Which lens would suit me best?

SD19194 wrote:

Aoi Usagi wrote:

At one point in time, Sigma lenses were considered inferior. However, that is not the case anymore.

The only negative I've read about the 18-35mm (aside from the obvious, its weight) is that it lacks a bit of character and that sometimes the images may end up looking flat. Any truth to this in your opinion?

Yes, I have heard this too, about almost all SIgma ART lenses.   I believe this is because the images are really clean and sharp.  However, don't take my word for it.  I would look online for images taken with the lens and make your own opinion.

An update for all- The more I think about it and the more I'd love to have my first high end lens, especially a versatile one that I could probably use most of the time (in the 18-35mm Sigma), the more I realize that the Canon 24mm pancake lens might be the better option for me. No potential issues with AFMA and calibration or flat looking photos, and I would basically save a whopping $500. Also, the Sigma 18-35mm really is quite the heavy lens in the grand scheme of things, not to mention huge. One thing I'm not crazy about is intimidating people when I whip out my camera asking if I can take their photo.

Any thoughts are appreciated...

SD19194 wrote:

An update for all- The more I think about it and the more I'd love to have my first high end lens, especially a versatile one that I could probably use most of the time (in the 18-35mm Sigma), the more I realize that the Canon 24mm pancake lens might be the better option for me. No potential issues with AFMA and calibration or flat looking photos, and I would basically save a whopping $500. Also, the Sigma 18-35mm really is quite the heavy lens in the grand scheme of things, not to mention huge. One thing I'm not crazy about is intimidating people when I whip out my camera asking if I can take their photo.

Any thoughts are appreciated...

I am sure you will be happy with either lens.

While on the subject of 24mm prime lenses. Does anyone know why this particular lens costs such an astronomical amount of money?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590449-USA/Canon_2750B002_EF_24mm_f_1_4L_II.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=CjwKCAiAnZCdBhBmEiwA8nDQxeIxu1JprlD--5HPipP5oDpVpstrUccvDdOZQiwOx-rgqYQfGlmVXBoCYJkQAvD_BwE

The 24mm F2.8 pancake is tack sharp, has great contrast fast AF and is one of the best EF-S lenses ever made.

LDJS Photography wrote:

The 24mm F2.8 pancake is tack sharp, has great contrast fast AF and is one of the best EF-S lenses ever made.

I appreciate you sharing the samples, though they don't look too "tack sharp" to me.

Am I wrong?

davel33 wrote:

Also you need some advice on FL for portraits. For most 85mm is the sweet spot so 85mm on a FF or 50 on a crop. Going wider than 50 on your crop distorts the face. Makes the nose bigger and over 85 start to compress the face. On a crop I would never use wider than 35 and that only in a pinch

Thanks. I love my 50mm 1.8 for portraits or even shots of two people.  Once I start trying to photograph 3 or more people though, it gets a bit challenging. I think I will hang onto my 50mm but I'm really trying to figure out a good lens for wider shots. I continue to read good things about the 24mm 2.8 pancake but I do still have my 18-55mm Canon kit lens which to my knowledge the pancake probably doesn't blow away. Sure the kit lens doesn't go down to 2.8 but is 2.8 (from the kits 3.5) really worth spending $150 for a whole separate lens on?

It's hard to say about the sharpness unless a comparison is made with other lenses under equal conditions.  I think they are reasonably sharp.  If they were printed out say at something like 8"x10" they would probably be "tack sharp".  The lighting, cropping, depth of field, ISO levels, the type of camera etc. all affect this.  I'll never forget how "tack sharp" my Kodak 3 megapixel image looked after making a small 8"x10" print of it,  It was a beach scene of waves crashing on some rocks on a sunny day with blue water and blue skies...wow...so sharp it was.

If you want pixel-peeking-super-good-looking pictures (that you can see on your computer), try out a high megapixel full frame camera for a while...maybe borrow one from someone if you can't afford it now.  Or go on one of the full frame camera forums and see if they could show you samples at full size.  I need to get one of those too.

By the way, I really like my Canon 18-135mm USM lens.  I purchased it on Ebay for less than $150 (USD).

Digirame wrote:

It's hard to say about the sharpness unless a comparison is made with other lenses under equal conditions. I think they are reasonably sharp. If they were printed out say at something like 8"x10" they would probably be "tack sharp". The lighting, cropping, depth of field, ISO levels, the type of camera etc. all affect this. I'll never forget how "tack sharp" my Kodak 3 megapixel image looked after making a small 8"x10" print of it, It was a beach scene of waves crashing on some rocks on a sunny day with blue water and blue skies...wow...so sharp it was.

If you want pixel-peeking-super-good-looking pictures (that you can see on your computer), try out a high megapixel full frame camera for a while...maybe borrow one from someone if you can't afford it now. Or go on one of the full frame camera forums and see if they could show you samples at full size. I need to get one of those too.

By the way, I really like my Canon 18-135mm USM lens. I purchased it on Ebay for less than $150 (USD).

In my opinion 24 megapixels is just fine. I don't really need to spend over a grand more for a full frame to get around 30 MP's, do I? All I want is a lens that can give me pretty acceptable sharpness, better than that of something like the kit lens but also has some versatility to it. For example if I'm taking photos at an event, I want to be able to take group shots and some more narrow shots without having to go through changing lenses which would be ridiculous. The Canon 35mm 1.4 could be ok, but 35mm for landscapes would be cutting it pretty close.

You have noted that you are a beginner and have been given a lot of help by a lot of people who have given you suggestions etc.  You don't want to spend a lot of money.  For versatility and low cost, why not just consider the Canon 18-135mm USM lens?

I hope you understand things more about sharpness.  For web use and printing out, you should find that your photos will often be sharp enough.  There's also a limit on how sharp we can see images with our eyes.  You might want to research and read about that.

My suggestion to look at full frame images, is just for your knowledge.  You don't have to buy a camera now to see them.  Then by doing it that way (by borrowing a camera or viewing the photos), you/we can establish priorities and goals of what we may want to purchase in the future.  I hope that helps.

SD19194 wrote:

LDJS Photography wrote:

The 24mm F2.8 pancake is tack sharp, has great contrast fast AF and is one of the best EF-S lenses ever made.

I appreciate you sharing the samples, though they don't look too "tack sharp" to me.

Am I wrong?

Are they soft?

How would they be any different if you perceived them as sharper?

These are just street shots but the lens is plenty sharp for anything.

Digirame wrote:

It's hard to say about the sharpness unless a comparison is made with other lenses under equal conditions. I think they are reasonably sharp. If they were printed out say at something like 8"x10" they would probably be "tack sharp".

They're sharp at A3 trust me I printed them

The lighting, cropping, depth of field, ISO levels, the type of camera etc. all affect this. I'll never forget how "tack sharp" my Kodak 3 megapixel image looked after m

king a small 8"x10" print of it, It was a beach scene of waves crashing on some rocks on a sunny day with blue water and blue skies...wow...so sharp it was.

If you want pixel-peeking-super-good-looking pictures (that you can see on your computer), try out a high megapixel full frame camera for a while...maybe borrow one from someone if you can't afford it now. Or go on one of the full frame camera forums and see if they could show you samples at full size. I need to get one of those too.

I had a Nikon D5300. Mate had a D750.  Took same shots with good lenses on both cameras.  Shots looked the same.  Had a SL2 and a 6d and shots looked the same.

Just look on the Leica or even fuji MF forum and you'll see shots that if you shuffled them up and put them among photos from the m43 forum, you could not tell the difference based on sharpness.

By the way, I really like my Canon 18-135mm USM lens. I purchased it on Ebay for less than $150 (USD).

I am so over sharpness now that (I shoot fuji since Feb 2020 BTW but still admire Canon) that I'm selling all my primes in the 18-55 range and keeping jusy my Fuji 18-55mm F2.8-4.

After so much photography and going to exhibitions I realised it just ain't that important to what makes a great exhibited photo or to actual artist photographers and the differences unless pixel peeping on a digital screen are minute with most modern lenses and I say this as someone who dropped my X_T2 and it broke (fixed now phew) in Gran Canaria last month and bought a used sony a6000 with the much derided 16-50mm power zoom piece of plastic and still got great shots. They are sharp enough too.  I sold the Sony once my X-T2 was fixed as the camera itself was not enjoyable to use.

It's the photos not the sharpness. Nobody but pixel peeper sand photographers even sees the sharpness, just ask people. At galleries I have always been surprised and astonished by how many amazing shots I liked that were obviously taken on 35mm film with so so equipment but were excellent shots with dynamic composition, light and subject matter....

What other than sharpness are you trying to say with your photos?  Cartier Bresson's photos are barely sharp half the time but they are great photos.

What other than sharpness are you trying to say with your photos? Cartier Bresson's photos are barely sharp half the time but they are great photos.

Sharpness is important but it isnt the be all end all. My main goal is to bring a camera to an event with one lens and as I said above, not have to worry about the ridiculousness of changing out my 50mm to a wider lens whenever I want big group shots. But, at the same time I do prefer a low f stop as I very much like to get good bokeh with my portraits. As good as the 18-135mm Canon lens might be, it's lowest f stop is 3.5...

LDJS, I was replying only to the original poster, trying to help him out. I hope you look at it in that context. It's pointless for me do respond to you about things that I did not say to you...again my reply was only to the OP.

LDJS, I'm going to add a little to this.  If you understand that I was responding to the OP, you should know that I'm basically on your side.  I've been doing this for a long time as I assume you have done also.  The OP is a beginner (so he said).  A lot of beginners do not understand sharpness as we do.

So, what lens would you find like that that is not expensive?

SD19194 wrote:

What other than sharpness are you trying to say with your photos? Cartier Bresson's photos are barely sharp half the time but they are great photos.

Sharpness is important but it isnt the be all end all. My main goal is to bring a camera to an event with one lens and as I said above, not have to worry about the ridiculousness of changing out my 50mm to a wider lens whenever I want big group shots. But, at the same time I do prefer a low f stop as I very much like to get good bokeh with my portraits. As good as the 18-135mm Canon lens might be, it's lowest f stop is 3.5...

Oh right,  then I'd get the SIgma 18-35mm F1.8 or their 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM, I had the later and it is a fab lens!  Their new 18-50mm F2,8 looks good but I'm not sure if it' just for mirrorless or not.  I found the 17-50 mentioned abov eot be bag for primes good but only not at 17mm, perhaps from about and 17 to then is 'okay'