andrew1306
Forum Enthusiast
Where I look, the 28/1.8 and sigma 30 1.4 are about the same price (sigma 20 cheaper). Does it come with a hood too?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
EF-S 30mm f/ 1.8
- Thread starter andrew1306
- Start date
andrew1306
Forum Enthusiast
Ok, everthing is getting a little chinese for me (ie - no comprende), but surely on a 30mm EF-S design the front element would be smaller than the EF design since the AOV is smaller and the edges of even the front element are not longer used to transmit light to the sensor.
For example, with the same filter size (77), the EF 17-40 only gets f/4, while the 17-55 gets f/2.8. So for the same front element size you have a larger EF-S aperature (egven at longer focal length in this case) or alternatively for the same aperature a smaller lens all round.
For example, with the same filter size (77), the EF 17-40 only gets f/4, while the 17-55 gets f/2.8. So for the same front element size you have a larger EF-S aperature (egven at longer focal length in this case) or alternatively for the same aperature a smaller lens all round.
andrew1306
Forum Enthusiast
Different post going on the xxD forum, but I think I have done it twice now, once to try the 70-200 2.8 and 4, neither of which I bought at all and another time to try the 40D which I did buy, online. I admit it is a bit lame, and if I were in retail it might bother me as well.
If the shop had a decent price on the 40D I would have bought it there (in fact, they only had the model with 17-85, for 2600CHF). I bought it, body only, online for 1600CHF. I see nothing wrong with that. Fine, they have to pay more for sales people and a store front etc. But I have to pay for stuff too, and not getting the best deal is silly. Would it be wrong to try on a pair of shoes in one store and not buy them there because the store around the corner, off the main street, has the same shoes for half the price?
If they had what I wanted in stock, and were not 50%+ over-priced I may have bought it there. Retail is a competitive sport. Back a bit closer to the post at hand, I probably can't afford any of these prime lenses at a store here in Switzerland (1000CHF+) whereas online I can (only 600Fr). So I can either wait for a photoshow to try them, or I can go into the store and try one. If I find the value of what they offer exceeding what I could get online I would buy.
Andrew
If the shop had a decent price on the 40D I would have bought it there (in fact, they only had the model with 17-85, for 2600CHF). I bought it, body only, online for 1600CHF. I see nothing wrong with that. Fine, they have to pay more for sales people and a store front etc. But I have to pay for stuff too, and not getting the best deal is silly. Would it be wrong to try on a pair of shoes in one store and not buy them there because the store around the corner, off the main street, has the same shoes for half the price?
If they had what I wanted in stock, and were not 50%+ over-priced I may have bought it there. Retail is a competitive sport. Back a bit closer to the post at hand, I probably can't afford any of these prime lenses at a store here in Switzerland (1000CHF+) whereas online I can (only
Andrew
sigma has a nice padded (droppable) case and hood
http://groups.msn.com/more2tomphotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=55
you might have to send it back to get calibrated... but they do a good job.. and it has a long warranty
it is a great lens and even works on my mkIII.... with a LITTLE vignetting..
http://groups.msn.com/more2tomphotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=55
you might have to send it back to get calibrated... but they do a good job.. and it has a long warranty
it is a great lens and even works on my mkIII.... with a LITTLE vignetting..
If you are considering the Sigma 30, you ought to be aware of it's optical performance. In case you haven't seen this already, here is a link to the Photozone test of this lens.
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm
Regards,
jgb
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b
http://photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_30_14/index.htm
Regards,
jgb
--
Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/jon_b
T
Token
Guest
Do not confuse filter size with lens element size. There are many reasons a company might choose a specific filter size. Canon attempts to keep most of their L lenses with a few different filter sizes, regardless of front element size. This means that a working pro only needs to keep a few sizes on hand, instead of a different filter size for each lens. Indeed this is not an L only thing, manufacturers typically try to "standardize" filters across their lines as much as they can get away with.
However, you will find that most L lenses have 67mm, 72mm, 77mm, and 82mm filter sizes, with 77mm being the most common. There are a few oddball sizes in the L line, and to be sure the super telephotos do not fall in these filter sizes, but it looks like Canon has tried to use 77mm whenever they can get away with it.
And no, the front element of an EF-S design can NOT be smaller than the front element of an EF design, assuming that the same lens speed is the goal, ie, both will be f1.8 lenses with the same focal length. The "f" number is a ratio of maximum aperture size to focal length. For a given focal length (such as 30mm) the front lens MUST be at least a specific diameter to have a specific f number, regardless of the sensor it will be illuminating. There are other factors that can lead to larger front lens elements for a specific f number/focal length, but never smaller. AOV is not the issue, as the entire lens element is used by the entire sensor, not just the outer edges of the lens for the outer edges of the sensor.
Now, where it is possible to save a good deal of size/weight/and maybe money (although in my opinion we have not really seen this fiscal savings yet) with an EF-S design is when talking about equivalent AOV, but that is not what you were saying. By equivalent AOV I mean if FOV or AOV is the driver, vs a specific focal length, then the lens for the APS-C sensor can be smaller and lighter than its FF cousin. This is the fact that a 30mm lens on a 1.6 crop camera acts/looks much like a 50mm (48mm really, but close enough) on a full frame. And a 30mm f1.8 can be made smaller and lighter than a 50mm f1.8, and the front element can be smaller in diameter.
But, that is what people were saying when they wrote there already is a good "normal" crop camera lens in the Canon line, and it is not an EF-S. In fact there are several, and they are all EF vs EF-S mount. They are not limited to only EF-S mount cameras, and once you add one to your lens line-up you can use it on ANY EOS camera, something you own now or anything you add in the future. I am not one of those folks who assumes everyone wants or needs full frame digital, in my opinion APS-C will (has, really) become the new none-pro standard. For example, it would be a shame if you found yourself in position to pick up a great pro level used 1.3 crop camera at a killer price in the future, but had to pass because none of your lenses would mount on it. Or, heaven forbid, what if you actually find you want to shoot film at some time in the future?
The upshot of the whole thing is that you asked for a 30mm f1.8, and assumed because you want it for an EF-S camera it can be smaller and lighter. The truth of the matter is that, all other things being equal such as f ratio, focal length, build quality, focus type, features, etc, there is a very small potential savings in size/weight/cost, on the order of a few percent.
To be sure, there is no 30'ish mm EF mount lens in the weight/cost range of the EF 50mm f1.8. But that has a good deal to do with how cheaply the 50m f1.8 is made. It is a cheap plastic piece of junk ... that happens to be a great bang for the buck lens. It is inexpensive, small, light, and when stopped down a little very sharp. But about the only Canon lens I can compare the build to is the original version of the none-USM 18-55 EF-S kit lens. Canon could make a 30mm lens like this, but it need not be an EF-S to be light and cheap.
T!
--
andrew1306
Forum Enthusiast
You are absolutely right and explained it very well. Agreed - I get it a bit better now...
I'm not too bothered by the EF-S vs EF debate either - and if I go back to film I have a A-1 to play with in full retro style, and all those lovely cheap FD lenses to buy! Speaking of that fact, I will really have to check my old 50mm lens to see its front element size, it seems a lot smaller than anything currently made by canon...but maybe just has no plastic around it (and certainly no bulky motor!). Also the 70-200 f/4s in FD at least seem to look smaller too...Have to check...
Andrew
chongchong
Active member
I have 50 F1.4. I just got 35 F2 recently. The reason is because my 28 F1.8 is not sharp at corner though it's sharp in center. Not very happy with 28 F1.8. After lots of tests with 35 F2, I'm confirming that it's excellent lens. Small, light, focus fast and sharp at corner. The only issue is a bit noisy. But I'm okay with that. I'll dump 28 F1.8 some time later. The IQ of 35 F2 is very very close to my 50 F1.4. That's my light weight setup, XTi with 35 F2 on and 50 F1.4 in bag. I'm all set.
T
Token
Guest
I also have the FD system, an A-1 as well as an AE-1 P, FTb-N, New F-1, and N F-1 HS.
The Canon EOS D60 is the camera that brought me to the EOS system, prior to that I used my FD stuff. I assumed that I would continue to use the FD for film and the EOS for digital but I found that inconvenient. Eventually I ended up getting a few film bodies in the EOS system (original Elan 7e, EOS 3, and EOS 1V) so I could just carry one set of camera gear. When the EF-S lens line came out I avoided it, not because I think it is in any way inferior, but rather because I had no bodies that supported it, my digitals being the D60 and 1D. I did later add the 20D, and it is EF-S, but as that is my only EF-S body I still see no reason to buy a lens, even a very good one, that only fits one of my 6 EOS bodies. My daughter has the XTi and she can use any of my lenses, so I still have little or no use for the EF-S line.
There are only two EF-S lenses I can see any use in, because they have unique focal ranges or features not offered in EF mount. That is the EF-S 10-22 ( the ultra wide if you only have 1.6 crop), and the 17-55 f2.8 IS (IS on a fast wide zoom). Other than that the EF-S line has, IMHO, very little to offer. Not that a few of the other EF-S lenses are not good, but rather they just don't bring very much to the table not already avalable in the EF line, or the lenses easily could have been made as EF mount but Canon needed to beef up the EF-S line.
As far as the 70-200mm f4 FD lenses being smaller than the EFs, I do not remember any Canon 70-200mm f4 FD, but I do have the FD 80-200mm f4 and it is almost the same size and feels like the same weight as my EF 70-200 f4 L. The EF is just a little larger around, maybe 1/4 inch or less, and a little longer, again about a 1/4 inch or just a little more, but this extra size could well be the L build. I also had a Canon 70-210 f4 FD at one time, a push-pull, and I seem to remember it being about the same size.
In general I think the average FD lens was better built than the average EF lens is. Many of the "regular" FDs had what might now be called L build quality, in my opinion.
T!
--
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum