Fast affordable 28mm/35mm prime?

[USLatin]

Could someone suggest a very fast 28mm or 35mm prime? The type of lens you would shoot a whole movie with if you felt like doing that?

AF is not necessary, but optical quality is. Hopefully around f/1.4, f/2 at the very least.

And if you feel like sharing, what would be the primes you'd pick for a full set of good manuals?

Thanks in advance.

[Boz]

I guess it depends on what you define as 'affordable'. Some would consider this 35mm f/1.4 lens "affordable" at $1349: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7304

It's too rich for me, so I'll be going with the 35mm f/2 lens, which is less than $300: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=151&modelid=7299

[mhood]

The more I read about lenses for my 7D, the more I conclude that there is no such thing as a fast wide prime for APS-C cameras. The 50mm 1.4 would seem to be a must have but 80mm is a bit too close for tight work in low light. All of the zooms I've studied seem to have short comings (Tokina 11-16 = bad CA, Sigma 24-70 = focus problems, Tamron 17-50 = build problems) but the APS-C industry sure seems to push us toward 2.8 zooms. Hopefully, I'm missing something obvious but I'm sure confused right now as to what lens I need to compliment the 28-135 kit.

[Everts]

@ Boz


besides the price what is the main difference between these two?
.Cause from P Blooms videos we already know that the 35mm f/1.4 creates some execellent images.

[J Davis]

Speaking of 35/1.4's ... I'll be shooting with a 35/1.4 but it didn't cost me an arm or a leg.
It's a manual focus Nikon AIS they are turning up on ebay from time to time
at fairly reasonable prices. Just need an adapter that's all.

Sorry roberto, I know you're after 28, just putting options for people out there.

[mico]

@ Boz


besides the price what is the main difference between these two?
.Cause from P Blooms videos we already know that the 35mm f/1.4 creates some execellent images.

They say that sharpness doesn't kick in until you're at f4 on the 35mm f2. Which defeats the purpose .

I've rolled this around alot and there are no shortcuts and you gotta pay for the glass.

Even tho the cameras will change you most likely will live with these lenses for a long time so the investment will be worth it and even if the fear of say Nikon coming out with a better cam and your Canon glass will be useless for that cam you can bet Canon will not be far behind in this never ending race.

[Everts]

My thoughts exactly Im a total noob here but ever since the announcement of the Gh1 and the 7d . of just been thinking about glass / lenses. and very little about the vdslr cameras themselves.
The 35mm f/1.4 seems the be a very good all around lens.

[qazwsx]

what about the canon 28mm f/1.8?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/102851-USA/Canon_2510A003_Wide_Angle_EF_28mm.html

or the zeiss 28mm f/2 with nikon to eos adapter?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/524035-REG/Zeiss_1486_409_Wide_Angle_28mm_f_2.html

[Jean Dantes]

The Canon EF 28mm f1.8 looks pretty good:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28mm-f18.htm

It costs $680 down here in Australia, but I dunno how much it goes for in the US though...?

[Jean Dantes]

Woops, just noticed your post gazwsx. There ya go, $500.

[mhood]

Maybe I'm missing something but "fast, wide and affordable" isn't 28-35mm on APS-C cameras...44.8-56mm isn't wide at all is it? We need a 16mm prime at 1.4 don't we?

[Kholi]

They say that sharpness doesn't kick in until you're at f4 on the 35mm f2. Which defeats the purpose .

I've rolled this around alot and there are no shortcuts and you gotta pay for the glass.

Even tho the cameras will change you most likely will live with these lenses for a long time so the investment will be worth it and even if the fear of say Nikon coming out with a better cam and your Canon glass will be useless for that cam you can bet Canon will not be far behind in this never ending race.

the truth.

I don't care what Ken Rockwell says either, as far as I'm concerned I'm sticking with Zeiss for ownership.

[Kholi]

Maybe I'm missing something but "fast, wide and affordable" isn't 28-35mm on APS-C cameras...44.8-56mm isn't wide at all is it? We need a 16mm prime at 1.4 don't we?

No. We don't measure by full frame. IRS useless in a cinematic environment.

A 17/2.8 is wide and fast for todays sensors. A 14-24/2.8 nikon would be the ultimate wide angle purchase.

[J Davis]

I've been looking for a used 14-24. Had a play with one, frickin' huge. No filter thread either.
Settled on the toki 116 nikon mount. Those ruby guys can't be that far wrong. ;)

[KeithAndrews.TV]

Unfortunately for wide, fast and sharp you may have to look at Zeiss primes. They are designed to be optimumly sharp at the widest aperture, but unfortunately they are not cheap.

[mhood]

How fast we have abandoned affordable! Not wishing to attempt to understand a highly technical discussion of the effects of APS-C crops on prime lens usable field of view, I did notice while shooting a person at his desk in a typical office with my D90 and a 50mm prime, that there wasn't enough room in the office for me to get far enough away from the subject for a MS. Not very normal to me. I suspect the 28mm prime would have been closer to normal but where does "wide" actually begin (in mm) on APS-C cameras?

And why the Nikon mount for the 7D? Don't want AF and the adapters are plenty good? Also, did the reported lateral CA bug in the Tokina 116 bother you?

[USLatin]

I had been looking at most of the lenses you guys mentioned. Other than the 28mm f/1.8 which I didn't look at closely. They all seem to be worth their price. The 35mm f/1.4 is in fact the lens I wanted to get, but I would have to give up on a lot of other stuff:

ATM I am looking at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 which is a great wide for x 1.6. I have a specific interest on this lens, which is to use it for scouting for Red using the Duclos PL version of the same lens. But now I am worried about CA which I thought was not supposed to be bad at all. Maybe not when you consider what you can do with it? Am I missing a review that touches on its CA in greater detail? (please link me Mhood)

Then on top of that I was looking at the 17-55mm F/2.8 which seems like a bad-ass bargain for its excellent optical quality, decent speed and the focal range for x1.6. It is a lens that you could use for run and gun or docu style, and get just about everything you need. The only thing I am worried about is manual focusing. Does anyone have experience with it?

And this is where it gets complicated: If the manual focusing were good enough on the 17-55, I should only buy one more lens after those, and keep it at around $500.

I would be lacking in two things that I need:
1. A longer portrait, I love 100mm!
2. A faster wide/normal.

For #1, I was thinking of the Canon 100mm f/2.0. But, I don't want to be "stuck" with f/2.8 on the wide end for low light.

For #2, despite being able to shoot up to about ISO 800 with clean results, some times more light is what you need, some times you want shallower DoF on a normal shot and can't change the blocking. However $500 ain't gunna cut it when the only one that seems tofit the bill is the 35mm f/1.4 L.

About the ZFs: I would obviously love to go with a three hopefully four piece ZF set. But no cash for that. What would I get on that end? It don't think I could even get two primes on top of the Tokina. The 50mm f/1.4 sounds great, but that one does seem to have some serious CA issues. The rest are all ~$1000 each.

So, I was hoping to find some oldies but goodies... like J Davis started to talk about. But I know next to nothing about which to look for. Unless there are other alternatives I would love to hear which are the coveted oldies.

[mhood]

The Tokina review: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon

I in no way endorse or express any confidence in this review. The site did seem pretty complete regarding Canon APC-S lenses though. I have never even seen the Tokina 116, much less actually shot with one.

[cordvision]

Hey what about getting the tokina 11-16, and a couple zeiss contax lenses like:
28mm f2.8 (ca. $300-400) or the f2 (ca. $800)
50mm f1.4 (ca. $250)
85mm f1.4 (ca. $650-800)
Contax adapter (ca. $150 for a good one)

Contax Zeiss lenses are well built, are pretty sharp, have a long focus throw (not reversed like nikon), manual aperture....
That is what I would go for...

[USLatin]

Hey Michael, that sounds good, as you know I trust you with lenses enough to just do what you tell me I should. However, does that 28mm f/2.0 look sharp as heck wide open or does it need to be stopped down to f/2.8? I can't find a review with samples at different apertures. I am having a hard time finding reviews for all Contax actually.

And I had this question answered many times before, but just to be safe: Would the adapter change the lens properties at all? Like make it slightly longer focal lenght or something else?

About the CA on the Tokina. Here is the section of the article you linked us to Mhood: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=1
"Chromatic Aberrations (CAs) So far things were very rosy but the lens has also a bug - lateral chromatic aberrations - visible as color shadows at harsh contrast transitions. The characteristic is quite uniform across the range with an average pixel width at around 1.5-1.9px at the image borders. This is better compared to its in-house cousin but still not great. A quite typical flaw in many Tokina lenses actually.

However, don't blow this aspect out-of-proportions - lateral CAs can be fairly easily corrected via various tools such as the Adobe Photoshop RAW converter (ACR)."



http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/tokina_1116_28_canon/ca.jpg


What is encouraging is that this is a 200% crop, and of a still which was likely much higher resolution than 1080p. So the effect would be far less noticeable after down-conversion for 1080p from a Red, or probably not even captured in 1080. Also you could "easily" correct this in AE, right? Possibly not as much with compressed footage but certainly with compressed RAW.

So, unless my analysis or knowledge failed me I think the Tokina is still a no-brainer.

[J Davis]

I wouldn't worry too much about the CA unless you plan to be shooting a lot of stills with it.
Aren't you planning to use it for a movie? Nobody's gonna be looking at the corners of the screen, they will be watching
your actors (most probably mid frame) for however many seconds and then cut to MCU or whatever.

Locating the Tokina 11-16 is the next task, they can be as elusive as a GH1.
And then you need to think carefully about whether to get canon or nikon mount,
as you may not always be shooting with the 7D.
If you go Nikon like I did then you will not be able to measure f stop accurately.

[J Davis]

I did notice while shooting a person at his desk in a typical office with my D90 and a 50mm prime, that there wasn't enough room in the office for me to get far enough away from the subject for a MS. Not very normal to me. I suspect the 28mm prime would have been closer to normal but where does "wide" actually begin (in mm) on APS-C cameras?

For me when shooting with the GH1 (4/3rds is smaller than APS-C) I was using 28mm for normal then went to FD 24/1.4L for my main normal indoor lens when low light and AIS 24/2.8 when I didn't need low light.


And why the Nikon mount for the 7D? Don't want AF and the adapters are plenty good? Also, did the reported lateral CA bug in the Tokina 116 bother you?

I went Nikon mount because at the time I was shooting GH1 and I had FD and Nikon adapters. Nikon works best for me at this stage since the market is changing rapidly. I look forward to shooting with the 7D but I am being very realistic about how long I may stay with it. After all this is my scarlet money I'm using to flip these DSLR's.

[USLatin]

I am actually very concerned with stills ATM. I will be shooting quite a bit of people here in LA to earn some bread, develop my eye, and further develop a few of the "intangibles" that carry onto directing.

Video is never secondary of course, but I wouldn't consider a 7D due to the skew if I were shooting motion for money.

Now, let's not have an argument about that, if anyone is itching to jump at me for saying that. But, I am of the opinion that you shouldn't get a tool that has any sort of effect on your camera movement to avoid an issue with the image.

I had to sell my HVX to get a good stills camera, and I'll just try to ignore the skew for my personal stuff... and rent when other people are paying and expect something the 7D can't deliver without diagonals and jello. Of course, there are things that work with what the 5D can do, and then it shines.

Davis, I am definitely going Canon. It mightbe worth to mention a small added bonus of being able to send it in to Duclos for PL transformation, if they didn't strike that as an option. I know for a fact though that they are only transforming Canon versions.

[J Davis]

EDIT
sorry I just re-read you post properly, ferget what I said it made no sense!

2nd EDIT
That's quite a chunk of change to get the lens converted, good for you though. Is duclos conversion the Ruby? or are there two different crowds converting them?
I never read through all of those threads completely.

[USLatin]

I wish I could afford a lot of things. :) But we are tied up with other things right now.

I am not a shooter by profession. I am not trying to become a DP either. So my ability and justification to get expensive gear is limited AND forgiving.

The 7D won't deliver motion across the frame flawlessly, but it should allow me to continue working on my cinematography if I can ignore the skew and jello. I can afford to have image issues, and it would be plenty good for casting, scouting, headshots, BTS, and flight hours.

It might make me develop some bad habits, but at least they will be different ones, again broadening my cinematography experience and understanding.

[sblfilms]

the truth.

I don't care what Ken Rockwell says either, as far as I'm concerned I'm sticking with Zeiss for ownership.

The Zeiss glass is fantastic if you don't need it for stills (no AF).