I was very happy with Sigma 20mmf1.8 on APS-C, it was one of my favorites, although I rarely used it at f1.8.
Now I am enjoying using tiny primes on EOSRP
28mmf2.8 and 50mmf1.8 are great even using adapter.
I am considering a 35mm lens (since I liked my 20mm APS-C) , and I already have so many lenses I am not using, so would a 35mm (EF or RF) make any sense
I would sell 28 and buy 24 and 35. 24 is a must wide angle in my book, while I do like 35mm for street photography as well. 28 I find too wide and too narrow at the same time.
However, surely your mileage might vary. ;-) Yet there is no problem having two classic wides like 28 and 35 at the same time.
(04-16-2021, 07:35 PM)MatjazO Wrote: [ -> ]I would sell 28 and buy 24 and 35. 24 is a must wide angle in my book, while I do like 35mm for street photography as well. 28 I find too wide and too narrow at the same time.
However, surely your mileage might vary. ;-) Yet there is no problem having two classic wides like 28 and 35 at the same time.
I already have Sony 16mmf2.8 on A6000 (24mm equivalent) , I rarely use it since I find it too wide for my style, so I know I won't like a 24mm on my EORP
Sure, different strokes for different folks. :-)
35mm is a classic general focal lenght. You can try to force yourself to use a zoom at 35 eq. for some time. Then you should know if it fits.
(04-16-2021, 06:56 PM)toni-a Wrote: [ -> ]I was very happy with Sigma 20mmf1.8 on APS-C, it was one of my favorites, although I rarely used it at f1.8.
Now I am enjoying using tiny primes on EOSRP
28mmf2.8 and 50mmf1.8 are great even using adapter.
I am considering a 35mm lens (since I liked my 20mm APS-C) , and I already have so many lenses I am not using, so would a 35mm (EF or RF) make any sense
Yes, it would. Ether the RF 35mm f1.8 IS STM macro, or the Canon EF 35mm f2 USM.
I assume you were using the 20 APS-C lens on a Canon body.
If so, I would indeed go for the RF 35 in that case. I happen to own one, and funnily enough it is the first ever 35 mm FL lens I actually like shooting with, although I would normally prefer a 28 or 24 mm. And I can assure you I have tried many ....
I see a 35 mm FF lens as a short standard lens, and it is in principle just that little wider for slightly spacier feeling shots in tighter spots, without really having the perspective feel of a real WA lens.
The advantages of the RF 35 over (most) EF lenses are that it has good IS, is light, and has "macro" as well, up to 1:2, which is great for the occasional (handheld) close-up shot. It is also amazingly good, almost in EF 35L territory.
I happen to own the EF 40 F/2.8 which I used a lot as well in the past for the same purpose, but it is of course F/2.8 rather than F/1.8, has neither IS, nor semi-macro facility, and is only about 9 or 10 mm shorter with adapter on an RF body. It is also not as sharp.
.
HTH, kind regards, Wim