Canon EF 28mm f1.8 vs Canon EF 50mm f1.4

J

Jean Dantes

Well-known member
Ok, I've narrowed down my selection to the these two lenses:


Canon EF 28mm f1.8

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


Canon EF 50mm f1.4

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f14.htm


I can only afford one for the time being, and would just like to know which would be the better lens for shooting music-videos and short-films.

I originally had my heart set on the 50mm, but it is only recently that I learnt about "crop factor". On the 7D, the 50mm becomes 81mm, and the 28mm becomes 45mm ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1-6x.htm ).

The one thing that got me worried about the 28mm was in Ken Rockwell's review where he wrote:

"Bokeh is rarely an issue with wide lenses since everything is usually in focus anyway".

That doesn't mean that I won't be able to achieve shots consisting of low depth-of-field, right?

What lens would you guys go for out of these two in order to a achieve the most cinematic look?

If you guys know of other lenses that would fit the 7D, and will perform the same/better then the Canon EF's at a lower price, please share your knowledge.

Thanks in advance to any replies, much appreciated!
 
Jean Dantes said:
That doesn't mean that I won't be able to achieve shots consisting of low depth-of-field, right?
Click to expand...

I highly recommend that you wait until you have the camera. Then go to a camera store that has a variety of lenses (probably including the two you've posted about here). Try them on the camera and get a feel for their weight, size, operation, and images.

We can talk all day about focal length, aperature, circles of confusion, depth of field in measures of millimeters, etc. But all we are trying to do is describe how it looks. It is much simpler, and much more effective, to simply see the lens yourself and to experience how manipulating it manipulates the image it produces.

IMHO, when you are in a position to buy either one or the other but could really use both, it really needs to be obviously clear before the purchase is made that the one you are buying is exactly, or as close as realistically possible, what you want.

In fact, if you really need to order it ASAP, go to said camera store and try out the lenses on another APS-C camera. It won't be exactly the same, but it should give you an idea of what you are looking at. Literally.

P.S. What is with all the "color=white" tags in your post?
 
I also, second that recommendation, but if you're going to go with one lens, go with the 28, thats roughly a 42mm lens and is going to be very useful.

The question you should be asking yourself is, what will you do about gettin a wide? lol, a 16mm lens = 24mm, where can we get one of those for a not so hefty price tag!?!?
 
PaPa said:
I also, second that recommendation, but if you're going to go with one lens, go with the 28, thats roughly a 42mm lens and is going to be very useful.

The question you should be asking yourself is, what will you do about gettin a wide? lol, a 16mm lens = 24mm, where can we get one of those for a not so hefty price tag!?!?
Click to expand...

AFAIK, there really are no options for inexpensive fast primes less than 20mm. The closest thing is the Sigma 20 f/1.8. For focal lengths less that you basically have to get one of the f/2.8 ultrawide zooms from the third party manufacturers (Tokina, Tamron, Sigma) if you don't want to spend a lot. This is the price we pay for a cropped APS-C sensor.
 
You could also get the kit lens for general use and rent a couple of fast primes for serious shooting days. In your case that would make much more sense imo.
 
when i say not too expensive, i would like to spend under 500 for a wide with a minimum F2.
 
PaPa said:
I also, second that recommendation, but if you're going to go with one lens, go with the 28, thats roughly a 42mm lens and is going to be very useful.

The question you should be asking yourself is, what will you do about gettin a wide? lol, a 16mm lens = 24mm, where can we get one of those for a not so hefty price tag!?!?
Click to expand...

You keep confusing people. The crop factor is nonsense and inapplicable for people seeking to emulate an S35 aesthetic.

A 16 is the same 16mm you see in major motion picture application
and nothing less.

To the op: 28/1.8

get the wider lens to start with and work your way up and down later. A 24/28 or 35 is ideal for nearly any composition you need. A 50 will limit you as far as distance from cam to subject to farground relationships. If the 28 exhibits minimal image distortion then you should get more than ample use out of it.

Also invest in some close focus diopters to extend the capabilities of all of your lenses. They rock.
 
huh? Where did that come from? lol, not confusing at all kholi. You pop on a 35mm lens on the 7D, and the image you're getting ( apparent field of view ) will give you the same result as if you were using a 56mm lens on full frame sensor.

Are you saying this isn't the case? Cause as long as i've been investigating, if i want to get the same wide angle that i get with my 24mm lens on my letus elite, ( assuming im zoomed in to full frame ) then i will need a 16mm lens to give me the same apparent field of view.
 
Last edited:
PaPa said:
huh? Where did that come from? lol, not confusing at all kholi. You pop on a 35mm lens on the 7D, and the image you're getting ( apparent field of view ) will give you the same result as if you were using a 56mm lens on full frame sensor.
Click to expand...

when was the last time you saw a feature film helmed in vistavision?

Were not talking photography were talking cinematography. There is no crop factor. PL are manufacutred to project the prime of it's image unto a plane of the same siZe as what's in the 7D. Are you going to tell Roger Deakims that his 28mm cinema prime is really a 46mm lens?

It's a 28mm. There is no equivalent.

When the cinematic universe suddenly converts to full frame then people can get confused. As far as the 7d and aps-c sized sensors go, the lens is going to give you the same results on this camera as S35 motion picture. Which is not full frame.

It's only adding confusion and useless to point out in an environment spirited toward cinematic motion picture acquisition, not stills.

Sent from my iPhone in a lingerie store.
 
Kholi said:
when was the last time you saw a feature film helmed in vistavision?

Were not talking photography were talking cinematography. There is no crop factor. PL are manufacutred to project the prime of it's image unto a plane of the same siZe as what's in the 7D. Are you going to tell Roger Deakims that his 28mm cinema prime is really a 46mm lens?

It's a 28mm. There is no equivalent.

When the cinematic universe suddenly converts to full frame then people can get confused. As far as the 7d and aps-c sized sensors go, the lens is going to give you the same results on this camera as S35 motion picture. Which is not full frame.

It's only adding confusion and useless to point out in an environment spirited toward cinematic motion picture acquisition, not stills.

Sent from my iPhone in a lingerie store.
Click to expand...

Beautiful. Needed to be said and understood.
 
Ps I'm not trying to be a peepee head. I'm on my iPhone and can't really type on this thong.
 
Tim Le said:
The problem is the audience here at DVXUser is unlikely to be use to S35 focal lengths. I doubt many of us have used S35 cine lenses enough on S35 shoots to be use to the FOV for each of those S35 focal lengths to know what coverage each of them have (I assume this is what Kholi means by "S35 aesthetic").

Instead, most us are probably familiar with 35mm full frame still photo and the FOV associated with focal lengths for that image format (i.e. 50mm is standard, 28mm is wide, 20mm is superwide, etc.). So to understand what FOV you will get on the 7D with respect to a full frame 35mm photo frame, you have to calculate the crop factor.

But I do understand what he is saying if you intend to work in the industry where you be shooting in S35 with S35 cine lenses, then you should get use to S35 focal lengths. However, given the nature of DVXUser, I think most here will be using economical still photo lenses and they should be aware that the FOV will not be the same as on 35mm full frame if that's what they are use to (which most likely is the case).

EDIT: I wanted to add that many of us are probably use to video cameras like the HVX200. It's important to know that in the specs for those cameras, the equivalent 35mm focal lengths stated for the lens is with respect to full frame 35mm photo. This is another reason why people are more likely to be use to full frame 35mm photo focal lengths.
Click to expand...

I am completely aware of the difference, but as stated, im talking about 35mm still lenses. So Yes, on a 35mm film cinema camera, sure, no crop, but we're using still 35mm lenses so a crop factor still exists and we need to take that into account, because the majority of users will be using the same lenses i am.
 
PaPa said:
I am completely aware of the difference, but as stated, im talking about 35mm still lenses. So Yes, on a 35mm film cinema camera, sure, no crop, but we're using still 35mm lenses so a crop factor still exists and we need to take that into account, because the majority of users will be using the same lenses i am.
Click to expand...

They are the same thing. There's no difference in measurement between a 25mm Cooke S4i and a Zeiss Zf 25mm on the same camera. They will both be the same.

The crop factor is for a world of still photographer.
 
Is there something you're trying to tell us? Don't get the eye patch thong - it's only for lobbyists! :grin:

Kholi said:
Ps I'm not trying to be a peepee head. I'm on my iPhone and can't really type on this thong.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thank you all so much for the replies and opinions, much appreciated!!!!!!!

I'll will def pick up some ND filters like you suggested Michael.

Kholi, I must admit, I was under the impression, like some of the others, that when a lens is used on a camera that is not FF, the field of view changes. Sorry for misleading everyone with my original post!

So Kholi, when you shot that beautiful GH1 video - the Thrifty store one (is Thrifity a shop in the US by the way?):

http://www.vimeo.com/4582107 (for those who haven't seen it)

- you employed the use of both a 50mm and a 28mm - 70mm. But the 2x crop factor did not effect the field of view of both lenses?

If the crop factor does not play a role, perhaps I should purchase the 50mm f1.4 (I'm told 50mm is the best lens to replicate the field of view of the human eye, is that true?).

Also, sorry to bother you with this and all my novice questions, but could you go in depth a little more with this:

Kholi said:
If the 28 exhibits minimal image distortion then you should get more than ample use out of it.

Also invest in some close focus diopters to extend the capabilities of all of your lenses. They rock.
Click to expand...

Do 28mm usually suffer from less image distortion then other lenses? And also, what's a focus diopter?

Thanks again to everyone for the feedback!! :)
 
As far as the wide = not very shallow DOG, Your wide shots SHOULDN'T be that shallow. It is one of the most irritating things I see in 35mm adapter and DSLR videos. Everybody goes around shooting at f1.4 so that barely anything is in focus. The other side effect of shooting wide open all the time is the image is softer on the open end of the aperture but sharpens considerably as you stop down the F3.5+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top