50mm FOV lens for APS-C?

Since I have returned to APS-C, I'm looking for a nice portrait lens that has around 50mm field of view on a FF.

While I know 35mm Sigma and other f1.4 variants are killer lenses, I have no funds for that.

So far I've been looking at these two:

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8
Canon 35mm f2 IS

Sigma offers more variety as it's a zoom lens. It's incredibly sharp with micro-details starting from f1.8 onward. The downside is the size (almost 800 grams), price and no IS.

Canon 35mm f2 IS is around 130 euros cheaper than Sigma, far more lighter (around 330g) and has IS. The downsize is slightly inferior IQ compared to Sigma in terms of contrast and sharpness at f2.

Also another plus, it's Canon. Native lens to Canon cameras and compatible to both FF and Crop.

What are your thoughts? I mainly do lifestyle portraiture, both indoors and outdoors and closeup action shots of single runners and other athletes doing their stuff.

If you have any other suggestion about these lenses or other stuff, feel free to post here.
Thanks!

I've never used it on crop, but I have the 35 f2 IS and find it a fantastic lens.  It also focuses extremely accurately and rarely misses, which is a question mark on third party zooms far more often than a native prime IMHO.

The Sigma may be better optically, but in practice I doubt you'll find much to complain about with the Canon.  I've yet to take images at f2 and feel like sharpness or contrast is lacking, and that's on 50mp.

maboleth wrote:

Since I have returned to APS-C, I'm looking for a nice portrait lens that has around 50mm field of view on a FF.

While I know 35mm Sigma and other f1.4 variants are killer lenses, I have no funds for that.

So far I've been looking at these two:

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8
Canon 35mm f2 IS

Sigma offers more variety as it's a zoom lens. It's incredibly sharp with micro-details starting from f1.8 onward. The downside is the size (almost 800 grams), price and no IS.

Canon 35mm f2 IS is around 130 euros cheaper than Sigma, far more lighter (around 330g) and has IS. The downsize is slightly inferior IQ compared to Sigma in terms of contrast and sharpness at f2.

I have no experience with the Sigma and no experience with the EF 35mm f2 IS on a APS-C, but it produces VERY nice images on my 6D ii. It is sharp (even wide open), fast focusing, relatively compact/light and the IS works well.

The one thing it is definitely not good at is stars - it has pretty bad coma anywhere close to wide open.

When I was looking for a faster roughly 35mm lens, I found a video review (I can't remember who did it - it was one of the better known reviewers I think) that compared it with a few 35mm f1.4 lenses (including Canon's 35L ii) and it held up pretty well considering the vast price difference.

I have taken hand-held shots (no flash) in a museum at 1/10th & f5.6 where the information page in front of the display was perfectly readable, or indoor test subject at 1/8th & f2 that appears as sharp as I could want (even at 100%).

Also another plus, it's Canon. Native lens to Canon cameras and compatible to both FF and Crop.

What are your thoughts? I mainly do lifestyle portraiture, both indoors and outdoors and closeup action shots of single runners and other athletes doing their stuff.

If you have any other suggestion about these lenses or other stuff, feel free to post here.
Thanks!

I have used the 35IS on the M6II and M5: it works very well.

I now have the 1.4/32 but I still use sometimes the 35IS when I need depth of field and there is not much light...

Andy01 wrote:

maboleth wrote:

Since I have returned to APS-C, I'm looking for a nice portrait lens that has around 50mm field of view on a FF.

While I know 35mm Sigma and other f1.4 variants are killer lenses, I have no funds for that.

So far I've been looking at these two:

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8
Canon 35mm f2 IS

Sigma offers more variety as it's a zoom lens. It's incredibly sharp with micro-details starting from f1.8 onward. The downside is the size (almost 800 grams), price and no IS.

Canon 35mm f2 IS is around 130 euros cheaper than Sigma, far more lighter (around 330g) and has IS. The downsize is slightly inferior IQ compared to Sigma in terms of contrast and sharpness at f2.

I have no experience with the Sigma and no experience with the EF 35mm f2 IS on a APS-C, but it produces VERY nice images on my 6D ii. It is sharp (even wide open), fast focusing, relatively compact/light and the IS works well.

The one thing it is definitely not good at is stars - it has pretty bad coma anywhere close to wide open.

When I was looking for a faster roughly 35mm lens, I found a video review (I can't remember who did it - it was one of the better known reviewers I think) that compared it with a few 35mm f1.4 lenses (including Canon's 35L ii) and it held up pretty well considering the vast price difference.

I have taken hand-held shots (no flash) in a museum at 1/10th & f5.6 where the information page in front of the display was perfectly readable, or indoor test subject at 1/8th & f2 that appears as sharp as I could want (even at 100%).

Thanks everyone. Yes, I'm mostly interested in working with it at f2 - f2.8. I think/hope bokeh is nice too, certainly even better than 50mm f1.8 STM.

How come you change to APS if you want classic 50mm focal length?

I have both 90D and 6DII, and I much rather a 50 on the 6D II, than a shorter focal length on the 90D. The $100 50mm STM at f/3.2 on full frame will be sharper than say a 35 f2 IS @ f2.

I've owned the 18-35 sigma. I found it too heavy.

Tom Holly wrote:

How come you change to APS if you want classic 50mm focal length?

I like crop format more. I started my photography business with 7D and made some wonderful portraits and action shots with it.

It's lighter and for the same FOV as on FF, lenses are smaller and cheaper.
Further, I love the images that I get when using 50mm on a Crop (80mm equiv. FOV). So I figured it would be nice to have 50mm feel on aps too... 35mm is narrower but very close to "normal" lens fov.

I have both 90D and 6DII, and I much rather a 50 on the 6D II, than a shorter focal length on the 90D. The $100 50mm STM at f/3.2 on full frame will be sharper than say a 35 f2 IS @ f2.

That's an option, certainly, and similar DOF as on crop (f3.2 -> f2 on crop) but I'm trying to avoid 5d4 wherever I can now and build a complete Crop setup for me. Before you ask why, it's weight and size + I love getting used to one system at a time (Crop).

But I also thought, if I buy 35mm f2 IS, I could also use it on both cameras if needed and benefit from both FOVs.

I've owned the 18-35 sigma. I found it too heavy.

Uh, that's one of my concerns also... The main one is AF consistency, as Sigma was notorious for being "odd". Not sure how 18-35 behaves with Canon 90D though. But I am afraid to invest into that lens, only to pull my hair out if it doesn't work as I wanted it to.

maboleth wrote:

I like crop format more. I started my photography business with 7D and made some wonderful portraits and action shots with it.

Yeah I like crop too. I use my 90D a lot, but for 50mm equivalent I always tend to reach for the full frame. I use the 50 STM1.8 and the 50 1.4. I also use these on film cameras which biases me to full frame format.

That's an option, certainly, and similar DOF as on crop (f3.2 -> f2 on crop) but I'm trying to avoid 5d4 wherever I can now and build a complete Crop setup for me. Before you ask why, it's weight and size + I love getting used to one system at a time (Crop).

But I also thought, if I buy 35mm f2 IS, I could also use it on both cameras if needed and benefit from both FOVs.

Yes I find the 5D series too heavy as well. I sold mine (5D3) and shifted to 6D, and then 6D II, which is essentially a full frame 80D/90D. Same size and ergonomics as the crop camera.

Uh, that's one of my concerns also... The main one is AF consistency, as Sigma was notorious for being "odd". Not sure how 18-35 behaves with Canon 90D though. But I am afraid to invest into that lens, only to pull my hair out if it doesn't work as I wanted it to.

If you want a lighter setup don't buy that lens.

To try out, buy some lenses 2nd hand. Then sell them. You always get what you paid. That's what I did with the 18-35.  I wanted to try it out, but quickly realised I'd never use it, so on it went to the next owner.

Tom Holly wrote:

maboleth wrote:

I like crop format more. I started my photography business with 7D and made some wonderful portraits and action shots with it.

Yeah I like crop too. I use my 90D a lot, but for 50mm equivalent I always tend to reach for the full frame. I use the 50 STM1.8 and the 50 1.4. I also use these on film cameras which biases me to full frame format.

Yeah, well, it's true that 50mm has a certain character on 35mm film or FF. I kind of want to try to recreate something similar and see how it goes on APS. Sort of like doing portraits with 50mm (80mm) lens on Crop instead of 85mm on FF... that's a bit unconventional length, but works for me.

That's an option, certainly, and similar DOF as on crop (f3.2 -> f2 on crop) but I'm trying to avoid 5d4 wherever I can now and build a complete Crop setup for me. Before you ask why, it's weight and size + I love getting used to one system at a time (Crop).

But I also thought, if I buy 35mm f2 IS, I could also use it on both cameras if needed and benefit from both FOVs.

Yes I find the 5D series too heavy as well. I sold mine (5D3) and shifted to 6D, and then 6D II, which is essentially a full frame 80D/90D. Same size and ergonomics as the crop camera.

If I could turn back the time in that sense, I wouldn't shelled out over 3k euros on 5dmkIV body, that's for sure. Instead, I'd much rather spend half of that money on a nice f1.2/1.4 lens, 50 or 35mm, keeping my old 7D2. Or, as you pointed out, buy 6D if FF was still an option, for half of the price I paid for 5d.

Uh, that's one of my concerns also... The main one is AF consistency, as Sigma was notorious for being "odd". Not sure how 18-35 behaves with Canon 90D though. But I am afraid to invest into that lens, only to pull my hair out if it doesn't work as I wanted it to.

If you want a lighter setup don't buy that lens.

To try out, buy some lenses 2nd hand. Then sell them. You always get what you paid. That's what I did with the 18-35. I wanted to try it out, but quickly realised I'd never use it, so on it went to the next owner.

Thanks for the tip. You're right. I won't, unless I find a nice 2nd hand copy to try it out.

maboleth wrote:

Since I have returned to APS-C, I'm looking for a nice portrait lens that has around 50mm field of view on a FF.

While I know 35mm Sigma and other f1.4 variants are killer lenses, I have no funds for that.

So far I've been looking at these two:

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8
Canon 35mm f2 IS

Sigma offers more variety as it's a zoom lens. It's incredibly sharp with micro-details starting from f1.8 onward. The downside is the size (almost 800 grams), price and no IS.

Canon 35mm f2 IS is around 130 euros cheaper than Sigma, far more lighter (around 330g) and has IS. The downsize is slightly inferior IQ compared to Sigma in terms of contrast and sharpness at f2.

Also another plus, it's Canon. Native lens to Canon cameras and compatible to both FF and Crop.

What are your thoughts? I mainly do lifestyle portraiture, both indoors and outdoors and closeup action shots of single runners and other athletes doing their stuff.

If you have any other suggestion about these lenses or other stuff, feel free to post here.
Thanks!

Consider the 24mm pancake.  It's a little shorter than you're thinking but it's close and very affordable and it is the best bang for the buck.  I would also look at a 28mm 2.8 IS lens as I am very fond of 28mm on both crop and 35mm bodies which makes it a handy lens to have and I find the 28mm on APS C is a nicer length than the 35.

Trevor Sowers wrote:

maboleth wrote:

Since I have returned to APS-C, I'm looking for a nice portrait lens that has around 50mm field of view on a FF.

While I know 35mm Sigma and other f1.4 variants are killer lenses, I have no funds for that.

So far I've been looking at these two:

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8
Canon 35mm f2 IS

Sigma offers more variety as it's a zoom lens. It's incredibly sharp with micro-details starting from f1.8 onward. The downside is the size (almost 800 grams), price and no IS.

Canon 35mm f2 IS is around 130 euros cheaper than Sigma, far more lighter (around 330g) and has IS. The downsize is slightly inferior IQ compared to Sigma in terms of contrast and sharpness at f2.

Also another plus, it's Canon. Native lens to Canon cameras and compatible to both FF and Crop.

What are your thoughts? I mainly do lifestyle portraiture, both indoors and outdoors and closeup action shots of single runners and other athletes doing their stuff.

If you have any other suggestion about these lenses or other stuff, feel free to post here.
Thanks!

Consider the 24mm pancake. It's a little shorter than you're thinking but it's close and very affordable and it is the best bang for the buck. I would also look at a 28mm 2.8 IS lens as I am very fond of 28mm on both crop and 35mm bodies which makes it a handy lens to have and I find the 28mm on APS C is a nicer length than the 35.

Thanks. I have that pancake. I bought it with my 90D few weeks ago. It's a stellar lens, I couldn't believe how good and crisp are the details with good bokeh, coming from such tiny optics. I'm glad Canon keeps selling them like hot (pan)cakes.

However, I'm looking for something that would isolate the subjects more and mimic 50mm lens on a FF. With maximum aperture of at least f2. I'm still considerinng all the options. Though Sigma 18-35mm is not on my list anymore.

I’ve used a 50 on APS many times, and yeah it’s a great portrait format. Much the same as my 85 on full frame.

Regarding 50mm equivalents, I think you’re right that a fast ~30 is the way to go. I had the cheap sigma 30 f1.4 which I used on APS, and it was equivalent to 50 on FF like you say.

The f1.4 gave plenty of subject isolation. That lens wasn’t especially sharp though, especially wide open, which I’m sure you’re aware of.

Personally I would buy one of:

Sigma 30mm f1.4

Sigma 30mm f1.4 ART

CANON 28mm f1.8

canon 35mm f2 IS

this tool is good for comparing lenses. You can see how far you need to stop down get it sharp, and clean up the colour aberration (if you care about that stuff).

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=405&Camera=402&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=253&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

maboleth wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

maboleth wrote:

Since I have returned to APS-C, I'm looking for a nice portrait lens that has around 50mm field of view on a FF.

While I know 35mm Sigma and other f1.4 variants are killer lenses, I have no funds for that.

So far I've been looking at these two:

Sigma 18-35mm f1.8
Canon 35mm f2 IS

Sigma offers more variety as it's a zoom lens. It's incredibly sharp with micro-details starting from f1.8 onward. The downside is the size (almost 800 grams), price and no IS.

Canon 35mm f2 IS is around 130 euros cheaper than Sigma, far more lighter (around 330g) and has IS. The downsize is slightly inferior IQ compared to Sigma in terms of contrast and sharpness at f2.

Also another plus, it's Canon. Native lens to Canon cameras and compatible to both FF and Crop.

What are your thoughts? I mainly do lifestyle portraiture, both indoors and outdoors and closeup action shots of single runners and other athletes doing their stuff.

If you have any other suggestion about these lenses or other stuff, feel free to post here.
Thanks!

Consider the 24mm pancake. It's a little shorter than you're thinking but it's close and very affordable and it is the best bang for the buck. I would also look at a 28mm 2.8 IS lens as I am very fond of 28mm on both crop and 35mm bodies which makes it a handy lens to have and I find the 28mm on APS C is a nicer length than the 35.

Thanks. I have that pancake. I bought it with my 90D few weeks ago. It's a stellar lens, I couldn't believe how good and crisp are the details with good bokeh, coming from such tiny optics. I'm glad Canon keeps selling them like hot (pan)cakes.

However, I'm looking for something that would isolate the subjects more and mimic 50mm lens on a FF. With maximum aperture of at least f2. I'm still considerinng all the options. Though Sigma 18-35mm is not on my list anymore.

I used the Canon 28mm 1.8 on my 40D  for many years with good success.  It's far from a perfect lens but it's better than many think.  Primes for Canon APS-c are limited for sure!  It's one of my favourite things about my 5D is the primes I have available.

Tom Holly wrote:

I’ve used a 50 on APS many times, and yeah it’s a great portrait format. Much the same as my 85 on full frame.

Regarding 50mm equivalents, I think you’re right that a fast ~30 is the way to go. I had the cheap sigma 30 f1.4 which I used on APS, and it was equivalent to 50 on FF like you say.

The f1.4 gave plenty of subject isolation. That lens wasn’t especially sharp though, especially wide open, which I’m sure you’re aware of.

Personally I would buy one of:

Sigma 30mm f1.4

Sigma 30mm f1.4 ART

CANON 28mm f1.8

canon 35mm f2 IS

this tool is good for comparing lenses. You can see how far you need to stop down get it sharp, and clean up the colour aberration (if you care about that stuff).

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=405&Camera=402&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=253&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Thanks for those suggestions!

I was seriously considering Sigma 30mm f1.4 ART one. It looked good on the specs. Alas, I read about AF inconsistencies and not that great sharpness at f1.4. Being great at 1.8 or f2, as the-digital-picture showed too. It's only 1/4 less expensive than Canon 35 f2 IS. Not much.

However, one lens came to my mind, that I somehow totally omitted - Canon 40mm f2.8. Now, it's not 35mm nor f2 or brighter, but I have it in my home already. I totally forgot about that lens that I bought for my wife several years ago - talk about pancakes being tiny!

I will test it with my 90D and see how satisfied I am with that look. While being a full stop less bright, it's 5mm narrower in FOV so could offer slightly more or similar subject separation as 35mm on f2.

The serious advantage on 35mm f2 is IS. People are so satisfied how well it works, some call it a life-saver in low light situations and very low shutter speeds.

But still, Canon 40mm f2.8 costs me nothing but to experiment and see how good it is for my needs. So that's a win for now.

Trevor Sowers wrote:

.

I used the Canon 28mm 1.8 on my 40D for many years with good success. It's far from a perfect lens but it's better than many think. Primes for Canon APS-c are limited for sure! It's one of my favourite things about my 5D is the primes I have available.

+1 . Always found 50mm on my 80D just too zoomed in and didn't find the 24 much better than my zoom.

I found 35 worked well, but didn't use it much.

Got a used 6D a while ago to see what FF was all about. The 24-105 never gets used, always have a 35, 50 or 100 prime instead.

The 35 F2 IS is excellent on crop. I used it a lot on my 7D and 7DII, and got great results. I still owned the 35 F1.4L when I bought the 35 F2, but soon sold the L when I found I wasn't using it anymore.

I no longer have the 35mm F2 IS, but I have used it on APS-C and it was fine. The biggest problem with it, as far as I was concerned, was that it's too chunky for what it is--a roughly 50mm equivalent lens that's slower and bigger than 50mm F1.8 STM for full frame! (Granted, the 35mm does have IS, and delivers sharper and more contrasty image than the 50mm until you stop down both to at least F2.8.)

Kind of off topic, but if you really want a nice 50mm equivalent for APS-C, you may want to move to EOS M: Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 STM and Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC DN are both great lenses. I can personally speak for how nice the former is. The latter gets great reviews too. They're also tiny, in comparison to EF primes.

Alastair Norcross wrote:

The 35 F2 IS is excellent on crop. I used it a lot on my 7D and 7DII, and got great results. I still owned the 35 F1.4L when I bought the 35 F2, but soon sold the L when I found I wasn't using it anymore.

Thanks. I think I will stay on 40mm f2.8 for now. It's not direct replacement for 35mm f2 IS, but at least I have it in my home, so zero investment.

The results I got so far are pleasing enough. I will need to use it much more before making any final decisions.

quiquae wrote:

Kind of off topic, but if you really want a nice 50mm equivalent for APS-C, you may want to move to EOS M: Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 STM and Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC DN are both great lenses. I can personally speak for how nice the former is. The latter gets great reviews too. They're also tiny, in comparison to EF primes.

Yeah, that's kind of out of topic here. As I don't have a EFM camera, nor want one to be honest. If I ever move to mirrorless it will be RF. But I don't see that in sight anytime soon. Will certainly see what R7 spec will be, but RF lenses are far from being cost-effective and battery life is still poor compared to DSLR and 90D in particular.