Widest angle, prime affordable low-light lens? (did a search, couldn't find info)

[PaulRivers]

Have you thought about zoom lenses like 17-55 if you're not shooting fast moving objects. An f2.8 3 stop IS lens can give you more light than a prime. Not to mention it also offers better DOF.

No, thanks, but I'm always shooting moving objects - as I mentioned somewhere in the thread, often people dancing, where 1/60 is the bare minimum to avoid motion blur anyways.

 

[PaulRivers]

...and why limit it to a mere $1,000, when you can get a Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle Lens for a mere $2,250?

--
Todd Haehn

lol, what was I thinking? ;-)

But if I could make due with f2.8, I'm sure the Tokina 11-16mm would be fine and cost half as much...

 

[Pultzar]

That is the same lens.

I end up using live view with mine and an LCD view finder to set the focus. You can also do distance focusing as the DOF is very large at 14mm

 

[Lee Jay]

huh, really? seems like 1.4 is at that "nose is sharp, face is out of focus" kind of range...I realize a lot of that is a function of how much you're zoomed / how physically close you are to your subject, but trying to get a picture of 2 people at 1.4 I figured would be pretty much impossible...

This is a common misconception. DOF is extremely sensitive to the size of the focal plane. This is one reason wide angle lenses have a reputation for having more DOF than telephoto lenses even though DOF is actually not dependent on focal length if the framing remains constant - people tend to shoot much larger focal planes with wide angle lenses.

I don't have an f/1.4 one hosted at the moment, but this should do. This is from the 5D + 35/1.4L combo at f/1.6:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[PaulRivers]

huh, really? seems like 1.4 is at that "nose is sharp, face is out of focus" kind of range...I realize a lot of that is a function of how much you're zoomed / how physically close you are to your subject, but trying to get a picture of 2 people at 1.4 I figured would be pretty much impossible...

This is a common misconception. DOF is extremely sensitive to the size of the focal plane. This is one reason wide angle lenses have a reputation for having more DOF than telephoto lenses even though DOF is actually not dependent on focal length if the framing remains constant - people tend to shoot much larger focal planes with wide angle lenses.

I don't have an f/1.4 one hosted at the moment, but this should do. This is from the 5D + 35/1.4L combo at f/1.6:

Hey, thanks for posting that pic - that's really interesting! Didn't know that exactly.

I am a tiny bit confused about what you're saying - you say the DOF "is extremely sensitive to the size of the focal plane", but I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Let's say you have 2 lenses on a full frame camera - a 24mm f1.4 and a 70mm f1.4 (both at f1.4). If you physically move the camera closer or farther away and take a shot with each so that the framing and zoom on both is exactly the same - wouldn't both pictures have exactly the same depth of field? The same amount of "in-focus" area? Or not?

 

[Lee Jay]

I am a tiny bit confused about what you're saying - you say the DOF "is extremely sensitive to the size of the focal plane", but I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Let's say you have 2 lenses on a full frame camera - a 24mm f1.4 and a 70mm f1.4 (both at f1.4). If you physically move the camera closer or farther away and take a shot with each so that the framing and zoom on both is exactly the same - wouldn't both pictures have exactly the same depth of field?

Yes.

The same amount of "in-focus" area? Or not?

Yes. By moving, you've kept the focal plane (the imaginary plane out in the scene where the scene is in focus and inside the field of view) the same size.

My point is, we tend to have larger focal planes inside our fields-of-view when shooting with wide angle lenses than we do with long lenses. So, shooting full-body with the 35L isn't all that shallow even at f/1.4, while a head-and-shoulders shot with a telephoto lens might be really shallow even at f/2.8 just because the focal plane is smaller.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[photonius]

If you can deal with manual focus and some distortion, the Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is exceptional. Very sharp at f/2.8

I ran across a Rokinon 14mm on amazon - but it's manual control only. Is the Samyang also manual control only?

It's the same lens, the samyang is sold under many names, and yes, it's manual.

Manual focus, and you set the aperture on the lens, but the body gives you automatic exposure (i.e.. variable shutter speed based on the set aperture on the lens).

Proabably not easy to get good focus, you have to set it probably to a distance based on guessing the distance, it be the easiest way.

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

 

[Pultzar]

Often times with manual focus I use my LCD view finder. So I can hold the camera up to my eye in live view, frame the picture, hit the zoom button to set focus, and then press the shutter. Not great for fast moving objects but it does work if the subject is holding still for a few seconds.

 

[Redteg94]

You seem to have found all the relevant lenses except the Sigmalux 30. This lens has a superb reputation-I can't say for myself, as I've never used one (but I do have and love it's bigger brother the 50/1.4). If this lens isn't too long for you, it's probably the best option cost/performance wise. Other than that I'd suggest the Canon 28/1.8 or to find a used 24L. I have the original 24L and use it on my 7D: it's an amazing lens and seems to be nearly as good as the II. I got mine just days before the II was launched, which was annoying until I found out the new one's price (I paid the equivalent of $1200 US). You can probably get a used copy for less than $1k and it's very much worth it, IMO. Good luck.

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/

 

[The Ninjalectual]

The Canon 10-22mm is pretty lousy wide open anyway. It's superb stopped down a bit, of course, but 10mm/3.5 is for emergencies.

To me , your best set is the 10-22 -n your range and has good focusing - also wider than any you listed . I have the 28 2.8 and it sits on shelf - 99% of time the 10-22 or 17-55 [ costs a bit more ] are on camera .
--
1st - it's a hobby

XTI - gripped , Canon - efs 10-22 , efs 17-55 , efs 18-55 IS , 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS , 35-350L ,Quantaray lens 70-300 macro , life size converter , KSM filters for all , kenko auto tubes , EF 25 , 7D , 70-200 MK II IS , 2X III

The 17-55mm f2.8 is on my radar, but the 10-22 f3.5-f4.5 really seems like it's just way to slow. f2.8 may or may not be to slow, but f3.5 on a crop body at least is probably only about 1/3rd of a stop better for low light than my s95 - kind of like "what's the point", you know?

--

I've never thought of photography as 'finding beauty in the things that go unnoticed,' although that's a worthy philosophy too. My goal has been to find those moments where people would say, 'oh, you shouldn't bother trying to get that on film, it's a moment that just has to be experienced.' Those moments are the ones I strive to capture most.

 

[The Ninjalectual]

Can you cite your sources on this? I don't think this is correct.

I am a tiny bit confused about what you're saying - you say the DOF "is extremely sensitive to the size of the focal plane", but I'm not entirely sure what you mean.

Let's say you have 2 lenses on a full frame camera - a 24mm f1.4 and a 70mm f1.4 (both at f1.4). If you physically move the camera closer or farther away and take a shot with each so that the framing and zoom on both is exactly the same - wouldn't both pictures have exactly the same depth of field?

Yes.

The same amount of "in-focus" area? Or not?

Yes. By moving, you've kept the focal plane (the imaginary plane out in the scene where the scene is in focus and inside the field of view) the same size.

My point is, we tend to have larger focal planes inside our fields-of-view when shooting with wide angle lenses than we do with long lenses. So, shooting full-body with the 35L isn't all that shallow even at f/1.4, while a head-and-shoulders shot with a telephoto lens might be really shallow even at f/2.8 just because the focal plane is smaller.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

--

I've never thought of photography as 'finding beauty in the things that go unnoticed,' although that's a worthy philosophy too. My goal has been to find those moments where people would say, 'oh, you shouldn't bother trying to get that on film, it's a moment that just has to be experienced.' Those moments are the ones I strive to capture most.

 

[Photog23]

The people in back are obviously not as sharply in focus as the people in front. F/1.6 wasn't a great setting for this shot.