T2i Needing suggestion on 28mm-35mm Lens (cost efficient)

J

jrod81

Veteran
Poor grad student can't spend much, but the 50mm 1.8 canon lens is just too long (acting like an 80mm or so on the crop sensor). I loved that it only cost me $100 but honestly for my son's birthday parties and family get togethers, it simply is not wide enough. I am thinking I should go with something in the 28mm-35mm range but need some suggestions... I can't imagine there is a $100 option with a 1.8 or 2.0 but how much am I am going to need to spend to get close to match image quality as I am getting with the 50mm currently...
thanks for the help
jared
 
if you don't need autofocus, the absolute best below $1600 right now is the Samyang 35mm f/1.4, which costs $500; here I have an explanation of how awesome it is: http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html#samyang - a cheaper option with good image quality could be the canon 24mm f/2.8, or the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-vc); I'm not aware of any other good but cheap options in that focal range (among other things, because vintage glass on the wide side of things is usually not stellar)
 
You know, instead of blowing a whole lot of money on a 28-35mm fast lens you could easily buy an old nikon in that focal range and a hot shoe flash that would give you perfectly acceptable indoor family pictures for a lot less then $500.
 
Just a note so you don't get confused. the rokinon and the samyang are the same lens. Just different branding. Also the tamron 17-50f 2.8 (non VC) that was suggested is a good all round lens that you will find invaluable. think of it as having a 17, 24, 28, 35, 50 mm prime f2.8 lenses and anything in between, all in one lens for $370 (i got mine off ebay brand new for that price from a high rated seller.) I think that would be your best deal.
 
okay, i was thinking prime but the Tamron is making the most sense now that I think about it... a bit nervous about the 2.8 but it's obviously a very popular choice... now i know this stirs up alot of discussion but why have 2 people suggested the non VC?
I was under the impression we wanted the VC... has that changed since I researched this lens back a few months ago perhaps? or is it still just personal preference?
 
Are you (OP) mainly interested in stills or video?

VC/IS is less important at shorter focal lengths. If you shoot with a loupe to give you 3 points of contact, you definitely don't need VC below 35mm. At 50mm it is quite useful. The non VC is optically better, it's true, but for video, the resolution difference is not so important. Both Tamrons are a great bet, if you have the money.

Since you say it's for family gatherings rather than professional work, you might consider a vintage lens. I would only look at this if you're really keen on getting a faster lens, and I mention it only because you say you're on a budget. It's worth trying these things, because if you pay the right price, you can sell it on if it's not for you.

There are quite a few variants of Vivitar branded fast 28mm lenses kicking around, and they can be had for around £40-50.

I have two fast 28mm lenses: Vivitar f/1.9 and a Vivitar f/2. I was lucky to get them both cheaply. They are great lenses for video, although not as sharp as the nifty fifty. They are both a bit softer wide open, but don't be put off, they still shoot nice video in low light.

Here is an example (not mine) of what the f/1.9 can do:

http://vimeo.com/9035381
http://vimeo.com/9034441

The f/1.9 is very rare and usually expensive, but take it from me, the cheaper f/2's you can get will give a very similar performance for video. The f/1.9 stays on my camera for when I want to quickly shoot something indoors. 28mm is the perfect 'normal' length on an APS-C camera to my eyes.
 
I agree that the non-vc is optically a better lens, but I have looked at footage from both, and you would be hard pushed to tell them apart for most applications, especially family videos. That's why I ask the OP if it's mainly for stills or video.

But as I already said, the VC is not so useful on such a short lens anyway, so why not get the better quality glass? But if someone's desparate for VC...

Here's another test:

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Le...619/(lens2)/185/(brand2)/Tamron/(camera2)/619
 
Well i can tell you from first hand experience with both VC annd NON VC versions of the tamron that I owned...the NON VC is better....sharper especially wide open. I sold my VC version.

The Option Jamesd256 presented is also a good one though i dont see any on Ebay for less than $165, however if you also want this lesn for photography then autofocus may be important to you so the tamron would make sense

So that leaves

Rokinon/Samyang 35mm f1.4

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc

vivtar 28 f1.9 (James's test video looked really nice)
 
jambredz said:
Well i can tell you from first hand experience with both VC annd NON VC versions of the tamron that I owned...the NON VC is better....sharper especially wide open. I sold my VC version.

The Option Jamesd256 presented is also a good one though i dont see any on Ebay for less than $165, however if you also want this lesn for photography then autofocus may be important to you so the tamron would make sense

So that leaves

Rokinon/Samyang 35mm f1.4

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc

vivtar 28 f1.9 (James's test video looked really nice)
Click to expand...

What I was trying to say was that some of the Vivitar f/2.0 28mm's are as good as the popular and over priced f/1.9, and can be had for less than £50 quite often. People go crazy for the f/1.9, but it's really quite soft wide open.
 
It's near impossible to match the IQ of a nifty fifty in a $200 bracket, unless you're ready to get an old manual lens. But again, most of these have 50mm focal length, so that defeats the purpose.

My suggestion would be getting one of these two:
1. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 - non VC
2.Sigma AF 17-50mm f/2.8

Both lenses perform almost similar, so get the one for which you have to pay the least, very good value for money. You would also be able to find these used for good price, and Tamron has very good warranty which makes things much easier. :) If you can spend more and need slightly better image quality/build - Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8.

If you really cant spend much and/or you just need the lens for movie making - there are plenty of good manual lenses, including the Vivitar 28mm f1.9 / f2.0 even f2.5. I am from India and I haven't seen any shops selling manual lenses here, and my source is only ebay, and yet I feel some lenses on ebay are priced really great. And I have known that there are plenty of shops selling/clearing manual/old lenses at throwaway prices much less than ebay prices, so get one of them quick and you're set. :)
 
Last edited:
jambredz said:
Also the tamron 17-50f 2.8 (non VC) that was suggested is a good all round lens that you will find invaluable. think of it as having a 17, 24, 28, 35, 50 mm prime f2.8 lenses and anything in between, all in one lens for $370 (i got mine off ebay brand new for that price from a high rated seller.) I think that would be your best deal.
Click to expand...

Very tough lens to beat for price, speed, flexibility, quality both image and build. Been shooting with that lens for a year every day on a 60D on paying projects. Real money maker. If you don't have the cash then just live with the 18-55 kit lens for a while. I shot with that for 10 months on my first 550D and it paid for itself 20 times over. Another lens hard to beat for the money is the 55-250. I bought it for a one day shoot from an moving vehicle where I needed IS and didn't have cash for the 70-200 f4 IS. I keep saying I'm going to upgrade, but keep shooting the 55-250 in the mean time.

Shot with the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non vc and the Canon 55-250mm / Cinestyle 0, -4, -2, 0 / Graded
http://www.youtube.com/user/RockmoreProduction?feature=mhee#p/a/u/2/zvEpO-3V15w
 
Last edited:
this would be a mix of stills for the wife and family get togethers, but i'd use it for video from time to time (i do some video work for a law firm off and on)
 
everyone seems to be pointing me toward the tamron if i can afford it...
i guess my one question with the vivtar is this, would i need an adapter to make it work on my t2i or does vivtar match up with canon? also, would it be able to auto focus for my wife with stills?
 
no auto focus on the vivitar and yes u need an adapter. the tamron and sigma are modern lenses that have canon mounts...so yes to auto focus and no need for an adapter.
 
jrod81 said:
everyone seems to be pointing me toward the tamron if i can afford it...
i guess my one question with the vivtar is this, would i need an adapter to make it work on my t2i or does vivtar match up with canon? also, would it be able to auto focus for my wife with stills?
Click to expand...

Um, no. Now you clarify that this is not primarily a video lens, and secondly, the wife will need to use it, it's a complete no brainer, you need the autofocus you'll find on the Tamron. Vintage lenses are for cheapo film makers and photo nerds like me.

Other than that, since you say you are interested in low light performance, it's worth considering that optical image stabilisation can give you a couple of stops better performance for non-moving subjects.

Obviously, as has been covered, if corner sharpness is paramount, you'll need to sacrifice OIS and get the non-VC model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top