Prime Lens recommendation? Something like a 35mm?

[HeyThereChelle]

I have the Canon xTi and a 50 mm 1.8 lens and I love it. For indoors though, I need something wider.
I found this one, but want to make sure I looks at all my options first.
Amazon.com: Canon EF 35mm f/2 Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

Is the Nikor lens an option for Canon? Another off brand or just stick with Canon?
My budget is small, so the 1.4L isn't an option. I'd like to spend less than $500.

Thanks for helping me research!!

[PhotoNewt]

Originally Posted by HeyThereChelle

I have the Canon xTi and a 50 mm 1.8 lens and I love it. For indoors though, I need something wider.
I found this one, but want to make sure I looks at all my options first.
Amazon.com: Canon EF 35mm f/2 Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

Is the Nikor lens an option for Canon? Another off brand or just stick with Canon?
My budget is small, so the 1.4L isn't an option. I'd like to spend less than $500.

Thanks for helping me research!!

First, Canon and Nikon mounts are not compatible. You can however, look at quality offerings from thrid-party vendors such as Tamaron and Sigma for Canon mounts. They have some good lenses on their line up for less money than Canon brand. I have over the years tested many lenses but finally settled for Canon as they do produce exceptional quality lenses, especially the L-series.

A 35mm lens on a cropped sensor will produce a field of view around 56mm - this is considered a "normal" perspective; althought very useful for general photography, falls short of a wide angle perspective. The EF 35mm f/2 in particular is an old EOS lens with outdated auto-focusing system but fair optical performance. For an APS-C DSLR a 35mm focal length is not that wide, you will be better served with a wide angle zoom instead, to provide more flexibility.

From the Canon lineup I can recommend you the EF 17-40mm f/4L zoom, very good image quality with excellent L-series built. The retail cost is around $650 new. Is fast enough for most applications with a constant maximum aperture of f/4.

One I had used in the past with fair results is the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro Autofocus Zoom Lens. Has decent image quality in a compact/light package and excellent built. Also has a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 making is fast enough for low-light photography. New it can cost you around $420.

The primes I have used are all Canon, and at the wide end of the spectrum, the only ones with excellent image quality tend to be the more expensive L variety - the EF 35mm f/1.4L is an example of an exceptional Canon luxury lens.

[HeyThereChelle]

Thanks Newt. I'm not sure about the first one you recommended. I need something that can be sharp even in low light. I'd really like something that can open up a bit more. Any other recommendations?

[RolandAA]

I am considering the 35mm f2 like you but am really interested in the 28mm f1.8. I I think the extra field of view would be helpful indoors because 35mm is still pretty narrow in a small room. I am only hesitating because some reviews including TDP's mentioned that the 28mm 1.8 is very soft while other people claim it is sharp.

[RustySterling]

I'll second the 28mm f1.8. It is one of my favorite lenses in my kit. It's close to the "normal" perspective on a cropped sensor body and fast enough for most low light situations. And it's prices in within your budget.

[inkista]

Right now the 35/2 and the 28/1.8 are probably your best choices, but neither one is really stellar. It's harder to build good wide-angle glass than it is to build good normal/telephoto glass, just because you're bending light a lot. Even though both of those lenses cost subtantially more than the 50/1.8, they're going to be about the same optical quality, judging by test data. This is very good for a wide angle.

I do want to say, though, that the difference between f/1.8 and f/2 is only a third of a stop. You probably won't get a helluva lot more low-light capability out of the 28/1.8, but it is a better "fit" for "normal-on-a-crop". The problem is that the price on the 28/1.8 isn't $350 like it used to be, it's closer to $500, these days. Your other advantage with the 28/1.8 is that it's a USM lens, while the 35/2 isn't.

I'd say if you can hold off, wait a few weeks and see if Canon announces some kind of response to Nikon's 35/1.8 during the round of product announcements that are about to fall upon us. They may come up with an EF-S 30mm f/1.8, if we're really lucky. Chances are slim, but you never know.

Another possibility is Sigma's 28mm f/1.8 which is about $350, and the $440 Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which is a DC (read: EF-S) HSM (read: USM) lens.

[PhotoNewt]

Originally Posted by HeyThereChelle

Thanks Newt. I'm not sure about the first one you recommended. I need something that can be sharp even in low light. I'd really like something that can open up a bit more. Any other recommendations?

As I mentioned earlier, my photographic experience with wide primes is limited to the Canon line, of which I have owned most of them at one point or another in the past fourty odd years. Because of that, I can not recommend any of the consumer grade Canon wide primes as being "sharp even in low light" as you require.

Of the L-series, the only wide angle prime I do love is the EF 35mm f/1.4L - however, this one behaves like a wide angle on a full-frame sensor.

A major problem with wide angle lenses is soft corners and CA (chromatic aberation) at large apertures. Some also have a fair amount of spherical aberration when used wide open. All these contributes to soft image and poor color contrast, particularly when you look at the edges. Most usually require stopping down around 2-stops to improve overall sharpness and resolution.

Most of the typical wide angle zooms usually fare worse, and also have greater image distorsion problems (barrel distorsion at the widest ends). Then there are some exceptions such as the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, or the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 (also the Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM DC). All these offer wide to extreme wide angle view for an APS-C sensor with good image quality; the last two usually will cost around $790 and $475 respectively, but have smaller maximum apertures which may translate in lesser low light performance.

Of these, the one that can fit the bill for better performance at low light is the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, but is quite pricy (over $1000). That's why I would not discard the EF 17-40mm f/4L so quickly, it offers good optical quality at reasonable price and has a fixed f/4 aperture. I consider this one a fair compromise between cost, image quality and low light performance.

You will soon discover that in the world of SLR lenses, beyond the 50mm primes, there are very few bargains indeed. If you want (need) superior optical performance, it will come at a cost.

[Raoul Isidro]

35mm F2 for now.
50mm F1.4 if you go Full Frame.
There will only be a slight difference of image in the viewfinder.
Cheers

[HeyThereChelle]

Thanks for all the replies! I hope to have that new lens this month. I played with my SIL's 35mm lens last weekend and loved it! That's the direction I'm leaning right now.

[BCampbell]

If the 35mm length works for you, that's great.

I also shoot a lot with the 50mm f/1.8 and find the effective 80mm on the crop sensor too restricting indoors. Looking for other solutions.

For me, 35mm will still be a little long. In addition, I plan to move up to full frame at some point, and I don't see myself using 35mm, at least not in situations when I'm not covered by a zoom lens.

You have options at 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 30mm.

Canon's 20mm f/2.8 is wide, decently fast, but from the reviews I've read quality is fairly poor. Lots of vignetting, which would be a problem for me if I upgrade to full fraem; if you stick to cropped bodies it might be acceptable.

The 24mm f/2.8 is a great compromise between quality, price, speed, and wide focal length. I would seriously consider this lens, especially if you get a chance to try it. You can see what the difference in field of view will be from the 35mm; try shooting for a bit with your kit lens locked in at 24mm and then again at 35mm. On teh cropped sensor it's a fairly dramatic difference. I'm consdering this lens becaise I find the focal length useful on 35mm SLRs, and it has acceptable corner performance in the event I move to full frame.

The Canon 28mm f/2.8 and f/1.8 lenses are good lenses, especially on the cropped bodies. From what I've read, performance is a little worse than the 24mm f/2.8, especially in the corners, and especially on full frame. If you are really concerned about shooting in low light and don't have $1000+ to drop on a wide L-series, you should seriously consider the 28mm f/1.8.

Sigma makes an excellent, relatively inexpensive 30mm f/1.4. This is going to kill anything you can get from Canon in the price range in terms of low light shooting. However, it is only for the APS-C cameras; I'm not even looking at this lens for that reason. But you might want to check it out.

Sigma also makes a 20mm f/1.8 that's relatively cheap, but note I say cheap and not inexpensive. Optical quality is not good.

I would really look into the 28mm f/1.8, and the 30mm f/1.4 if you aren't thinking of going to full frame. Any of the f/2.8 lenses are options too, but depending on where you shoot I know how that extra stop can help. Good luck!