Reading mode: Light Dark

"Standard" lens for Rebels

Go to last post
P

Pixellicus Digitalis

Well-known member
Messages
151
Reaction score
30
Location
Pickering, ON, CA
If Nikon can make a 35mm f1.8 lens for its APS-C cameras, why is Canon not producing one?

Surely a lens of that type,with its inherently high resolution and low-light capability, that would be a great combination with the new 18 mp T2i...
 
The equivalents to many low-light and wide angle primes available for FF are lacking for crop body Canons. That was another reason I finally moved to FF. If you're looking for a fast 35mm, people on these forums seem to like the Sigma.

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/
 
I have a Rebel with the Canon 35/2. This lens cost me $220 last year. It has great image quality and is very small and light weight. It focuses well inspite of the buzzy sounding non-USM motor. I can't imagine why Canon would bother to make an EFS equivalent. It is not likely to be any better, cheaper or smaller.
 
Pixellicus Digitalis said:
If Nikon can make a 35mm f1.8 lens for its APS-C cameras, why is Canon not producing one?

Surely a lens of that type,with its inherently high resolution and low-light capability, that would be a great combination with the new 18 mp T2i...
Click to expand...
Not sure were you are going with this? Canon has two 35mm lenses. Why make a EF-s lens for no reason? The 35mm f/2 actually is better suited for crop bodies and works great.

Why do you think a digital only prime would be any better?
 
I honestly hadn't considered a lens introduced in film-era 1990 to be a contender. However, a check of several review sites found the 35 f2 to be a pretty good lens, although Photozone had this comment: "Mechanically the lens is a little outdated by now and Canon should really consider updating the lens with a USM drive and especially a decent focus ring."

Thank you for allerting me to the possibility of using this lens with a T2i.
 
It was designed in the 90's but is still around for a reason..........

It focuses just fine but can be a tad noisy (doesnt bother me). Its your best bet in this range.
 
RustyRus said:
It was designed in the 90's but is still around for a reason..........
Click to expand...
That reason is more to do with most people in that price demographic wanting zoom lenses and not because it is so good that it can't be improved.
 
Of course it can be improved.....Every L lense on the market can be improved. For 300 dollars its a fantastic lens and servers it purpose well.
 
Pixellicus Digitalis said:
If Nikon can make a 35mm f1.8 lens for its APS-C cameras, why is Canon not producing one?

Surely a lens of that type,with its inherently high resolution and low-light capability, that would be a great combination with the new 18 mp T2i...
Click to expand...
canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM. it's been produced since 1996. i used it on my rebel and 20D. canon also makes a 35mm f/2.8, a 35mm f/2.0, a few 24mm lenses, and also there are the L lenses. not to mention the sigma offerings (28mm f/1.8 and 30mm f/1.4).

the point is, nikon has a 35mm f/1.8 lens. canon has like ten lenses in the 24-35mm range. pick one.

(FYI i shot canon for 4-5 years and now just recently bought a nikon. having had a rebel XT, 20D, and D90, i can say that i liked the canon 28mm f/1.8 more than i like the nikon 35mm f/1.8)
 
RustyRus said:
Of course it can be improved.....Every L lense on the market can be improved. For 300 dollars its a fantastic lens and servers it purpose well.
Click to expand...
Not as nice as the Nikon 35/1.8 for 2/3rds the price. Sure its not full frame compatible, but lets face it, it is silly to spend over $2700 on a full frame body to place an antiquated 20 year old $300 lens on it.
 
jitteringjr said:
RustyRus said:
Of course it can be improved.....Every L lense on the market can be improved. For 300 dollars its a fantastic lens and servers it purpose well.
Click to expand...
Not as nice as the Nikon 35/1.8 for 2/3rds the price. Sure its not full frame compatible, but lets face it, it is silly to spend over $2700 on a full frame body to place an antiquated 20 year old $300 lens on it.
Click to expand...
I really have no idea what your point is? What are you arguing about? So you dont think the 35mm f/2 is a good value lens?

Have you ever used or owned the lens or just speaking from conjecture?
 
RustyRus said:
RustyRus said:
RustyRus wrote:
Click to expand...
I really have no idea what your point is? What are you arguing about? So you dont think the 35mm f/2 is a good value lens?
Click to expand...
My point is the 35/2 needs to be replaced with a more modern version. It is not a bad value, but I feel the Nikon is a much better value. My brother in law has the Nikon 35/1.8 and loves it.
RustyRus said:
Have you ever used or owned the lens or just speaking from conjecture?
Click to expand...
Conjecture, but I have the 50/1.8 which has the same 5 blade aperture that produces ugly OOF highlights and that is my bigest gripe with both lenses. Having not actually used the 35/2 isn't going to change the fact that 5 straight blade apertures make ugly bokeh and is irrelevant to the fact that I haven't used it.
 
jrkliny said:
I have a Rebel with the Canon 35/2. This lens cost me $220 last year. It has great image quality and is very small and light weight. It focuses well inspite of the buzzy sounding non-USM motor. I can't imagine why Canon would bother to make an EFS equivalent. It is not likely to be any better, cheaper or smaller.
Click to expand...
You're probably right, but who knows for certain. I suppose the issue is whether Canon would try to develop a new "cheapie" EF-S 30mm or 35mm f/1.8 that is similar to the quality and construction of the ubiquitous 50mm f/1.8.

1. Could they make it worthwhile for the folks who want something other than the current Canon lenses: By making it EF-S, could it be made smaller, better? By making it more "modern" (e.g., at least six rounded aperture blades, cheap aspherical lens elements), could it be made optically better than the current, older alternative lenses? By actually lowering the build quality (for example, plastic lens mount) from lenses like the 28mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2, could it be made less expensive (say, $200 or less)?

2. Would making it be a sound business decision: How much would it cost to develop this? Would anyone buy it? Most APS-C users have inexpensive Rebel bodies. Many are soccer moms/dads. How many of those Rebel users buy any additional lenses over the basic kit lens (18-55mm) or a two-lens kit (18-55mm + 55-250mm)? Of those Rebel users who buy additional lenses, how many would buy a prime lens (especially one with a focal length that overlaps with the basic kit lens focal range)? And, even knowing that there is a large enough market to justify continuing to produce a sharp, fast, cheap-build prime for $100 (50mm f/1.8) that can be used by film, APS-C and FF digital, is it reasonable to assume that there would be enough to justify developing this type of lens for APS-C only that would probably sell for $200 instead of $100?
 
I think the 35/2 is a fine lens. I use it manly for low light were f/2 is needed. It also doubles as a cheap macro lens. An upgrade would mean a more expensive lens. I agree with the above post about the reasons a 35mm EF-s lens probably wont be made.

Here is a shot I snapped a few days ago and the only one I could produce at work shot with the lens. Cheers



 
Rusty,

I like your picture. Too bad this was taken with a lens which is "antiquated" and will only give "ugly OOF highlights."

Yoiu better get it off your 7D before you cause some sort of damage.
 
Well, as a T1i user my first purchase after I got the camera was a 35f2, and I love it. I really doubt that the xxxD users that are looking for a prime lens really want cheaper construction. I just want nothing to do with a plastic mount and cheap construction as I use the 35f2 as my primary indoor lens.

I would love a new version of the 35f2 with a USM even for a 20% bump in price.
 
jrkliny said:
Rusty,

I like your picture. Too bad this was taken with a lens which is "antiquated" and will only give "ugly OOF highlights."

Yoiu better get it off your 7D before you cause some sort of damage.
Click to expand...
You do realize that there are no OOF highlights in this picture?

from the photozone review of the 35/2:
jrkliny said:
jrkliny said:
jrkliny said:
jrkliny said:
"We haven't really done a formal analysis of the bokeh this time but the lens did disappoint in the field especially with respect to out-of-focus highlights - here's a sample image: "
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Nikon is really odd in this regard - they make these "familar" focal lengths like the 35mm f/1.8 DX that end up being these odd focal length equivalents on their DX bodies. 52.5mm is certainly close enough to normal, but at least Canon's EF-S lenses actually have some intention behind their focal lengths. Nikon says here's your 50mm DX lens (that's actually a bizarro 75mm equiv, cough ). Enjoy!

Canon doesn't offer a new EF-S 35mm because they already have the EF 35mm f/2. Nikon overinvested in their DX line and now that they've admitted FF is the future, they have a lot of owners of these silly DX only lenses that would have been cheesed off. Thus the "feature" of their FX bodies that they can use the DX lenses. Canon's approach from the other side makes more sense, here, IMO. That said, the cost of Nikon's DX line primes is slightly more appealing.

--
http://andymcelroy.smugmug.com
 
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