StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've decided to purchase a new lense for the Canon EOS 40D I use. Currently the only lense I "have" is a Sigma 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6 superzoom, and while I would kill for the wideangle glory of the Canon Ef-S 10-22 or the Tokina 11-16/2.8 lense(s) a thousand bucks is almost my entire annual income, so I'll delay that.

I thought that the best route for me to be able to experiment and develop my skills further, if not an ultra wide (but expensive) lense would be a nice, cheap prime lense, namely the Canon EF 35mm/F2.0 or 50mm/F1.8 lenses. (Which I can get here for 130$ new for the 50mm or 220$ for a used version of the 35mm from a highly reputable shop).
This would let me try some low light work, as well as being able to make some real use of Bokeh/shallow DoV in photos, as well as weighing a quarter of what my current lense does, so I can carry it around as a back up.
I only have the budget (and will) to buy one of them, and i'm not sure which.

The 35mm is wider, which is a big benefit for me (I prefer landscape shots, and if I try to do any party work it's better for groups than a 80mm film equilevent lense), although the 50mm is an effective mini zoom (For low light) and is cheaper to boot.

Any advice from the Lense/canon buffs in the forum? Thanks

I own a 35mm f2.0 and I've borrowed a friend's 50mm f1.8 before; asides from the 35mm having better build quality, I don't really notice a lot of difference between the two. I'd say the 35mm is the more useful of the two since it works out to almost a 50mm lens on a 35mm/full frame body. The 50mm works out to 80mm equivalent on the 40D, which is a little long for most purposes.

It really depends on how often you see yourself using the prime, as either one of them will handle just about any lighting situation when paired with the good ISO1600 performance from the 40D. If it's something you see yourself using quite often, pick up the 35mm one. Otherwise, save your money, get the cheaper 50mm one and use that for your experiments.

By the way, did you end up plumping for the stabilized version of the Sigma 18-200, or the non-stabilized one? The aperture on the 18-55mm I got with my camera seized up recently, and I was thinking of picking up an 18-200 OS.

I would suggest looking at lens review sites such as this one.

According to the reviews, the lenses are close enough to each other in performance that either one would be fine. Basically, it comes back to you in whether you want the lens equivalent of 56mm or 80mm. Since you prefer sweeping landscape and party shots, go for the 35mm lens. The 50mm I would suggest more if you were looking at doing portraits.

Either way, you get the benefit of taking images from the lens' sweet spot, as they're EF mount lenses that you're putting on a camera with an APS-C sized sensor.

DaveJB wrote: By the way, did you end up plumping for the stabilized version of the Sigma 18-200, or the non-stabilized one? The aperture on the 18-55mm I got with my camera seized up recently, and I was thinking of picking up an 18-200 OS.

Stabilized . It's a nice lense (Although I only have a cheap 4/3 18-45 Sigma to compare it to), but fucking heavy.

lukexcom wrote:I would suggest looking at lens review sites such as this one.

I've checked the digital-picture and luminous landscape, both have the lense as being nice, and great for the price.
I'm more interested in what will be better for me to improve my skills with .
(Thanks for the replies btw)

The 50mm prime is the standard lens for 35mm film cameras. Until zoom lenses and point & shoot cameras started taking over, this was the lens that almost every single 35mm film camera came with. This is because it best approximates the average human's field of vision so pictures taken with it look more natural. If you could only have one lens, it's the one to get.

Since you're using a DSLR, I'd highly recommend the 35mm/F2 as it's the closest thing to a 50mm lens on a film camera.

Or you can go to film and get one of these with a 40mm/F1.4 lens.

Leica just came out with a 50mm/0.95, though that's probably a little too expensive for him

You think? For what it costs the box it comes in better be filled with top quality cocaine.

aerius wrote:You think? For what it costs the box it comes in better be filled with top quality cocaine.

Sigma actually came out with a giant 50mm/1.4 in the usual 35mm SLR mounts that looks to be really, really good ... if they can fix their atrocious quality control issues. It's also pretty damn pricey for a 50mm lens.

phongn wrote:

aerius wrote:You think? For what it costs the box it comes in better be filled with top quality cocaine.

Sigma actually came out with a giant 50mm/1.4 in the usual 35mm SLR mounts that looks to be really, really good ... if they can fix their atrocious quality control issues. It's also pretty damn pricey for a 50mm lens.

Big and heavy=Bad, especially for a prime, I'll want to use it as a back/carry-around lense.
And most of my lenses (The canon 18-200, and the 4/3 18-50) are Sigma and they're fine pieces of equipment. Especially since they cost half the bloody price

Phongn wrote: Leica just came out with a 50mm/0.95, though that's probably a little too expensive for him Wink

By approximately 2 orders of magnitude. The military documentation budget as a whole might cover that lense, and I don't have access to that budget or job . (Unfortunately).
I've been day-dreaming about that though, it's only the third F1< lense ever.
Might as well get the Leika S2 or the Zeiss Distagon lenses or maybe a set of Canon L series while we're at it .

Aerius wrote:This is because it best approximates the average human's field of vision so pictures taken with it look more natural.

That's a bit less of a consideration, since "natural" is so bloody Boring . (Unless I find the horrible amount of cash needed for a flash and check on working as a party photographer. Which is a possibility, hence my considering the 35mm despite its drawbacks). .

Thanks all, I'll go to the shop today and I'll check the used 35mm lens. If it looks alright (What should I look for apart from scratches and focusing?) you can expect some photos with it soon .

DEATH wrote:Big and heavy=Bad, especially for a prime, I'll want to use it as a back/carry-around lense.

And most of my lenses (The canon 18-200, and the 4/3 18-50) are Sigma and they're fine pieces of equipment. Especially since they cost half the bloody price

Sigma's 30/1.4 had back/front-focusing issues (particularly important for a fast lens) and word is that their new 50/1.4 also has those problems. Sure, you can send it in to get it fixed under warranty, but that's such a pain in the ass.

Now, what I really want is a 1.4 prime with image stabilization ... mmm.

Thanks all, I'll go to the shop today and I'll check the used 35mm lens. If it looks alright (What should I look for apart from scratches and focusing?) you can expect some photos with it soon .

Make sure it works properly, make sure it doesn't front or back focus. If you have a laptop, bring it with you.

phongn wrote:

DEATH wrote:Big and heavy=Bad, especially for a prime, I'll want to use it as a back/carry-around lense.

And most of my lenses (The canon 18-200, and the 4/3 18-50) are Sigma and they're fine pieces of equipment. Especially since they cost half the bloody price

Sigma's 30/1.4 had back/front-focusing issues (particularly important for a fast lens) and word is that their new 50/1.4 also has those problems. Sure, you can send it in to get it fixed under warranty, but that's such a pain in the ass.

Sending anything in for warranty from ISrael is either impossible or horribly expensive. (With just about any consumer electronics ).

Now, what I really want is a 1.4 prime with image stabilization ... mmm.

rool:

Thanks all, I'll go to the shop today and I'll check the used 35mm lens. If it looks alright (What should I look for apart from scratches and focusing?) you can expect some photos with it soon .

Make sure it works properly, make sure it doesn't front or back focus. If you have a laptop, bring it with you.

What do you mean "doesn't back or front focus"? You mean it can focus on what's close or far? Or checking if it doesn't "switch" between them randomly .
And I have the lense now, had a lot of fun with it at a party, although it doesn't give me the same "wow, that's sharp and great bokeh!" feeling the 50mm 1.8 did when I tried it out a few weeks ago).
Still fun, i'll need to think of somewhere to test it with/on

DEATH wrote:Still fun, i'll need to think of somewhere to test it with/on

A nudie bar. You're old enough now to get into strip joint aren't you?

aerius wrote:

DEATH wrote:Still fun, i'll need to think of somewhere to test it with/on

A nudie bar. You're old enough now to get into strip joint aren't you?

I'm fucking 20 (As of next week ).
That would cost money though, I might as well add more cash with someoen and hire a nude model. (Ask nicely and I'll send you the portraits, they came out excellently, but I didn't post them to sdn )