Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which 24mm/28mm for Canon 300D under $200

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 3:37:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates are:
- Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH)
- Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144 used at KEH)
- Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)

Which one would you chose and why?

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 4:46:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Add the Canon 35mm f/2 to that.

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates are:
> - Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH)
> - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144 used at KEH)
> - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
>
> Which one would you chose and why?
>
> - Siddhartha
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 4:57:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1127414223.148337.73310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain <reach.siddhartha@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates are:
> - Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH)
> - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144 used at KEH)
> - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
>
> Which one would you chose and why?

Go for the Sigma. It's the best stuff you can get and it's guaranteed
to work with the next camera body you buy...assuming that it doesn't
fall apart first.
Related resources
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 5:02:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <reach.siddhartha@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127418388.362978.318300@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Add the Canon 35mm f/2 to that.
>

Didn't know which to pick until you added that one. It's my favorite lens
at the moment, or at least it's the one that is always on my camera.

Greg

> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates are:
> > - Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH)
> > - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144 used at KEH)
> > - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
> >
> > Which one would you chose and why?
> >
> > - Siddhartha
>
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 6:51:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From what I have read about Sigma lenses being incompatible with later
Canon models released, I have some reluctance to consider Sigma, that
and the fact that I have read testimonies from a number of
photographers who have to return and exchange several Sigma's of the
same model, simply to find acceptable optical performance!

Having said that, I would get the f/1.8 lens, since it would function
as a 'normal' focal length with the 300D, and I feel it is important to
have a fast 'normal'.

On the other hand, given my own preferences for focal length, I really
would have something on the 'wide' end of normal, so the 24mm gives me
something closer to what I like to shoot with! But 2.8 just isn't fast
enough for me in a 24mm lens (I have 24mm f/2 already)
Anonymous
September 22, 2005 8:04:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:46:28 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Add the Canon 35mm f/2 to that.
>
> Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates are: -
>> Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH)
>> - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144 used at KEH)
>> - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
>>
>> Which one would you chose and why?

It would depend on the intended use of the lens: Landscapes, lowlight
available light work, photojournalism, or just "general" photography. It
would also depend on what lenses I already owned, and whether or not I
wanted to use it on both a DSLR and a 35mm film camera.

Give me a little more details and I'll give you my best recommendations.

Stefan
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 6:20:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:46:28 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
> > Add the Canon 35mm f/2 to that.
> >
> > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates are: -
> >> Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH)
> >> - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144 used at KEH)
> >> - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
> >>
> >> Which one would you chose and why?
>
> It would depend on the intended use of the lens: Landscapes, lowlight
> available light work, photojournalism, or just "general" photography. It
> would also depend on what lenses I already owned, and whether or not I
> wanted to use it on both a DSLR and a 35mm film camera.
>
> Give me a little more details and I'll give you my best recommendations.
>
> Stefan

Apologies for not filling in enough details. I intend to use this for
*general* photography. I already own a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 which
gives me pretty nice colours and sharpness (atleast to my satisfaction)
at the wide end at f2.8. I found that I do most of my shooting at
24-30mm so I thought it would be nice to have a 24/28mm lens thats
lighter than my current Sigma and maybe faster too, both in aperture
and AF. Seeing the reviews of the Canon 35mm f2, I guess shooting at
35mm also shouldn't be too much pain.

I also own a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 which is really nice but
the 1.6x crop factor makes it a little difficult to use it all the
time.

I am leaning towards lenses that are f1.8 since even after stopping
them down by a stop or half I would still be at ~f2.8.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 6:21:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <1127414223.148337.73310@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Siddhartha Jain <reach.siddhartha@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates are:
> > - Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH)
> > - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144 used at KEH)
> > - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
> >
> > Which one would you chose and why?
>
> Go for the Sigma. It's the best stuff you can get and it's guaranteed
> to work with the next camera body you buy...assuming that it doesn't
> fall apart first.

Is that sarcasm or did a Sigma change your heart a little bit?

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 6:24:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

wilt wrote:
> >From what I have read about Sigma lenses being incompatible with later
> Canon models released, I have some reluctance to consider Sigma, that
> and the fact that I have read testimonies from a number of
> photographers who have to return and exchange several Sigma's of the
> same model, simply to find acceptable optical performance!

Although I own two Sigmas that work fine I do share the same concern
about Sigmas.

>
> Having said that, I would get the f/1.8 lens, since it would function
> as a 'normal' focal length with the 300D, and I feel it is important to
> have a fast 'normal'.
>
> On the other hand, given my own preferences for focal length, I really
> would have something on the 'wide' end of normal, so the 24mm gives me
> something closer to what I like to shoot with! But 2.8 just isn't fast
> enough for me in a 24mm lens (I have 24mm f/2 already)

Yep, I am re-doing my short-listing with f1.8 lenses only.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 6:40:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

wilt wrote:
> On the other hand, given my own preferences for focal length, I really
> would have something on the 'wide' end of normal, so the 24mm gives me
> something closer to what I like to shoot with! But 2.8 just isn't fast
> enough for me in a 24mm lens (I have 24mm f/2 already)

Which is this 24mm f/2 that you own? I couldn't find it anywhere or any
reference to it.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 11:44:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>Which is this 24mm f/2 that you own? I couldn't find it anywhere or any
reference to it. <<

Caught ya! I have a considerable collection of lenses for my Olympus
film SLR system, including a number of reasonably fast lenses like 24mm
f/2 and 20mm f/2.8. I also have a 24mm Perspective Control lens. I
found an adapter on eBay that permits use of my OM mount lenses on my
Canon 20D. Since the point is to have fast lenses used at or near wide
open, the lack of auto aperture is no bother to me; and since I have
been focusing manually on every camera I own (except for my G2 and 20D)
and doing it for almost 40 years, the lack of autofocus doesn't bother
me either (unless I can't see well enough to focus!). The 24PC has a
preset diaphram even with my OM-4, so it is absolutely no different in
operation on my 20D! Except for the 24PC, OM lenses tend to be very
tiny and lightweight, so dropping a couple into my Canon bag as needed
is certaining a non-issue. So my 24mm f/2 is not something you could
find looking under EF!
Anonymous
September 23, 2005 12:50:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1127467279.930092.22300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Siddhartha Jain <reach.siddhartha@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is that sarcasm or did a Sigma change your heart a little bit?

The Sigma company would have to go a long ways to earn any degree of
respect from me.
Anonymous
September 25, 2005 6:36:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:20:24 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:46:28 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>>
>> > Add the Canon 35mm f/2 to that.
>> >
>> > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates
>> >> are: - Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH)
>> >> - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144 used at KEH)
>> >> - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
>> >>
>> >> Which one would you chose and why?
>>
>> It would depend on the intended use of the lens: Landscapes, lowlight
>> available light work, photojournalism, or just "general" photography.
>> It would also depend on what lenses I already owned, and whether or not
>> I wanted to use it on both a DSLR and a 35mm film camera.
>>
>> Give me a little more details and I'll give you my best recommendations.
>>
>> Stefan
>
> Apologies for not filling in enough details. I intend to use this for
> *general* photography. I already own a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 which
> gives me pretty nice colours and sharpness (atleast to my satisfaction) at
> the wide end at f2.8. I found that I do most of my shooting at 24-30mm so
> I thought it would be nice to have a 24/28mm lens thats lighter than my
> current Sigma and maybe faster too, both in aperture and AF. Seeing the
> reviews of the Canon 35mm f2, I guess shooting at 35mm also shouldn't be
> too much pain.
>
> I also own a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 which is really nice but the
> 1.6x crop factor makes it a little difficult to use it all the time.
>
> I am leaning towards lenses that are f1.8 since even after stopping them
> down by a stop or half I would still be at ~f2.8.

Okay.

If you want ONE fast lens that will handle most of your shooting in that
24-30 or, let's say, 35 range, go with the Sigma 28 f1.8, since it fits
nicely halfway in between. If you need the angle of view of the 24,
just take a giant step backwards. For the 30 or 35 view, a step forwards
will do it. Plus, the 28 makes a nice companion lens to your 50.

If, however, you're set on getting the Canon 35 f2.0, too, get the Sigma
24 f2.8 instead of the 28. The 28 is so close in angle of view to the 35
as to make it a waste of money to own both, and the 24 works well in
conjunction with the 35. As far as wanting f1.8 lenses, Sigma does make a
24 f1.8, which B&H Photo sells for about $340. However, since you're only
doing "general" photography, I doubt if you'll ever have need of that 1.8
aperture, unless you intend to do low light work like shooting plays or
concerts, etc. So why pay for something you won't use much or at all?
Personally, I'd go with 24mm f2.8 and save that extra $240 you would have
spent on the f1.8 version for a future purchase, something wider like a
17, which would work well with the 24.

FWIW: Many have poor opinions of Sigmas; others just hate them; but
regardless of what anyone says, if you're happy with Sigmas, stay with
them. I have an older Sigma 24-70 f3.5-5.6 that I use on a 27 year old
Nikon FM for snapshots and "documentation" work, and I'm satisfied with
the images. Is it as sharp and contrasty as my prime Nikkors? No. But in
an 8x10, without using an 8X loupe, it's really hard to tell the
difference. My satisfaction with it was one of the major reasons I bought
a Sigma 18-50 f3.5-5.6 DC to go on a used Canon D30 I got last year.

Stefan
Anonymous
September 26, 2005 6:36:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:20:24 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
> > Stefan Patric wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:46:28 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> >>
> >> > Add the Canon 35mm f/2 to that.
> >> >
> >> > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates
> >> >> are: - Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH)
> >> >> - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144 used at KEH)
> >> >> - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
> >> >>
> >> >> Which one would you chose and why?
> >>
> >> It would depend on the intended use of the lens: Landscapes, lowlight
> >> available light work, photojournalism, or just "general" photography.
> >> It would also depend on what lenses I already owned, and whether or not
> >> I wanted to use it on both a DSLR and a 35mm film camera.
> >>
> >> Give me a little more details and I'll give you my best recommendations.
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >
> > Apologies for not filling in enough details. I intend to use this for
> > *general* photography. I already own a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 which
> > gives me pretty nice colours and sharpness (atleast to my satisfaction) at
> > the wide end at f2.8. I found that I do most of my shooting at 24-30mm so
> > I thought it would be nice to have a 24/28mm lens thats lighter than my
> > current Sigma and maybe faster too, both in aperture and AF. Seeing the
> > reviews of the Canon 35mm f2, I guess shooting at 35mm also shouldn't be
> > too much pain.
> >
> > I also own a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 which is really nice but the
> > 1.6x crop factor makes it a little difficult to use it all the time.
> >
> > I am leaning towards lenses that are f1.8 since even after stopping them
> > down by a stop or half I would still be at ~f2.8.
>
> Okay.
>
> If you want ONE fast lens that will handle most of your shooting in that
> 24-30 or, let's say, 35 range, go with the Sigma 28 f1.8, since it fits
> nicely halfway in between. If you need the angle of view of the 24,
> just take a giant step backwards. For the 30 or 35 view, a step forwards
> will do it. Plus, the 28 makes a nice companion lens to your 50.
>
> If, however, you're set on getting the Canon 35 f2.0, too, get the Sigma
> 24 f2.8 instead of the 28. The 28 is so close in angle of view to the 35
> as to make it a waste of money to own both, and the 24 works well in
> conjunction with the 35. As far as wanting f1.8 lenses, Sigma does make a
> 24 f1.8, which B&H Photo sells for about $340. However, since you're only
> doing "general" photography, I doubt if you'll ever have need of that 1.8
> aperture, unless you intend to do low light work like shooting plays or
> concerts, etc. So why pay for something you won't use much or at all?
> Personally, I'd go with 24mm f2.8 and save that extra $240 you would have
> spent on the f1.8 version for a future purchase, something wider like a
> 17, which would work well with the 24.
>
> FWIW: Many have poor opinions of Sigmas; others just hate them; but
> regardless of what anyone says, if you're happy with Sigmas, stay with
> them. I have an older Sigma 24-70 f3.5-5.6 that I use on a 27 year old
> Nikon FM for snapshots and "documentation" work, and I'm satisfied with
> the images. Is it as sharp and contrasty as my prime Nikkors? No. But in
> an 8x10, without using an 8X loupe, it's really hard to tell the
> difference. My satisfaction with it was one of the major reasons I bought
> a Sigma 18-50 f3.5-5.6 DC to go on a used Canon D30 I got last year.
>
> Stefan

Thanks for the detailed response, Stefan. Although, I am not a
pro-shooter but two things put me off from anything that is f2.8 and
above. One is that indoors and in available light I find the more
aperture I can get the better it is especially when the subjects are
children who just won't stay still :)  However, if someone can convince
me that f2.8 will work fine wide open then I think the Canon 28mm f/2.8
is a no-brainer given the price and performance.

Two is that, IMO, any lens will need to be stopped down since I cannot
expect the lens to perform at its best wide open. So a f2.8 would
probably end up f3.5 or f4 in practise?

As for the focal length, I checked the perspective difference between
24mm, 28mm and 35mm with my Sigma 24-135mm and I found 28mm to be very
acceptable. Add to that the premium I would've to shell out for a 24mm,
I think 28mm is just fine.

I would've been happier if Canon made a 28mm f1.8 but since it doesn't
I will go with Sigma. The only issue is that I will have to get a
friend who's coming from US to India to get the lens and that means
either I just depend on my luck to get a good copy or have one my
friends in the US who owns a Canon dSLR to test it before they get it
over here.

Another interesting lens is the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Its f1.4 and has HSM.
Unfortunately, its too pricey at $450 for me to put in a fixed focal
length lens :( 

Am also hunting for any M42 mount 24/28mm lenses that are f1.8 or f2
but can't find any.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 12:40:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:36:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

> Stefan Patric wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:20:24 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>>
>> > Stefan Patric wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:46:28 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Add the Canon 35mm f/2 to that.
>> >> >
>> >> > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates
>> >> >> are: - Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH) - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144
>> >> >> used at KEH)
>> >> >> - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Which one would you chose and why?
>> >>
>> >> It would depend on the intended use of the lens: Landscapes,
>> >> lowlight available light work, photojournalism, or just "general"
>> >> photography. It would also depend on what lenses I already owned, and
>> >> whether or not I wanted to use it on both a DSLR and a 35mm film
>> >> camera.
>> >>
>> >> Give me a little more details and I'll give you my best
>> >> recommendations.
>> >>
>> >> Stefan
>> >
>> > Apologies for not filling in enough details. I intend to use this for
>> > *general* photography. I already own a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 which
>> > gives me pretty nice colours and sharpness (atleast to my
>> > satisfaction) at the wide end at f2.8. I found that I do most of my
>> > shooting at 24-30mm so I thought it would be nice to have a 24/28mm
>> > lens thats lighter than my current Sigma and maybe faster too, both in
>> > aperture and AF. Seeing the reviews of the Canon 35mm f2, I guess
>> > shooting at 35mm also shouldn't be too much pain.
>> >
>> > I also own a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 which is really nice but
>> > the 1.6x crop factor makes it a little difficult to use it all the
>> > time.
>> >
>> > I am leaning towards lenses that are f1.8 since even after stopping
>> > them down by a stop or half I would still be at ~f2.8.
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>> If you want ONE fast lens that will handle most of your shooting in that
>> 24-30 or, let's say, 35 range, go with the Sigma 28 f1.8, since it fits
>> nicely halfway in between. If you need the angle of view of the 24,
>> just take a giant step backwards. For the 30 or 35 view, a step
>> forwards will do it. Plus, the 28 makes a nice companion lens to your
>> 50.
>>
>> If, however, you're set on getting the Canon 35 f2.0, too, get the Sigma
>> 24 f2.8 instead of the 28. The 28 is so close in angle of view to the
>> 35 as to make it a waste of money to own both, and the 24 works well in
>> conjunction with the 35. As far as wanting f1.8 lenses, Sigma does make
>> a 24 f1.8, which B&H Photo sells for about $340. However, since you're
>> only doing "general" photography, I doubt if you'll ever have need of
>> that 1.8 aperture, unless you intend to do low light work like shooting
>> plays or concerts, etc. So why pay for something you won't use much or
>> at all? Personally, I'd go with 24mm f2.8 and save that extra $240 you
>> would have spent on the f1.8 version for a future purchase, something
>> wider like a 17, which would work well with the 24.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Stefan
>
> Thanks for the detailed response, Stefan. Although, I am not a pro-shooter
> but two things put me off from anything that is f2.8 and above. One is
> that indoors and in available light I find the more aperture I can get the
> better it is especially when the subjects are children who just won't stay
> still :)  However, if someone can convince me that f2.8 will work fine wide
> open then I think the Canon 28mm f/2.8 is a no-brainer given the price and
> performance.

Well, I've been shooting professionally for almost 30 years. And, yes,
lens performance does improve when stopped down a stop or two, and then
unimproves due to diffraction when stopped down further; however, depth of
field increases. With good lenses, these improvements or the degradations
can mostly only be seen at high magnifications. For general photography,
you'll never notice it regardless of what f-stop you use. The exception
being in the corners with wide angle lenses, which sometimes -- depends on
the lens -- will appear slightly "soft" due to spherical abberation, but
if you're using a full frame lens on an APS-C sensor size DSLR, that
won't be recorded because the corners fall well off the sensor with only
the center of field of the lens being used, and that's where the lens
performs best, in the center. With "digital" lenses this wouldn't be the
case, and the corners could be soft wide open with wide angle lenses or
the wide angle setting of a zoom.

So, when you need to shoot wide open, shoot wide open and don't worry
about lens performance. What's more important: getting the shot or
missing the shot?


> Two is that, IMO, any lens will need to be stopped down since I cannot
> expect the lens to perform at its best wide open. So a f2.8 would
> probably end up f3.5 or f4 in practise?

Technically, yes, but optics designed for 35mm and the professionals who
use them perform to professional standards wide open or stopped down.

> As for the focal length, I checked the perspective difference between
> 24mm, 28mm and 35mm with my Sigma 24-135mm and I found 28mm to be very
> acceptable. Add to that the premium I would've to shell out for a 24mm,
> I think 28mm is just fine.

Sounds like a optimum choice.

> I would've been happier if Canon made a 28mm f1.8 but since it doesn't I
> will go with Sigma. The only issue is that I will have to get a friend
> who's coming from US to India to get the lens and that means either I
> just depend on my luck to get a good copy or have one my friends in the
> US who owns a Canon dSLR to test it before they get it over here.

Canon does make a 28 f1.8. $385 US at B&H Photo.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...

> Another interesting lens is the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Its f1.4 and has HSM.
> Unfortunately, its too pricey at $450 for me to put in a fixed focal
> length lens :( 

Have never used this lens. Most likely never will. With Canon's
DSLR 1.6x multiplying factor, it's equivalent to about a 50 on a 35mm film
camera, and the 50 is one focal length I have little need for. It's
either not wide enough or not long enough.

> Am also hunting for any M42 mount 24/28mm lenses that are f1.8 or f2 but
> can't find any.

IIRC, the old screw mount Pentax Super Takumars from the late 60's to
mid-70's were M42 type. I had a 28, but it was an f3.5. I don't remember,
if there was a faster one.

Stefan
Anonymous
September 27, 2005 5:56:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 02:36:46 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
>
> > Stefan Patric wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:20:24 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> >>
> >> > Stefan Patric wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:46:28 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Add the Canon 35mm f/2 to that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> >> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I am looking for a 24/28mm FF lens for Canon 300D. The candidates
> >> >> >> are: - Sigma 24mm f2.8 ($109 used at KEH) - Sigma 28mm f1.8 ($144
> >> >> >> used at KEH)
> >> >> >> - Canon 28mm f2.8 ($159 new at B&H)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which one would you chose and why?
> >> >>
> >> >> It would depend on the intended use of the lens: Landscapes,
> >> >> lowlight available light work, photojournalism, or just "general"
> >> >> photography. It would also depend on what lenses I already owned, and
> >> >> whether or not I wanted to use it on both a DSLR and a 35mm film
> >> >> camera.
> >> >>
> >> >> Give me a little more details and I'll give you my best
> >> >> recommendations.
> >> >>
> >> >> Stefan
> >> >
> >> > Apologies for not filling in enough details. I intend to use this for
> >> > *general* photography. I already own a Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 which
> >> > gives me pretty nice colours and sharpness (atleast to my
> >> > satisfaction) at the wide end at f2.8. I found that I do most of my
> >> > shooting at 24-30mm so I thought it would be nice to have a 24/28mm
> >> > lens thats lighter than my current Sigma and maybe faster too, both in
> >> > aperture and AF. Seeing the reviews of the Canon 35mm f2, I guess
> >> > shooting at 35mm also shouldn't be too much pain.
> >> >
> >> > I also own a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 which is really nice but
> >> > the 1.6x crop factor makes it a little difficult to use it all the
> >> > time.
> >> >
> >> > I am leaning towards lenses that are f1.8 since even after stopping
> >> > them down by a stop or half I would still be at ~f2.8.
> >>
> >> Okay.
> >>
> >> If you want ONE fast lens that will handle most of your shooting in that
> >> 24-30 or, let's say, 35 range, go with the Sigma 28 f1.8, since it fits
> >> nicely halfway in between. If you need the angle of view of the 24,
> >> just take a giant step backwards. For the 30 or 35 view, a step
> >> forwards will do it. Plus, the 28 makes a nice companion lens to your
> >> 50.
> >>
> >> If, however, you're set on getting the Canon 35 f2.0, too, get the Sigma
> >> 24 f2.8 instead of the 28. The 28 is so close in angle of view to the
> >> 35 as to make it a waste of money to own both, and the 24 works well in
> >> conjunction with the 35. As far as wanting f1.8 lenses, Sigma does make
> >> a 24 f1.8, which B&H Photo sells for about $340. However, since you're
> >> only doing "general" photography, I doubt if you'll ever have need of
> >> that 1.8 aperture, unless you intend to do low light work like shooting
> >> plays or concerts, etc. So why pay for something you won't use much or
> >> at all? Personally, I'd go with 24mm f2.8 and save that extra $240 you
> >> would have spent on the f1.8 version for a future purchase, something
> >> wider like a 17, which would work well with the 24.
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> Stefan
> >
> > Thanks for the detailed response, Stefan. Although, I am not a pro-shooter
> > but two things put me off from anything that is f2.8 and above. One is
> > that indoors and in available light I find the more aperture I can get the
> > better it is especially when the subjects are children who just won't stay
> > still :)  However, if someone can convince me that f2.8 will work fine wide
> > open then I think the Canon 28mm f/2.8 is a no-brainer given the price and
> > performance.
>
> Well, I've been shooting professionally for almost 30 years. And, yes,
> lens performance does improve when stopped down a stop or two, and then
> unimproves due to diffraction when stopped down further; however, depth of
> field increases. With good lenses, these improvements or the degradations
> can mostly only be seen at high magnifications. For general photography,
> you'll never notice it regardless of what f-stop you use. The exception
> being in the corners with wide angle lenses, which sometimes -- depends on
> the lens -- will appear slightly "soft" due to spherical abberation, but
> if you're using a full frame lens on an APS-C sensor size DSLR, that
> won't be recorded because the corners fall well off the sensor with only
> the center of field of the lens being used, and that's where the lens
> performs best, in the center. With "digital" lenses this wouldn't be the
> case, and the corners could be soft wide open with wide angle lenses or
> the wide angle setting of a zoom.
>
> So, when you need to shoot wide open, shoot wide open and don't worry
> about lens performance. What's more important: getting the shot or
> missing the shot?

Absolutely, getting the shot. If f1.8 means getting the shot a little
softer than not getting the shot with f2.8 or f4, I would definitely
chose f1.8.

>
>
> > Two is that, IMO, any lens will need to be stopped down since I cannot
> > expect the lens to perform at its best wide open. So a f2.8 would
> > probably end up f3.5 or f4 in practise?
>
> Technically, yes, but optics designed for 35mm and the professionals who
> use them perform to professional standards wide open or stopped down.
>

Yep, thats a good point. I overlooked that.

> > As for the focal length, I checked the perspective difference between
> > 24mm, 28mm and 35mm with my Sigma 24-135mm and I found 28mm to be very
> > acceptable. Add to that the premium I would've to shell out for a 24mm,
> > I think 28mm is just fine.
>
> Sounds like a optimum choice.
>
> > I would've been happier if Canon made a 28mm f1.8 but since it doesn't I
> > will go with Sigma. The only issue is that I will have to get a friend
> > who's coming from US to India to get the lens and that means either I
> > just depend on my luck to get a good copy or have one my friends in the
> > US who owns a Canon dSLR to test it before they get it over here.
>
> Canon does make a 28 f1.8. $385 US at B&H Photo.
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
>

Doh!! Again, how did I overlook this? I've been scouring B&H online
catalogues for some time now :) 

> > Am also hunting for any M42 mount 24/28mm lenses that are f1.8 or f2 but
> > can't find any.
>
> IIRC, the old screw mount Pentax Super Takumars from the late 60's to
> mid-70's were M42 type. I had a 28, but it was an f3.5. I don't remember,
> if there was a faster one.

There are tonnes of M42 mount 28mm f/2.8 lenses on ebay for less than
~$20 but can't find any at f1.8 or f/1.4. Weird!! Didn't the ancients
need f1.8 or less below 50mm? :) 

Ok, so to sum up the shortlist is as follows:
- Sigma 28mm f1.8 $270
- Sigma 24mm f1.8 $340
- Canon 28mm f1.8 $385

Or, just grab the Canon 28mm f/2.8 at $160 :-)

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
September 28, 2005 12:02:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 01:56:24 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

>> > Am also hunting for any M42 mount 24/28mm lenses that are f1.8 or f2
>> > but can't find any.
>>
>> IIRC, the old screw mount Pentax Super Takumars from the late 60's to
>> mid-70's were M42 type. I had a 28, but it was an f3.5. I don't
>> remember, if there was a faster one.
>
> There are tonnes of M42 mount 28mm f/2.8 lenses on ebay for less than ~$20
> but can't find any at f1.8 or f/1.4. Weird!! Didn't the ancients need f1.8
> or less below 50mm? :) 

No, not weird. The reason there aren't any super-fast M42 lenses is
that at the time the lenses were made -- 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s -- the
technology, materials and knowhow to produce fast lenses didn't exist or
it did, but was so expensive as to be unmarketable to most consumers.
Only the military and "governments" could afford them. By the 70s with
the use of computers and lasers, this changed, but by then screw mounts
had been dropped in favor of bayonet.

You might want to check out this place for new screw mount lenses and
companion rangefinder film cameras:

http://www.cameraquest.com/inventor.htm

These lenses, as well as the rangefinder/viewfinder cameras they mount on,
are very good. I borrowed an R body with a 35mm f2.5 lens from a friend
and ran some quicks tests on slide film. I was more than satisfied with
the results. Although, the camera's shutter was as loud as my Nikon
FM2n. (Without the motor drive, of course) And the film advance required a
little extra force than I remember -- I haven't thumbed a film advance
lever in 20 years -- but it was smooth. It definitely ain't no Leica.
However, I was very impressed with the camera's built-in light meter. I
checked it against my Gossen Luna Star F incident meter, and the camera's
readings, even in difficult lighting situations, were always less than a
1/2 stop different. Very impressive for a simple reflectance meter. No
computer chips in this camera! All mechanical. Anyway, postponed getting
one in favor of a greater need for a digital SLR.

> Ok, so to sum up the shortlist is as follows: - Sigma 28mm f1.8 $270
> - Sigma 24mm f1.8 $340
> - Canon 28mm f1.8 $385
>
> Or, just grab the Canon 28mm f/2.8 at $160 :-)

Well, FWIW, I'd rate the Canon 28mm f2.8 superior optically wide open to
the Sigma 28 f1.8 stopped down to f2.8. Canon lenses, for the most
part, are designed with the professional in mind, while Sigmas are
designed for your average "serious" amateur. But if you have it in your
head that you need a 1.8, then get a 1.8. You'll be dissatisfied
otherwise, and will end up buying a 1.8 anyway, and selling off whatever
you bought instead at a loss. Thus, costing you more than if you got the
1.8 to begin with.

Stefan
!