Reading mode: Light Dark

EF-S 30mm f/ 1.8

Go to last post
A

andrew1306

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
440
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Anyone know if Canon will ever consider crop users to be buyers of a Normal Prime lens? Something small to compare with the 50 1.8 would be a pleasure for street photography so I dont need to lug the 17-55 with me, or a FF 25-30 with slower aperature which currently the Canon lineup would suggest is best.

I know sigma has a 30 1.4, but why is it so big and heavy, even compared to the 50 1.4?

Andrew
 
The EF 35mm f/2.0 isn't that big, and not that expensive either. I haven't tried it, so I don't know if it's good though. Someone else know?

--
Jonatan Tjäder
Örebro, Sweden

http://jonatan.sallyproductions.com
 
Yeah, ok - I've heard to 35/2 is fine, but still more than 2x the price of the 50 1.8. Surely an EF-s version would be either much smaller and lighter, or able to acheive a much larger aperature for similar size/weight/cost.

They make an EFS-60mm macro (vs now discontinued EF-50mm macro) which must be more of a niche lense than a normal prime.

Maybe it is true than the 50mm area is the easiest to build since there is nig WA corrections to make and no need for huge front elements to acheive the s/stop on tele lenses...
Jonatan Tjäder said:
The EF 35mm f/2.0 isn't that big, and not that expensive either. I
haven't tried it, so I don't know if it's good though. Someone else
know?

--
Jonatan Tjäder
Örebro, Sweden

http://jonatan.sallyproductions.com
Click to expand...
 
andrew1306 said:
Yeah, ok - I've heard to 35/2 is fine, but still more than 2x the
price of the 50 1.8. Surely an EF-s version would be either much
smaller and lighter, or able to acheive a much larger aperature for
similar size/weight/cost.
Click to expand...
The 35/2 is fine, but you are right, a simple classic gauss-design EF-S 30/1.8 with the build of the 50/1.8 would be small, light, and... welcome to the DSLR age: it would cost at least as much as the 35/2 and probably more likely $300+. As hackneyed as the phrase has become here "Canon isn't a charity", and there are no more deals c.2007, and certainly not for the customers willing to invest in primes. Prime lenses have been supplanted by kit zooms: the $100 normal is now the $199/$99 "normal" zoom with/without IS. Consider that while the 30/1.4 is indeed "worth every penny", a Sigma f1.4 normal @ 1.6x costs MORE than the Canon 50/1.4 @ FF... ie times have changed.

--
-CW
 
The Canon EF 28mm F1.8 USM is sooo close to 30mm that I think they don't bother to produce two almost identical lenses ...
 
Its the EF-S that I'm concerned with and the advantages is offers. Since Canon currently offer currently 3 50mm normal lenses, I think one normal-equivalent prime for EF-S users might be a good idea. We can of course use the 28/1.8, 28/2.8, 35/2. But to get the equvalent FOV and DOF as a 50mm 1.8 on FF, a crop needs to be 30mm f/1.0. OK, now I'm getting away from my argument.

New thread title - I want a 30mm f/1.0!
perpera said:
The Canon EF 28mm F1.8 USM is sooo close to 30mm that I think they
don't bother to produce two almost identical lenses ...
Click to expand...
 
Having used (but I dont own the 50 1.4) both, I much prefer the Sigma. Its just an outstanding lens.
 
I am still not happy with paying for, and having to carry, extra glass that makes the FF edges sharp that I am not even able to see on my crop camera...Maybe I should try the sigma (I think thw town shops are getting annoyed with me trying gear and then ordering online...)
Luciano Oliveira said:
And actually is more "normal" than a 30mm lens. By the theory, a
normal lens has focal length of the film/sensor diagonal
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens ).

If you consider a Canon 30D then the diagonal measures 27.0 mm, so
the closest normal lens will be a 28mm.

--
Luciano Oliveira
Click to expand...
 
andrew1306 said:
(I think thw town shops are getting annoyed with me trying gear and then ordering online...)
Click to expand...
I really hope you are joking, I don't understand how you could in good conscience do that. If you are going to use stores for advice and play with their lenses to help you decide, how can you then turn around and order online. It's not really fair.
 
andrew1306 said:
I know sigma has a 30 1.4, but why is it so big and heavy, even
compared to the 50 1.4?

Andrew
Click to expand...
The Sigma 30 1.4 is big and heavy? I don't have the 50 1.4, but I have the sigma and its pretty small, compact and light IMHO. And the hood is awesome... unlike many canon lenses, the hood hardly adds any bulk to the lens when attached reversed for storage. Unfortunately, my sigma back focusses slightly on my 350D. I sent it for calibration, but came back exactly the same, so not sure if it's my body that's backfocussing.. tho I don't notice any focus issues with my canon lenses. It's still under warranty tho, so if it still has that problem when I upgrade to a 40D, i'll send it back again. I really want to get it focussing spot on because it is absolutely fantastic when the focus is right.

--
My Deviantart: http://jern.deviantart.com/
 
The easy build of an FF 50mm cannot be transferred to an APS 30mm, as the mirror would clash with such a lens. So, it has to be a retrofocus construction, making it more complicated and expensive.
andrew1306 said:
They make an EFS-60mm macro (vs now discontinued EF-50mm macro) which
must be more of a niche lense than a normal prime.

Maybe it is true than the 50mm area is the easiest to build since
there is nig WA corrections to make and no need for huge front
elements to acheive the s/stop on tele lenses...
Jonatan Tjäder said:
The EF 35mm f/2.0 isn't that big, and not that expensive either. I
haven't tried it, so I don't know if it's good though. Someone else
know?

--
Jonatan Tjäder
Örebro, Sweden

http://jonatan.sallyproductions.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
  • Jan
 
Hi,

The EF 28/1.8 is on one of my 30Ds right now. Give it a try. It's one of the most compact USM lenses, even the hood is very small and close fitted. Cheaper than the Sig 30/1.4, and slightly smaller diameter, too. And it shares 58mm filters with my 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 Macro. Also it's a USM lens, which I've so far managed to stick with in all my Canon lenses (except for the tilt-shifts... d'oh!).
--
Alan Myers
San Jose, Calif.
 
andrew1306 said:
I am still not happy with paying for, and having to carry, extra
glass that makes the FF edges sharp that I am not even able to see on
my crop camera...Maybe I should try the sigma (I think thw town shops
are getting annoyed with me trying gear and then ordering online...)
Click to expand...
What extra glass do you think you would be paying for? The big lens elements, like the front lens, are just the same, be they EF or EF-S. Only the last couple (closest to the sensor) elements will be smaller and lighter on an EF-S design. As these elements are already the smallest and lightest in almost every lens, and assuming the build quality and features remain about the same, the weight/size savings will be small, on the order of a few percent at best.

You say maybe you should try the Sigma. What Sigma do you mean, the 28mm f1.8 EX DG or the 30mm f1.4 EX DC? Both of these lenses (both digital designs, the DC even a reduced sensor design) are heavier and larger than the Canon EF 28mm f1.8. And while the Sigma 28mm is less expensive than the Canon, it also does not have HSM and no FTM while the Canon does.

As far as the local shops being mad at you for trying lenses there, and then ordering online, I can understand that. It is hard for local brick and mortar stores to compete and stay in biz, and if you are abusing them by taking up their time and handling their merchendise, and then buying someplace else, that is kind of lame.

T!
--

 
Token said:
What extra glass do you think you would be paying for? The big lens
elements, like the front lens, are just the same, be they EF or EF-S.
Only the last couple (closest to the sensor) elements will be smaller
and lighter on an EF-S design. As these elements are already the
smallest and lightest in almost every lens, and assuming the build
quality and features remain about the same, the weight/size savings
will be small, on the order of a few percent at best.
Click to expand...
Perhaps what Andrew means is having to pay for a retrofocal design,



accepting its optical compromises, and in the end not even getting a wide-angle benefit. I could understand being upset when for the same money he could get the APS-C oriented double-gauss Sigma



(ala the Canon 50,



with the rear lens group shrunk accordingly) and enjoy its sharpness/speed benefit. More an IQ/pound imbalance than raw weight difference.

--
-CW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top