Reading mode: Light Dark

Would like to see set of Canon EF-S primes

Go to last post
4

4thnebula

Senior Member
Messages
2,421
Reaction score
440
Location
US
I have been researching the internet sites (e.g DP Review, the-digital-picture, photozone, slr gear, and Fred Miranda) for primes in the 24mm to 35mm that I can use for a normal lens on my 60D that would also satisfy me IQ wise. I used to own the Canon 35mm f2 but found my 17-55 IS to have better IQ at 35mm (f2.8 and up) so I sold the Canon 35mm.

In my researching I found that Nikon has the 35mm f1.8G which seems to have excellent IQ (see DP Data) and for

I need the lens for indoor low available light of nephews and neices (still and video) as well as a normal lens for outdoor use. Now I am still using my 17-55 f2.8 IS but it is large and not a single small prime like I am searching for.

I am putting this out there in case I forgot a place to look and hoping Canon will someday soon (I know they have problems now so it is down the line) they will put out a set of affordable but excellent modern primes in the 24mm to 35mm range.
 
Seems to be the lens you're missing in the Canon line-up.
 
"affordable" :)

And to the OP; I think it highly unlikely Canon will produce a "standard" EF-S prime. 95% want zooms, not primes. And they know that many of the folks who want such a prime for their crop camera will eventually just buy the L! Also, Canon already have the "modern" 28/1.8 which crop users can also go for too.
Hank3152 said:
The 35f/2 is an outdated lens........why not get the 35f/1.4 version which is much better?
Click to expand...
 
Many EFs users dream of an ultra wide or wide or even normal dedicated EFs pancake prime lens but forbidding it seems to be part of Canon's strategy somehow.
--
Click Click ....
 
I think the problem is you have a great, fast zoom lens. One of the best zoom lens Canon makes for APS-C cameras. The inexpensive 28-35 mm primes are not going to be able to beat the IQ of that lens, and most of them are really a little worse.
 
JohnMatrix said:
"affordable" :)
Click to expand...
affordable is a relative term. the OP also mentions that they own a 17-55 IS. this is not considered "affordable" to most people. i don't consider this lens affordable.

if you can spend $1,000 on a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, i would think that $1,400 for a 35mm f/1.4L is also affordable...

i also don't understand the logic of "canon makes an EF 35mm but i want an EF-S 35mm". just use the EF 35mm. what's wrong with the EF 35mm that you think the EF-S version will do better?

FYI i used to own a canon 28mm f/1.8 USM. i now presently own a nikon 35mm f/1.8G... the $200 lens you are referring to... it's okay. i miss the canon. the canon cost a little more ($400), but the build quality was much better. optically they are similar but difficult to compare, because my nikon camera is much much newer than my canon camera was.
 
And I may purchase one. I would love to have one. However, for $1500 I could purchase a Nikon D5100 + Nikon 35mm f1.8G and have $500 left over. That is probably what I would do before purchasing a Canon prime that expensive.

From what I can find the Nikon 35mm f1.8G is the best 35mm lens available for under $300.
 
I have been spoiled by my Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. Even worse, I own the Canon 70-200 f4 IS. One can't go back.
 
LoL - just because someone may own one expensive item doesn't mean they can afford several more!

And as to the logic of an EF-S 24 or 35mm? Well, the whole idea of EF-S was to make smaller, lighter, and cheaper wide angle lenses.

If sigma made a FF 30/1.4 lens, do you think it would cost the same or weigh the same as the current DC version??

The ef 35/2 is a very nice lens (I certainly liked mine when I owned it). But it's starting to show its age now compared with the latest offerings from Canon. But Canon will never update it.
SNGX1327 said:
JohnMatrix said:
"affordable" :)
Click to expand...
affordable is a relative term. the OP also mentions that they own a 17-55 IS. this is not considered "affordable" to most people. i don't consider this lens affordable.

if you can spend $1,000 on a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, i would think that $1,400 for a 35mm f/1.4L is also affordable...

i also don't understand the logic of "canon makes an EF 35mm but i want an EF-S 35mm". just use the EF 35mm. what's wrong with the EF 35mm that you think the EF-S version will do better?

FYI i used to own a canon 28mm f/1.8 USM. i now presently own a nikon 35mm f/1.8G... the $200 lens you are referring to... it's okay. i miss the canon. the canon cost a little more ($400), but the build quality was much better. optically they are similar but difficult to compare, because my nikon camera is much much newer than my canon camera was.
Click to expand...
 
I am pretty happy with my Sigma 30/1.4. Sure it could be a little sharper in the corners even at the outskirts of the rules of thirds region, but overall it is nice. If canon would have came out with a sub $500 EFS 30/1.4 that was sharp at f4 in the corners I would have gone that route. Sorry Canon. That is what happens when you snooze for a decade or two.

A 24mm equive prime would be nice like an EFS 15/2.0, but honestly I would rather see a 24mm equiv starting fast zoom. I vote for an EFS 15-40/2.8 USM IS.
 
4thnebula said:
I have been researching the internet sites (e.g DP Review, the-digital-picture, photozone, slr gear, and Fred Miranda) for primes in the 24mm to 35mm that I can use for a normal lens on my 60D that would also satisfy me IQ wise. I used to own the Canon 35mm f2 but found my 17-55 IS to have better IQ at 35mm (f2.8 and up) so I sold the Canon 35mm.
Click to expand...
4thnebula said:
In my researching I found that Nikon has the 35mm f1.8G which seems to have excellent IQ (see DP Data) and for

The Nikon has no higher resolution than the 35mm f2, f2.8 and up. The Nikon has more distortion. The Nikon has way worse CA. The Nikon has way less smooth bokeh.
Click to expand...
Only two plus points of the Nikon: AF-S motor and rounded highlights.

It is not smaller and lighter either.

No, you would not be happy with that Nikon either.

Another great lens I found is the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 pancake. Of course being a Canon user Nikon and Panasonic are out unless I am going to add another system. I understand the rumors say Sigma is working on a set of primes like I am looking for but I have to see them first.

Same for this Pana lens.. not sharper, way more distortion. Won't make you happier.
4thnebula said:
I need the lens for indoor low available light of nephews and neices (still and video) as well as a normal lens for outdoor use. Now I am still using my 17-55 f2.8 IS but it is large and not a single small prime like I am searching for.

I am putting this out there in case I forgot a place to look and hoping Canon will someday soon (I know they have problems now so it is down the line) they will put out a set of affordable but excellent modern primes in the 24mm to 35mm range.
Click to expand...
 
I own both of these as well and they do indeed spoil you. They set a high bar. FWIW, I have the 35/2 and i use it when I don't want to lug the 17-55. It's ok, but nothing to write home about. I'm going to dump it and try the sigma 30/1.4 soon.
4thnebula said:
I have been spoiled by my Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. Even worse, I own the Canon 70-200 f4 IS. One can't go back.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brudy
 
I am happy with my 35f2. It is as sharp at f2 as my 50f1.4. It sure beats any zoom at f2. That said, if I wanted to spend over $1K for the 17-55IS, I'd just as soon get the 35f1.4.
 
It appears to me that primes should be much easier to make than zooms so they should nearly always have better IQ at their respective IQ, be smaller and lighter, and be cheaper and simpler to make. The Canon 35 f2 is an old lens from the film days so I won't expect that to be better. I sure would like to see Canon upgrade it though to modern standards to match the Nikon 35mm f1.8G.

I do a lot of cropping so 50-100% crops are often needed. So IQ is very important, and as a result pixel peeping is part of the process.
 
4thnebula said:
It appears to me that primes should be much easier to make than zooms so they should nearly always have better IQ at their respective IQ, be smaller and lighter, and be cheaper and simpler to make. The Canon 35 f2 is an old lens from the film days so I won't expect that to be better. I sure would like to see Canon upgrade it though to modern standards to match the Nikon 35mm f1.8G.

I do a lot of cropping so 50-100% crops are often needed. So IQ is very important, and as a result pixel peeping is part of the process.
Click to expand...
You need new glasses, for sure, if somehow you think the 35mm f2 is not sharp enough at and above f2.8. If that is what you mean with "IQ". You either did something wrong, or you had a broken lens, if you did not get sharp images from the 35mm f2.

About the Nikon 35mm f1.8 G DX: IT IS NOT A GREAT LENS. It is a WORSE lens than the Canon 35mm f2.

What modern standards are you talking about, exactly?

Is the Nikon sharper? No, not really. They are pretty much indistinguishable in sharpness, one would not be able to tell which photo was made with which lens.





Is the Nikon better designed? No, the Nikon shows noticeable barrel distortion in photos, where the Canon's distortion is neigh on impossible to observe in photos.

Is the Nikon better corrected? No, the Nikon has very heavy CA for a 35mm prime, where the Canon behaves much more civilized.





(Note that the figures are flattering for the Nikon, becaiuse the Nikon was tested on a 10mp D200, and the Canon was tested on a 15mp 50D).

Is it that the Nikon renders images nicer? No, the bokeh of the Nikon is very unattractive. The Canon makes for smoother bokeh.

I have the Canon, and it is sharp. It is as compact and as light as the Nikon. It focusses as fast too. It has nicer optics.

Where the Nikon is better is in AF sound (has an AF-S motor) and it has rounded highlights, where the Canon has 5-sided ones. Which can be attractive, though.

So, pixel peeper, either your lens was defective, and you are not recognizing that, or something else is going on. But the 35mm f2 from Canon does not have to hide from the not so great Nikon 35mm f1.8 DX only lens.















 
4thnebula said:
And I may purchase one. I would love to have one. However, for $1500 I could purchase a Nikon D5100 + Nikon 35mm f1.8G and have $500 left over. That is probably what I would do before purchasing a Canon prime that expensive.

From what I can find the Nikon 35mm f1.8G is the best 35mm lens available for under $300.
Click to expand...
rofl even if the Nikon 35mm f1.8G is the best for under $300, you srsly think it will be any better than the Canon 35mm?? Dude you get what you pay for. You want quality yet you are looking for the best for under 300 lol

the 35L is $1500 is a GOOD reason dude....:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Which 35mm lens?
Replies
7
Views
31
chrisD46
C
PHXAZCRAIG
Which three primes for general purpose vacation photography?
Replies
18
Views
319
RBFresno
RBFresno
Satyaa
Primes questions
Replies
13
Views
14
Satyaa
Satyaa
FujLiver
New wide angle lens
Replies
17
Views
51
Chimping Aberratation
Chimping Aberratation
R
Selling the XT-2 and buy the XT-50?
2 3
Replies
42
Views
43
The Hat
T

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