Prime objective

[vandergus]

Originally Posted by ddr

I guess you learn something new everyday=)

50mm is quite an odd focal length to use on a aps-c camera. My research has led me to an affordable sigma 50mm f/1.4. Any good suggestions for a 35mm lens other than the Canon L one?

I think Canon also makes a non-L 35mm f2 which is more affordable. Sigma makes a 30mm f1.4 which is pretty close, too.

[inkista]

There's also the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, bit more expensive than the 35/2, but closer to "normal on a crop".

I'm weird. I like using an adapted Leica-R Summicron 35mm f/2.

[ddr]

How about a Canon EF 28mm f/1.8?

edit: It doesn't seem to be a very good lens either. Can't escape the L's lol

The 35mm f/2 can be a consideration, but it's kind of a little step back compared to a 50mm f/1.8 (albeit not much...)? That sigma 30mm, however, has quite bad reviews.

[inkista]

Boy, you're really critical if you think that review means the 28/1.8 is a BAD lens. They just said it wasn't as good as they'd hoped for, even though it was a really ambitious design goal to begin with. You seem to be blowing all the comments the reviewers make out of proportion. You also have to understand how difficult the design goals of fast and wide angle together are, and the realities of lens design.

Also remember that most reviewers are thinking of image quality at any cost. They often forget some people might prefer to compromise on image quality for other things: like size/weight, zoom range convenience, or cost.

Also, reviewers have their own biases and eccentricities. You really want to read this if you're relying on Ken Rockwell for technical information/reviews. Particularly the parts that go:

While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as the work of fiction that it is. it is the product of my own imagination. ...

Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No matter how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day.

[ddr]

um... I see your point but actually KR said it was a good lens and photozone said it leaves a lot to be desired. Anyhow, thanks for reminding me.

[BlueFightingCat]

Ok interesting reading this thread. I have a Canon 450D. I was wondering which objective you would recommend? I am looking for a Prime lens that I can use in low light situations. Something with a F1 to F2 for playing with depth of field.

BFC