Which lens?

[AmyB2006]

Hi,

I've been looking at the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM Wide Angle Lens and the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Wide Angle Lens. Reviews on amazon are pretty decent for both.

I am looking for a good lens that can shoot in low light and that is a wide angle. I really don't want a zoom lens.

I have a Canon T2i right now. I may eventually step up and get a full frame camera so I don't know if I'm too interested in getting a lens specially made for a crop camera.

Anyway... any opinions on either of these or any opinions on another lens that might be a better option? It doesn't have to be Canon brand.

Thanks in advance.

 

[havoc315]

Hi,

I've been looking at the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM Wide Angle Lens and the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Wide Angle Lens. Reviews on amazon are pretty decent for both.

I am looking for a good lens that can shoot in low light and that is a wide angle. I really don't want a zoom lens.

I have a Canon T2i right now. I may eventually step up and get a full frame camera so I don't know if I'm too interested in getting a lens specially made for a crop camera.

Anyway... any opinions on either of these or any opinions on another lens that might be a better option? It doesn't have to be Canon brand.

Thanks in advance.

In terms of low light, how low?

In extreme low light conditions, there is a big difference between 1.8 and 2.8. (About one and a half stops).
I find 2.8 is perfectly fine for a normally lit interior. While you need 1.8 for candle lighting, Disney dark rides, etc. (And 1.4 is even better).

 

[AmyB2006]

In terms of low light, how low?

In extreme low light conditions, there is a big difference between 1.8 and 2.8. (About one and a half stops).
I find 2.8 is perfectly fine for a normally lit interior. While you need 1.8 for candle lighting, Disney dark rides, etc. (And 1.4 is even better).

Well, I will probably primarily be using it for normally lit interior, but I do want it to be able to do Disney dark rides etc.

My knowledge of photography when it gets technical, unfortunately lacks. I am an amateur at best. LOL But that's good to know.

My other issue is that I didn't want to spend $1000 plus.

 

[photo_chick]

Look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It's an amazing lens for the price. Of the two you mentioned, since you said low light I'd go with the 28 mm f/1.8. That wider aperture will really come in handy. But personally I'd go with the Sigma for a fast standard prime on a crop body.

 

[boBQuincy]

There is also a significant difference in angle of view, where a 24mm on APS-C is at the high end of what is considered "wide angle" while a 28mm crosses over into "normal view". If you like to photograph interiors a 24mm may be a better choice.

 

[SrisonS]

If you do happen to look at non-full frame lenses; I'd say to check out the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8. I'm absolutely loving mine with my T4i. Heck, with the crop sensor cameras just getting better and better; it might not be a terribly bad idea to stay that route for a while. Plus, a lot of the better lenses hold their value pretty well. So you could sell them down the line for a decent return.

If you do look at the Sigma 30mm; maybe try buying new, unless it's used but still under warranty. I had one, and it had the back/front focusing issue; even after a "repair". There is a newer version of it out though. So not sure if that has the problems that many were seeing with the older version.

 

[SkaGoat]

In extreme low light conditions, there is a big difference between 1.8 and 2.8. (About one and a half stops).

Not to be that guy but..... 1.8 to 2.8 is 1 1/3rd stops.

 

[havoc315]

Not to be that guy but..... 1.8 to 2.8 is 1 1/3rd stops.

You caught me.. I was 1/7th of a stop off.

 

[TigersLions]

My 24-70 offers a zoom and wide angle. i carried it the entire time at the parks. I brought one of my primes (for low light issues) but never put it on. i have three kids so it is hard to fiddle with my camera a ton. I just jacked the ISO way up and ran a noise reduction in Lightroom. Pictures are in Disney #2 below. If you spend a lot of money on a wide angle prime lens, I'm afraid you might not get a ton of use out of it and regret buying it. i like the flexibility of a zoom. I guess if I kept leaving it at 24 a lot, maybe I'd consider a prime. The 50mm is a great versatile lens but with a full frame I find it is hard to get enough room to back up/compose in a dynamic situation like the parks/kids hence the zoom lens is perfect for me. I do have a 35 mm prime and that makes things a little easier to not have to back up but I'd still go to the zoom. Good luck with your decision!!! I'd never turn away a new lens also check B&H photo's reviews and compare that to amazon.

 

[traylorc]

Not to be that guy but..... 1.8 to 2.8 is 1 1/3rd stops.

You have officially become "that guy"....and as such you must be eliminated.

 

[AmyB2006]

Thanks guys! I will check out the other options posted before I make up my mind.

 

[AmyB2006]

If you do happen to look at non-full frame lenses; I'd say to check out the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8. I'm absolutely loving mine with my T4i. Heck, with the crop sensor cameras just getting better and better; it might not be a terribly bad idea to stay that route for a while. Plus, a lot of the better lenses hold their value pretty well. So you could sell them down the line for a decent return.

If you do look at the Sigma 30mm; maybe try buying new, unless it's used but still under warranty. I had one, and it had the back/front focusing issue; even after a "repair". There is a newer version of it out though. So not sure if that has the problems that many were seeing with the older version.

Thanks... looks like most of the most recent reviews don't mention the focusing problem. Maybe they fixed it. But a lot of reviews from late 2013 do mention it.

 

[mom2rtk]

Amy, if you do consider a zoom option, then you really have to look at what many consider the "gold standard" for UWA, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Shooting indoors on a crop sensor (which you currently have) I would never be satisfied with 24 or 28. Try setting your kit lens to those lengths and try them out around your house.

I had the Tokina, then sold it for the Canon 10-22, which is an awesome lens in its own right. But I missed the 2.8 so sold it and bought back the Tokina. Both lenses hold their value so well I think I came out ahead in the end.

 

[AmyB2006]

Amy, if you do consider a zoom option, then you really have to look at what many consider the "gold standard" for UWA, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Shooting indoors on a crop sensor (which you currently have) I would never be satisfied with 24 or 28. Try setting your kit lens to those lengths and try them out around your house.

I had the Tokina, then sold it for the Canon 10-22, which is an awesome lens in its own right. But I missed the 2.8 so sold it and bought back the Tokina. Both lenses hold their value so well I think I came out ahead in the end.

Do you think the 2.8 is good enough for dark rides and low light? The 24 and 28 do concern me with the crop sensor.

My kit lens broke - translation - My DH broke my kit lens. LOL So I never replaced it with another kit lens, I bought the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens as it's "replacement". It's the one I leave on there the bulk of the time.

 

[mom2rtk]

Do you think the 2.8 is good enough for dark rides and low light? The 24 and 28 do concern me with the crop sensor.

My kit lens broke - translation - My DH broke my kit lens. LOL So I never replaced it with another kit lens, I bought the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens as it's "replacement". It's the one I leave on there the bulk of the time.

That really depends on the dark ride. The 2.8 is fine on Small World. But HM is a no go. POTC is iffy. I have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that I break out for dark rides. But I'm thinking of adding the 18-35 f/1.8 Scott mentioned to I have something faster and wider for dark rides and night parades.

The 24 and 28 really aren't too far off the 30mm of my Sigma lens. And honestly, while it's far better than the 50mm prime I have and never use, I still want wider a wider fast lens. But that might just be my personal shooting style.

I also have the T2i and will go to ISO 3200 but think 6400 just looks awful, even with noise reduction.

You could still use your 18-135 lens and set it to 24 or 28 to use for a while to see how it feels. Definitely do that indoors to get a feel for how tight that feels.

My walkaround lens is the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. It's on my camera 90% of the time. We celebrated my son's birthday this weekend and my lens was off at the Canon factory being cleaned. I put the 30mm on and just didn't enjoy using it. But that might just be me.

 

[havoc315]

Do you think the 2.8 is good enough for dark rides and low light?

No. Not for extreme low light, or the dark dark rides.

Of course, it depends on the usable ISO of your camera and other factors.

But all else being equal, there is a big difference in 1 1/3 stops.
It means if you are already pushing ISO 3200 with the 1.8 lens, you would need to go over ISO 6400 to compensate with a 2.8 lens. And that can be the difference between an acceptable noise level and an ugly noise level.

On APS-C, I always found that 2.8 was acceptable for low light in terms of a normally lit interior shot. But 1.8 was necessary for candle light, truly low light, etc.

So "bright" dark rides -- Like Small World, can be managed with a 2.8 lens. But don't count on getting shots of Peter Pan.

 

[AmyB2006]

All good information to ponder over. Thank you all very much.

 

[photo_chick]

Do you think the 2.8 is good enough for dark rides and low light? The 24 and 28 do concern me with the crop sensor.

My kit lens broke - translation - My DH broke my kit lens. LOL So I never replaced it with another kit lens, I bought the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Standard Zoom Lens as it's "replacement". It's the one I leave on there the bulk of the time.

If you don't feel that 24mm is wide enough for you then look at the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 mentioned if you can swing the price. It's fast enough for dark rides.

Go look at your own EXIF data and see how often you shoot wider than a given focal length. Ask yourself if you'd have the room to back up in those situations? Also think about the perspective distortion you're going to have when you start shooting with a shorter focal length... it forces you closer to your subject and that might not be the look you want. Focal length is about more than how much you can get in the frame. A really wide angle is great for landscapes and many other things, but not always great for portraits. It all comes back to what you want to shoot though.