OM-mount 24/2.8 would go for about $200, used. A Fotodiox adapter ring goes for about $20 for the cheapie and $85 for the "pro", and there's a plethora of adapters on eBay.

I'm only mentioning this because it sounds like you might be filming(?) with your dSLR, and having a proper manual focus lens might actually be an asset in that situation. The OM Zuikos aren't Zeiss or L glass by any means, but they're sharp and compact and some of them go for low prices. I'd look at keh.com, and the used sections at B&H and Adorama, as their grading tends to be good (even conservative) and they have return policies.

Here's a whole thread on fredmiranda.com's Alt. Gear forum that's dedicated to images taken with Olympus OM-mount Zuikos (mostly on Canon dSLRS).

Not sure what an old 24/2.8 Pentax Takumar in M42 (Pentax screw mount) would go for, but it might be less. The six mounts you can adapt to Canon with adapter rings are Nikon F, Leica-R, Pentax K, M42, Olympus OM, and Contax/Yashica.

[Chaotic Beds]

I actually filmed with 5DmkII's and a handful of Zeiss lenses provided by my school's media lab. The image quality of the Zeiss's were amazing! My jaw damn near hit the floor the first time the equipment was demonstrated in class through a large monitor.

I'd actually be somewhat willing to try something like what you suggested. I do rely on autofocus the majority of the time, but I will switch to manual on occasion when AF doesn't obey my commands. I could probably get used to going full manual if it came down to it...

We shot strictly in manual focus (not sure if Zeiss's even have AF??), and had to adjust aperture with the lens's rings... Not a problem at all.

Regarding the 24mm.... My line of thinking on the matter was pretty much what you said here. I don't normally do portraiture either - I like candids when I actually do shoot people - so that's not really an issue.

Thank you for the help, I'll be checking into all this and thinking about it in the coming days.

[inkista]

Yeah, Zeisses that you can put on Canon EOS are all manual focus. The only autofocus ones I know of are the Contax G rangefinder lenses, and the Sony Alpha-mount Zeiss ZA lenses.

If you're willing to go up to the $350 price mark, another candidate I'd put forth, if you have a thing for Zeiss microcontrast, like me, would be the Contax/Yashica mount Distagon T* 28/2.8 (also here). I'm gobsmacked how the prices have gone up (I got mine for $230 only two years ago. It's all the film school folks, I'm guessing). It's a little soft wide open, with some distortion, but stopped down to f/8, the sucker is sharper than a razor.

All taken with an XT/350D:






The three bargain C/Y Zeiss lenses are the 28/2.8, the 50/1.7, and the 135/2.8. The latter two are more in the $200 price range.

In fact, I went for the C/Y 28/2.8 when I was looking for normal on a crop with my XT. I'm shattered that I have mirror clearance issues with it on my 5D2 when I'm focusing to infinity. I have to be very careful using it on full frame. It's the one lens that could tempt me to shave my 5D2's mirror. (sigh) Some of the c/y and Leica-R lenses have issues with mirror clearance on a 5D, but the OMs never do, which is why I recommended them first. Also, Zeiss & Leica glass, even in the old manual focus mounts, tend to cost more.

If you do go for the Distagon, in terms of terminology, you want to make sure you're looking at listings for Contax lenses, make sure you're not looking at a Contax G (You don't want the little silver lens. You want the bigger black one ). The MM versions are later than the AE, and so more desirable (you can tell if it's an MM version if the minimum aperture number on the ring is in green), and the ones made in Germany are generally more desirable than the ones from Japan. So, an AEJ will probably be much lower priced than an MMG of the same lens.

Just be aware, once you go down this path, it can suck you in and bleed you dry just as with new lenses....it did me. Next thing I knew, I was dropping $700 on a C/Y Planar 100/2 and looking at Leica-Rs and going "hmmmm..."

[Chaotic Beds]

Thanks again, Inkista!

Got some options to think about and decide between here...