Need help getting higher quality wide angle shots - Canon 17-55 2.8 ?

[technic]

Shorthand wrote:

Honestly, at the wide end the 18-55 is pretty good. Before you go investing in new hardware (though none of us can say that the 17-55 f/2.8 is a bad investment), it would be wise to post some unsharp shots (100% crops) from the kit lens here. Often its technique or a bad copy that needs replacement or service and not the lens design.

agree that the 18-55IS is great value for money, and very sharp in the WA range (even full open). I tested four of them from different batches and optically they were very close, so in general sample variation should not be an issue.

Problem is, on many Rebels (and maybe also xxD series) the 18-55IS has a tendency to frontfocus, so you need to use Liveview or stop down for best results. When focused correctly, sharpness is very close to the 17-55. Also, the 18-55IS has a naughty flare problem that is a bit unpredictable and almost impossible to correct (local areas with lower contrast when used in contrasty lighting). Because of that I purchased 15-85IS instead (much more expensive and heavier, slightly better color and contrast, not much sharper but: no flare problem).

 

[technic]

skanter wrote:

The 17-55 is 1000 times better than the kit lens when it is able to get the kinds of photos that the kit lens cannot. This is all based on the speed of the lens - which allows shooting in lower light without flash, and the ability to isolate the subject with silky bokeh.

IMHO that depends on what range of the lens is important. The big difference is at 55mm: not only does the 17-55 have two stops extra, it also is vastly better there. The 50-55mm range is the weak spot of the 18-55IS. At WA end they are very close in sharpness, the difference in aperture is only half a stop and bokeh is probably nothing special from both.


I take about 75% of my images at 24-28mm equiv. (15-18mm in this case), and maybe just a few % around 50-55mm. I have a 1.8/50 that is very good from f/2.8 but almost never use it. If I had to do a lot of low light shots at 50-55mm, sure the 17-55IS would be better choice than 18-55IS.

 

[technic]

Sovern wrote:

Even the 17-55 wpon;t gibe you the shallow DOF look that you want on crop body.

What you really need for that is an 85 1.8 or 50 1.8.

the 1.8/50 needs f/2.8 for good center sharpness and f/4 for really sharp corners (on APS-C); f/1.8 only works if you can accept blurry corners and VERY soft rendering. Don't know about the 1.8/85 because I never used one. For limited DOF and creamy bokeh I will use the 2.8/200 any time (2/135 or 2/100 probably also very good choice).

 

[oklaphotog]

Mummel wrote:

Do you think 35mm on a crop would be enough (56mm equivalent)? I like that I'm over 50mm for portraits, but am worried it may still be too tight indoors.

The Sigma 35 f/1.4 A looks like a fantastic lens and it can be used on a full frame camera down the road.

I then have the problem that I still don't have a zoom lens that gives me bokeh. I think thats most of the reason I dont like the 18-55. It looks like I took a pic with my iPhone.....

How is the new 30mm coming out in June expected to perform?

Thanks.

You could get a Tamron 17-50/2.8. That lens is sharp as a tack.

 

[Mummel]

Thanks for this info. Perhaps I should do some testing on the 18-55 to see if there is a focusing problem.

 

[Mummel]

It seems like there is a heated debate between the 18-55 and the 17-55 with respect to how much better the 17-55 really is and how to put a dollar value on the improvement.

Does anyone actually own both lenses here that can take comparison shots. Perhaps setup a soda can indoors in low light about 2 meters away from the camera. Keep the background distance constant and take two snaps at 30mm. I would be really curious to see the results.

 

[BAK]

If both lenses are set at f8, there will not be a difference you can see on an 8x12 print.

BAK

 

[Mummel]

Mmmmm, found this:

Loading…

www.clubsnap.com

 

[Mummel]

And this: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/23494759

 

[Mummel]

These two lenses are similar in price and optics, so perhaps I should ask in what situations the one will be better to use over the other (i.e. IS at F2 or shallow DOF at 1.4). TY.

 

[Mummel]

[No message]

 

[Mummel]

My initial thoughts are that at 2 meters on a crop at 35mm, one should probably use 2.8 to get 35cm of DOF, which seems reasonable for an indoor family shot. Using anything less than this will probably render the subject out of focus. Therefore if you're shooting at 2.8, the Canon 35mm F2 with IS would make the most sense.

The only reason to get the Sigma 1.4 is if you can use 1.4-1.8. At 1.4, 2.8 meters gives you a DOF of 34cm, and at 1.8, you'll need 2.4 meters to maintain the same DOF. So you would need to backup indoors to use 1.4-1.8. If you cant, then the extra stops are wasted and the IS wins.

Outdoors however, if you stand 4 meters away, you can get a DOF of 70cm at 1.4 and 100cm at 2.0. So clearly, outdoors is where the higher apertures win, and normally where you dont need IS as light is good.

Man, always so many decisions. To me it seems as if you can backup an extra ~1m indoors, you can take advantage of the higher apertures. 0.8 meters further doesnt seem like a lot, but sometimes space indoors is tight.


On balance I would probably say the 1.4 wins, but its not clear cut.

 

[Hoogineer]

Mummel wrote:

These two lenses are similar in price and optics, so perhaps I should ask in what situations the one will be better to use over the other (i.e. IS at F2 or shallow DOF at 1.4). TY.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, I think the previous-generation Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is great, so I'm sure the next-gen one that's due out soon will be quite excellent.

The Canon 35mm f/2 is going to give you IS, which the Sigma isn't, although I don't miss IS on such a fast prime. I have no experience with the Canon, so I can't comment on its benefits, but it is $400-$500 more expensive than the current Sigma 30mm and $250-$300 more than the next Sigma 30mm.

If you're looking at the Canon 35mm, then you also have to consider the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which is in the same ballpark (price-wise) and already out. People are raving about it.

Also consider whether you want 5mm longer or shorter.

 

[Mummel]

Just realized that. IS at F2 vs 1.4 no IS. With kids, 1.4 wins right?

 

[Mummel]

It seems like the Sigma 35mm 1.4A is sharpest at 1.8, and the Canon 35mm F2 is sharpest at 2.0. That means that with IS, the Canon is probably better no (Sigma only has 1 stop advantage while Canon has 2 stops IS advantage).

FFS....... So many variables.

 

[Mummel]

In other words, would you chose F2 with IS over F1.8 with no IS if you're shooting kids? It seems like the Canon wins in this instance no (on balance, assuming a mix of shots and not just kids running around)?

The other huge plus of the Canon is the weight. So even though is completely overpriced, doesnt the Canon make more sense?

 

[arty H]

I use the older Canon 35F2 for photos of people and kids. People move, so in many cases I would rather shoot at F2 than a wider aperture. F1.4 can be a problem if I move a little while taking a photo. Is would help for body movement of the photographer, and smaller apertures than F1.4 help in terms of subject sway or movement to maintain focus. I am often at F2 or even smaller apertures, as I use shutter priority to keep shutter speed up. I want to avoid the blurring effects of subject movement.

I have L zooms, but I like a fast prime for indoor people photos in natural light. I'd recommend the Canon 35F2 IS. On a crop, the older Canon F2 works fine, and corners are sharp stopped down. On full-frame, either lens will work, but the newer lens will be better in the corners.

Some people like an F1.4 lens, but I would avoid such large apertures for children photos. F1.8 or F1.7 or so would be as large as I would want, and F2 is good for photos of an individual. For groups of 2 or 3, I'd prefer a smaller aperture, like F2.8 or F3.2.

A 35 mm lens gives you a long normal view on a crop, and this is excellent for indoor shots of children. Canon lenses give you fast and accurate AF, at least in this focal length. This is important for people photos. For my purposes, the Canon 35F2 works great. I have the Canon 50 F1.4 and 85F1.8, but use the 35 mm focal length much more on my 60D and T2i. I really don't need F1.4, and I would rather have the reliable AF for people photos than F1.4. If the newer Canon 35F2 IS were available when I got my older version without IS, I'd have gotten the new 35 mm lens. I recommend waiting for the price to come down. If you want the lens now, and have the cash, then go for it.

I should also point out that AF accuracy is critical for any focal length, but is especially so for large apertures like F1.4. My Canon 50 F1.4 is right on, and this is fortunate since I do not have the option of microadjust on my cameras. I had to return my first copy of the 85F1.8 because it back-focused and I couldn't adjust for it. The lens has very shallow depth of field at close distances, even at F2. Personally, I wouldn't get a Sigma F1.4 lens for a camera without microadjust. You might need it for the use of F1.4.

 

[Hoogineer]

Mummel wrote:

In other words, would you chose F2 with IS over F1.8 with no IS if you're shooting kids? It seems like the Canon wins in this instance no (on balance, assuming a mix of shots and not just kids running around)?

The other huge plus of the Canon is the weight. So even though is completely overpriced, doesnt the Canon make more sense?

I also use my Sigma 1.4 primarily to take photos of my son. Build quality is good, I think it the sharpness is solid and it delivers very nice bokeh, which is indicative of the narrow DoF at f/1.4. According to the online DoF calculator, DoF is only 1.9" at f/1.4 for a subject 3' away. At 4' away, you have 3.4" DoF. I often stop down to f/1.8 to get some more margin for error (2.4" DoF at 3' away). AF is reasonably fast, too.


You said it yourself: The Canon "is completely overpriced".


For me, it's a value decision; spending $350 for the previous-gen Sigma made more sense to me than spending $800 on something like the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM (although I would've looked harder at the Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM, to be honest). Spending $500 on the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4 still makes more sense to me than spending $800 on the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM.

Also, you probably are going to want to shoot your kids at high shutter speed anyway, which should reduce the need for IS.


If comparing the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM to the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4, well ... the Canon's cheaper, but I don't think the IQ is going to be as good as the new Sigma's. I don't think IS justifies the lens cost.


I think what's most telling is the fact that the Canon 35mm f/1.4L doesn't have IS; it just shows how unimportant it is on a fast prime.

 

[Mummel]

This is great info, thank you. Im seriously considering the 35mm F2. It seems like the winner here. I use my 50mm 1.8 99%+ of the time at 2.8 and higher in doors during the winter. In the summer, maybe I use apertures less than 2.8 20% of the time, maybe. So yes, at least for me, anything less than 2.8 on a 50mm on a crop doesnt make much sense.

Now assuming my distance to subject remains relatively the same if I get a 35mm (which is should because my primary goal when starting this thread was to get more background into my composition), it seems like I will mostly be using F1.8 and higher. So if I settle for F2 and take the IS, then to me, thats the best bet yet.

What bothers me is the price. $900 for a non-L prime seems like a rip off. Any idea when you think the price may come down (or at least the first set of price drops)? I'd really like to have one for the summer.

 

[Mummel]

This guy says the Sigma at 1.4 is as sharp as the Canon at 2.0

Review is informative but at the end of it, he says you need to chose between IS or wider apertures. HAHA, duh!