05-27-2011, 12:52 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1306497803' post='8852']
Canon EF 35mm f2. Nice little lens. Focusses fast and accurate, sharp. With back light backgrounds (light through trees/foliage) the bokeh can get very busy with shapes, but otherwise the lens behaves well. Not always the most contrasty lens (back light).
Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM, most users seem to love it, most reviews seem less impressed.
Canon EF 24mm f2.8: most owners love this lens over the other small wide angle primes.
I have the 35mm f2 myself already, and I like it for certain close up stuff, and sometimes city/landscape photography. I will most probably add the 24mm f2.8 to my lenses, as its small size and good optics make it a nice moderate wide angle lens on APS-C and a nice wide angle close up candidate (with 12mm extension tube).
I'd go for the 24mm f2.8, to give a 35mm-ish equivalent on your APS-C camera. And in case you would want 2, I'd consider the 35mm f2 with it.
[/quote]
Hi Brighcolours!
Thank you for your detailed answer.
Originally I was thinking about the Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM for the angle of view, the usm and the fact that I have already the lens hood (same as the 28-105) and the polarizer.
However, as you highlight, the delta between the test and the users review is far too important. I'm a bit lost with this lens.
The 35 looks to be my second choice (my "dream" lens is the 35 L 1.4) However I found sometimes that I prefer the angle of view of the 28mm on the 40D...
In final, the image quality, within my budget, is for me the most important.
How really compare the 35 vs the Canon EF 24mm f2.8?
Maybe you and somebody else could bring his "stone" to help me with the final choice <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Canon EF 35mm f2. Nice little lens. Focusses fast and accurate, sharp. With back light backgrounds (light through trees/foliage) the bokeh can get very busy with shapes, but otherwise the lens behaves well. Not always the most contrasty lens (back light).
Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM, most users seem to love it, most reviews seem less impressed.
Canon EF 24mm f2.8: most owners love this lens over the other small wide angle primes.
I have the 35mm f2 myself already, and I like it for certain close up stuff, and sometimes city/landscape photography. I will most probably add the 24mm f2.8 to my lenses, as its small size and good optics make it a nice moderate wide angle lens on APS-C and a nice wide angle close up candidate (with 12mm extension tube).
I'd go for the 24mm f2.8, to give a 35mm-ish equivalent on your APS-C camera. And in case you would want 2, I'd consider the 35mm f2 with it.
[/quote]
Hi Brighcolours!
Thank you for your detailed answer.
Originally I was thinking about the Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM for the angle of view, the usm and the fact that I have already the lens hood (same as the 28-105) and the polarizer.
However, as you highlight, the delta between the test and the users review is far too important. I'm a bit lost with this lens.
The 35 looks to be my second choice (my "dream" lens is the 35 L 1.4) However I found sometimes that I prefer the angle of view of the 28mm on the 40D...
In final, the image quality, within my budget, is for me the most important.
How really compare the 35 vs the Canon EF 24mm f2.8?
Maybe you and somebody else could bring his "stone" to help me with the final choice <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />