T2i Prime Lens

D

DDirector

Veteran
I need to purchase a prime lens for my T2i as it can get pretty damn difficult to film with the 50mm I currently have. Its like a 80mm with the crop factor.

So, I need something wider but I don't know what would be a good prime lens to get. Possibly one of the more popular focal lengths?
Something that will also be good on a shoulder mount rig.

I was thinking of getting a Sigma prime lens, one of these;
20mm f/1.8
24mm f/1.8 *Top choice
28mm f/18

*The 24mm is my top choice as its a 38mm with the crop, but I don't know if I might be going too wide?
If I get the 28mm, it would be close to a 50mm with the crop.
Or, should I just go wider to the 20mm?

And as long as I don't get distortion in the image.

I know it varies on what I am doing, but right now I don't do anything specific. I do a lot of photography and a bit more of video. There is nothing specific of what I do. I'm talking about in general.
 
Last edited:
I like the Nikon 28mm.
It is one Damn sharp lens, that is also cheap and f 2.8.
I might just buy a bunch a rent them out.
 
You wanna go with the Sigma 28mm f/1.8. So far it's been my favorite lens for DSLR video. On the crop body you get a nice slightly-less-than-normal focal length and sharp performance. Handles really nice (I really love their focus ring with pull-back lock) and balances well on the T2i. Plus it's only $350 and you can shoot in the dark wonderfully.

The $100 price bump to the 24mm gets you down from ~45mm equivalent to ~39mm. Worth it for a bill and only 6mm shorter? Your call but I vote no. For only $70 more than that you can get the 20mm, which is ~32 equivalent, or 12mm sorter than the 28mm, which is significant.
 
If you are shooting at F2.0, you will have such a shallow depth of field, that you can't (or wouldn't want) to use most of the footage.

At least that shallow footage would be of little use to me for anything more than a few shots.
 
This guy just posted some darn nice looking footage with a Sigma 30 1.4.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=208013

Just a couple threads over.

You really pay for that 1.4, though (though it's still cheaper than a name-brand). In daylight you'd need some ND's if it's sunny out. If you can get by with 1.8, the Canon 28 1.8 is less costly and sharper. It'll feel less cheaply made than the Sigma, as well.
 
I have the Sigma 24mm 1.8 macro and absolutely love it. It provides great filmic shallow depth of field for a relatively wide angle lens, even when stopped down. Being a macro you can make fantastic detail shots as well. I'm just finishing a music video I shot almost completely with it on the T2i, I'll try to post the link when done. (Some low light environment shots among it with shooting 60fps at 1/120 shutter so many shots with the lens being at 1.8)
 
I was at the store to see how wide the lenses are and the 20mm is probably going to be a bit too wide for what I am doing right now.

So, I am going to go for one of the three;
Sigma 24mm f/1.8 *might be still a bit too wide?
Canon 28mm f/1.8
Sigma 30mm f/1.4

I heard a lot of good things about the Sigma 30mm, same with the Canon 28mm. But both have their pros & cons.
With the Sigma, I heard the focus on the edges is bad. And the Canon may have color displacement, but is sharper?

If these these 3 lenses were the exact same cost (or free) and you have to take one of these, which would it be, and why?
Really they are about a $5-$10 difference between each lens.
 
Last edited:
I just bought a canon 28mm 1.8, and works great used it 3 times over the weekend on different shoots.
 
The Canon is definitely sharper, but only for stills. You wouldn't notice any difference for video.

I think the question for you is do you need 1.4 for low light and/or slim dof. If not, definitely get the Canon. (1.8 is still pretty good!)
 
steventimothy said:
The Canon is definitely sharper, but only for stills. You wouldn't notice any difference for video.

I think the question for you is do you need 1.4 for low light and/or slim dof. If not, definitely get the Canon. (1.8 is still pretty good!)
Click to expand...

F/1.4 compared to f/1.8 isnt really that significantly big of a difference. As long as I stay under f/2.0, I will be happy.
 
the image quality of the 50 1.8 is awesome - I own one. But I wish I just bought the 1.4 just because of the build quality itself. The quality of the image for video is negligible.
 
Amuse-WS said:
the image quality of the 50 1.8 is awesome - I own one. But I wish I just bought the 1.4 just because of the build quality itself. The quality of the image for video is negligible.
Click to expand...

Who's talking about the 50? Were talking about the 28, not the 50.
 
Last edited:
I wasnt able to post back my thoughts...

I bought the Canon 28mm f/1.8 not too long ago, and I do see somethings about the lens that do disapoint me. It seems to have noticable soft focus. When shooting video, will this be an issue? I also do some photography.

Is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 sharper than the Canon 28mm f/1.8?
I might be thinking about replacing it with the Sigma, what do you think?

*Comparing to my other lens (50mm f/1.4), when I compare them side by side trying to focus on one object, like letters in the BG, it has a soft focus, and sometimes very hard to find focus. The focus ring doesnt stop at the end either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top