Reading mode: Light Dark

What's the smallest Canon lens?

Go to last post
Michael Todd

Michael Todd

Veteran Member
Messages
2,912
Reaction score
55
Location
Dayton, OH, US
I'm looking at options for a small lens to keep with me all the time. I currently use the 50mm 1.4 for that and want something smaller/lighter.

--
peace

-Todd
http://www.muskopf.org
 
I got the 50mm f/1.8 for exactly that reason. About as small as the EOS system gets when used on a Rebel/xxxD body.
 
The 50 1.8 is the absolute smallest and lightest, but the 28 f2.8 and 35 f2 are not far behind. I'd probably say the latter two are better for all around lenses.

Although, really, the 50 1.4 is tiny. If that lens weighs you down than you may just want to switch to a different kind of camera than an SLR.
 
If you can deal with the hassles of a lens on an adapter (no AF, no auto stop-down) the Contax 45/2.8 is way, way smaller than any AF lens.
 
I don't have experience with the 17-40mm, but let me put it the reverse: what I read on the web and tests did not convince me to buy it. For convenience it seems like a good lens covering 80% of my needs, but distortion, vignetting and sharpness look worse than the lenses I already have in this range, the 28/2.8 and the Sigma 20/1.8.

The 28/2.8 is very sharp and contrasty, except only for the far corners on full frame (quick drop-off, but in most of shots this does not attract any attention), and has very low distortion. Some vignetting but not nearly as much as what I have seen from all these zooms I checked tests of (17-40, 24-105, 24-70).

Oscar
--
Weather & Photography
http://www.lightningwizard.com
 
Michael Todd said:
I currently have only the 17-40 for WA. Is the 28mm significantly sharper?
Click to expand...
A friend of mine bought a 28mm f/2.8 and later upgraded to a 24-70 f/2.8L... He offered me to buy the 28, but after trying it out I was not really impressed with it and bought a Sigma 20mm f/1.8 instead.

On the other hand the Sigma 20mm is not really that great untill it is stopped down either, I think it just slightly beats the Canon 28mm at f/2.8 though - I like the Sigma for it's larger aperture and 9 blade aperture though, the Sigma is very good once stopped down to f/4 or below though.

--
Brian
http://www.pbase.com/thelund
 
I just wish that they would update this lens and give it a USM. I have this lens - and next to my 85mm f/1.8, it is my favorite lens on my 1d mkII.
 
Roger Krueger said:
If you can deal with the hassles of a lens on an adapter (no AF, no auto stop-down) the Contax 45/2.8 is way, way smaller than any AF lens.
Click to expand...
Nikon AIS 50/1.8E pancake is the smallest I was able to find so far
that works to my liking - it is actually almost too small for my fingers :)

jpr2
~
street candids (non-interactive):
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
music and dance:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341265280/
wildlife, macro, B&W, and 'interactive' street:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~
 
I'll probably get the cheap, light, sharp 50mm 1.8 for the walkabout lens.

But now you've got me thinking that I need a better WA for lower light. I often shoot at ISO 400, f/5.6 (for sharpness), and 1/50th of a second. It's sort of hit-or-miss as to how sharp the photos will be due to movement of either me or the subject. I'd rather not go up to ISO 800, so moving to a faster lens may be the way to go.

If it's sharp, I may go with either the 28 or 35. You know, if I go with the 28mm, I'll probably get the 1.4 version, simply because I don't want to get something that won't give me the IQ I want.

So, which lens do you think would be sharpest at f/2.8? I can spend up to around $600 or so with no restrictions on size/weight.
--
peace

-Todd
http://www.muskopf.org
 
I recently posted a similar post asking for the smallest/lightest wide angle lens for 1.6x crop bodies. Right now I'm using the Canon 50/1.8 and its tiny. Unfortunately, the focal length is too long for what I shoot. I've been trying to find a 35mm-50mm equivalent. The Voightlander Skopar 20/3.5 looks tiny, but for the price, I might as well get the Canon 35/2.
 
PrintLabGuy said:
I recently posted a similar post asking for the smallest/lightest wide angle lens for 1.6x crop bodies. Right now I'm using the Canon 50/1.8 and its tiny. Unfortunately, the focal length is too long for what I shoot. I've been trying to find a 35mm-50mm equivalent. The Voightlander Skopar 20/3.5 looks tiny, but for the price, I might as well get the Canon 35/2.
Click to expand...
 
If you go by reviews done by photozone and slrgear, the 28 f/2.8 is sharper than the 28 f/1.8 across the frame from 2.8 on and has less CA. The 35 f/2 is sharper than either of those from 2.8 on and has CA comparable to the 28 f/2.8. The 28 f/2.8 is around $250, the 35 f/2 is around $300, and the 28 f/1.8 is around $500.
--

Best Buy Associate: 'The Nikon D300 is a great camera. What kind of pictures do you want to take?'
Me: 'I need to take pictures from 30,000 feet up.'
Best Buy Associate: (dumbfounded look on his face)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Can we expect a 24-70 2.8 mkii with aperture ring?
Replies
3
Views
12K
LANCER1975
L
K
Smallest / Lightest Camera & Lens for Wildlife/Street?
Replies
9
Views
9K
Maxmolly7
Maxmolly7
M
  • Question Question
85 recommendation
Replies
4
Views
3K
dacrema
dacrema
A
Canon less and less competitive on price/options in the UK?
Replies
6
Views
17K
alphaZ
A
R
  • User review User review
Big improvement but aperture ring needs to be more clicky
Replies
1
Views
25K
jhorse
jhorse

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