35mm echivalent prime for APSC

telecomprofi wrote:

sigma 30mm f/1.4 dc hsm is kind of close and gives very nice results if 15mm of fov are not critical(30*1,6). autofocus accuracy could be better though - but that depends on body/lens combinations as well as distance to the subject. and it is relatively kind of cheap (~250-300 used)

While I agree that Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a nice lens (I had the one before the Global Series Version and it was one of my favorite lenses and I didn't even care for that FL on APS-C sensor which should say something), it is by far from"kind of close to 35mm equivalent FL for FF. 35mm and 50mm on FF sounds close but in reality is a world of a difference. I'm sure someone disagrees. YMMV.

Zoltan Ilyes wrote:

Hi,

I would like to start with an assumption: if you mount a 35mm EF lens (say 35mm f1.4 L) on an APS-C body it will give you the same field of view as a 56 mm (35*1.6) EF-S lens mounted on the same body -

Wrong.

A EF 35mm f1.4 L USM or EF 35mm f2 IS USM lens on APS-C will give the same FOV as a EF-S 35mm lens on APS-C, if such a EF-S lens would exist.

A 56mm EF-S lens on APS-C will give the same FOV as a EF 56mm lens on APS-C also.

However, a 35mm lens on APS-C will give the same FOV as a 56mm lens on full frame.

because the sensor actually is not using the entire part of the glass, just 1/1.6th of that.

Please correct me if my assumption is incorrect as that makes the entire question void.

But if my assumption is correct, what are my lens possibilities for a (around) 35mm focal length equivalent fast (f1.8) prime for an APS-C body?

If you want 35mm on APS-C, the options are:

• Canon EF 35mm f2
• Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM
• Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM
• Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM II
• Tamron 35mm f1.8 USD VC
• Sigma 35mm f1.4 Art
• Sigma 30mm f1.4 EX DC Art (APS-C only)
• Samyang 35mm f1.4 (manual focus only)
• Zeiss 35mm f1.4  (manual focus only)

I've searched through my local vendor's list and actually the single EF-S prime I found is the 24mm f2.8, but that is too slow. Did not had better luck searching the net either as all I could found were EF lenses.

Above your wording, within your confusion about EF and EF-S lenses, states you want 35mm on APS-C. Here, you seem to say you want the FOV 35mm gives on full frame, on your APS-C camera.

If you want the FOV a 35mm lens gives on full frame, for your APS-C camera, these come close:

• Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II N (manual focus only, too slow)
• Sigma 20mm f1.8 (old lens)
• Sigma 20mm f1.4 Art (big, heavy, expensive, very good)
• Sigma 24mm f1.8 (old lens)
• Sigma 24mm f1.4 Art
• Canon EF 20mm f2.8 (too slow)
• Canon EF-S 24mm f2.8 STM (too slow you say)
• Canon EF 24mm f2.8 IS USM (too slow)
• Canon EF 24mm f1.4 L USM

Two zoom lenses to consider;

• Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 DC (APS-C only)
• Tokina 14-20mm f2 DX (APS-C only)

Both are very good zoom lenses.

Thanks.

Zoltan Ilyes wrote:

pilou1253 wrote:

Hi,

First, look at my thread history, I did start a similar discussion some months ago.

Then, your asumption is not right, an EF 35 mm and an EF-S 35 mm would give the same field of view if mounted on a crop body. The focal length is independant of the sensor size.

Thanks for the clarification, now I got it. I've read a few articles about lens equivalency and got confused.

But you are right to say that the FF equivalent FoV of a 35 mm on APS-C is smthg like a 20-22 mm lens.

The only prime corresponding to this is the EF-M 22/2 IS, for EOS M.

My solution: I bought the Sigma 18-35 1.8, a great lens. Check some reviews to make sure you don't miss its drawbacks (AF, no IS, size/weight)

I am aware of that lens but it is out of my budget right now. Bot so to say all the alternatives, but the 28mm f2.8. I'm considering to switch from Nikon to Canon or Sony and researching alternatives to my Nikkor 35 f1.8.
Anyway, it is good to know that there are possibilities, thanks again.

The Canon EF 35mm f2 (old one with noisy AF) and EF 35mm f2 IS USM  (which superseded it) are fine alternatives to that Nikkor. The Tamron 35mm f1.8 USD VC is also an alternative.

I have used the Canon EF 35mm f2 on my Canon 450D (APS-C) for years, it has nicer bokeh with close ups than the Nikkor, it is about the same size and weight, a bit less barrel distortion and vignetting, a bit lower CA. The coatings are older so it probably veils a bit more shooting into strong light, than the Nikkor.

The new Canon is better than the Nikkor in every way (nicer bokeh especially), and offers image stabilisation as bonus. So does the Tamron.

Zoltan Ilyes wrote:

I marked the first answer as correct just because of time ordering but practically I could mark all the answers.
So thank you all for your feedback, I got the right confirmation that I'm not missing focal lengths switching brands. Right now I think I will get a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 as an all-rounder and get a prime later (50mm is cheap and good, but maybe long, 35mm-s are good but not so cheap).

Clearly my reply comes too late to do you any good but for those who come across this thread later, as I did, in my opinion if you're thinking of doing something as dramatic as switching brands and eco-systems I'd profit of the opportunity to also change formats. Either be traditional and upgrade to full-frame DSLR or follow all the industry R&D $$ into mirrorless.  Cameras that were considered cutting edge a scant 4 - 6 years ago will be less than half their original price now and will assuredly still take excellent pictures. And there would be money left over to spend on lenses.