[Jon L]

I do like the IQ of Canon 50mm F/1.8 II for my T2i; however, it's too cramped for inside house shots. 

Unfortunately, non-L Canon primes in 28, 35mm triple and quadruple in price compared to 50 F/1.8, and I read various negative remarks such as how 28 F/1.8 cannot handle outside sunlight and gives colors not as vivid as 35 F/2,  and how 35mm F/2 is sharp in center but soft in corners, not to mentions the ancient design and auto-focus. 

So I looked at Sigma 30mm F/1.4, which is even more expensive, with some claiming it not as good as Canon primes mentioned above with auto-focus inaccuracies and sample-to-sample variance. 

I'm also looking at the Tokina 35mm F/2.8, which generally has good user reviews, but that F/2.8 bothers me compared to F/1.8 to 2.0 since I will be shooting a lot indoors in available light.  I also saw some people compare it to Canon primes and say Tokina is not as "neutral" in colors. 

Any suggestions and experiences? 

BTW.  I did just receive the universally-praised Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X.  It does its wide-angle thing beautifully, but I do think canon 50 F/1.8 II shoots better dim indoors pics, after mentally compensating for the FOV difference.  Outside shots are nice though.. Shot at 16mm.

[adydula]

Hi,

What is your budget?

Check out http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Look at the ratings etc....

I have 20+ Canon Lens, mostly 'L' type, excellent...remember you do not have a full fame
sensor in your Canon, so the softeness at the edges is not accurate.

I shot professionally and love audio!

My wife shot as my assistant at a wedding last month and used a similar 10 MP canon rebel type of body with a 28-135 non L zoom at the wide end...again remember your sensor has a 1.6 x factor so a 28 is more like a 50mm and your 50 is like a short tele. The point here is I printed up several prints of hers for the client at 11 x 17 that are very sharp and nice looking...just stop down one or two steps...

The more expensive lens are made to have great edge to edge sharpness wide open. The non- L' s are softer but again your not using all of the lens with a 1.6 factor camera. Also if your stop down 1 or 2 stops it gets better that wide open.

Life is a compromise so are camera lens!!

Alex

Note, once u use a Canon L lens with its quality, quiet motor drives and color fidelity you wont even look at Tokina, Sigma etc and yes I have some of those as well. :>)

This is a great lens for what your looking for:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=3&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

[Wind Chaser]

I have the Sigma 30 1.4 and it's a fine lens but it's not wide enough for interior shots.  I also have a 15mm prime however I still don't consider it wide enough for that application.  If you can get your hands on a Sigma 10-20, give that a try.

[Jon L]

Hi,

What is your budget?
.
.
Note, once u use a Canon L lens with its quality, quiet motor drives and color fidelity you wont even look at Tokina, Sigma etc and yes I have some of those as well. :>)

Your first and last sentence pretty much sum up the problem 

Something like Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM costs around $1400, and I'm not a pro, not even a semi-pro, to justify that kind of expenditure on one lens.  I'm just looking to have IQ similar (or better if possible) to the Canon 50mm F/1.8 in dim inside situations but in 28mm to 35mm range, and the budget I would set for myself is "around" $400..

[Wind Chaser]

How wide is wide enough?  I don't have interior shots but this gives you an idea. 


10mm



20mm



35mm

I also have the same shot taken at 12mm, 14mm, 17mm, 24mm, 28mm, 50mm, 70mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm and 300mm.

[Wind Chaser]

BTW, the Sigma 10-20 can usually be picked up for around $400 used.  Here's a thread with many samples... 

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/84539-sigma-10-20mm-club.html

[Jon L]

BTW, the Sigma 10-20 can usually be picked up for around $400 used. 

As I mentioned, I already have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X, which at 11mm is plenty wide for house internal photo's.

Ultimately, I plan to go with primes for the middle/normal ranges (28 to 35 on 1.6x) and add a wide zoom (Tokina 11-16) and a telephoto (at a later time). 

If some of you already have plenty of L-lenses and want to get rid of your non-L primes, let me know 

[Wind Chaser]

As I mentioned, I already have the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X, which at 11mm is plenty wide for house internal photo's.

Doh!   Didn't see that.

[adydula]

Wanting to take shots inside in small rooms, low light speaks of expensive FAST lens or mediocre lens and using flash.

When using wide angle like lens below 20mm you have to be careful taking shots...u can get all kinds of other issues to deal with...

I have the 35 mm F2 and find is a very nice lens for the money. Not L glass but still quite exceptable. Its fast, but you say 11 mm is ok for you...gee thats pretty extreme and very costly etc.

If 11mm is what you think you need then 35 mm is not even close.

But the 35mm would be equal to your 50mm 1.8 and at F2 its close to what you have.

The Canon 28 to 135 zoom with IS is also a non L lens that I used and still do sometimes is a great price performer. I shot several inside events with it, acceptable stopped down with flash. Its less than $400 new.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/585955-USA/Canon_CA2813535IS_EF_28_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html

But this is not a prime.

The issue your seeing here is really brought on by APS-C sensors with the 1.6 x multiplier. Wide angles again are not as wide as the mm indicate on these cameras. If you have a full frame DSLR...yes much more $$$$ this is less of an issue but then you use the whole lens and would then want to have L lens even more so.

I have several SIGMA lens and they work ok, but they bump and grind, make all kinds of noises, autofocus is not as good/smooth etc...the glass in some are ok but in high useage...u get what u pay for!

Kind of like audio!!

All the best
Alex

[kip_]

I have the 17-55 F/2.8 IS Canon Lens, and I love it to death. It's not a prime, but it's an amazingly sharp, contrasty, bright lens. It is not an L series either - it has the image quality but not the weatherproofing. It will be more versatile than any of the primes your considering, though not quite as bright.

I paid around $800 for mine, used.

[adydula]

kip,

this is a great lens as well.

Its $1K +/- new

The 17-40 F4 is a L lens and it can be had new for $700 or so albeit F4.

What we really dont know is what 'kind' of indoor photos this person is really wanting to do.

Too many lens, too many choices sometimes get in the way of just taking great photos/

Wanting or thinking a 11m lens is whats needed and having it in a zoom then wanting it in a prime by looking at a 35mm because of cost is not making sense.

If you really want the 11mm capability and really think its too soft for what your doing or wanting, then the altenatives are few and expensive.

At least compared to this persons $400 budget.

For now if the $400 is a real show stopper use the 11mm ----zoom and stop down or use a flash to fill in and save your $$$$ and get a lens that will last you a lifetime and hold its re sale value.

Alex

[Jon L]

If 11mm is what you think you need then 35 mm is not even close.

I should clarify. I have 2 main needs.  One is wide-angle house internal structure shots for my wife's work (real estate).  I already have that covered with Tokina 11-16.  In fact, 11mm (17.6mm equiv) is too much IMO, and I use 15-16mm most of the time (24-25.6mm equiv), which renders a more natural perspective IMO.

The other need is the all-purpose, walk-around, head/shoulder, body, and sometimes group shots, mostly inside houses or restaurants.  For this, I would like a "normal" lens for 1.6x body. I expect this one lens to be on my T2i most of the time, and I would like a very nice lens without going into L price range.  I care less about things like bokeh quality, corner-sharpness, a little barrel distortion but care more about center/face sharpness and natural, neutral colors with "punch."

I want to avoid zoom lenses due to higher cost, higher F/Stop, size and weight.  Also, I kind of enjoy "framing" by walking back and forth a little with my own  feet 

Still looking.  Looks like J&R is going to offer $25 off gift card starting 12/1, but that's so Looonnng away 

A sample of internal shot at 16mm.

[adydula]

Ok ..got it....nice shot by the way in the interior and your last reply indicates you understand some of the issues shooting inside with wide angle..

If your budget is $400.

Then the choices get slim fast!! Especially if you dont want the expense of a zoom or the weight of a zoom.

I use a 24-85 mm F2.8 and it weighs 3 lbs alone! Add the body and flash extender and flash then you know why my arms sore at the end of an all day wedding !!

But the photos and color rendition are superb...

Canon 24mm F2.8 for around $300
Canon 35 F2 F2 fro around $300 ( I have this an its a very nice lens if its wide enough for you. This focal length is like a full frame 50mm lens...)

There is a EFS 18-55 F3.5/F5.6, i call it the plastic fantastic for less than $200 had 2 of them. This would suit your wide angle but the color quality is just not there for me...

Sigma 28mm f1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro $250-$300
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical RF $350

All the best
Alex
 

[Jon L]

Thanks for the reply.  I think I will decide between Canon 35mm F/2 and 28mm F/1.8.  I don't like the fact the former is old design without smooth USM, but the latter is more expensive.

In terms of pure sharpness, neutral colors, which one?  I'm thinking "around" $400, meaning up to $500 in that audiophile way.  I'm also getting the impression that neither will really be an improvement over the cheap 50mm F/1.8 II, but that would be fine since I like that lens with clear shots like this.

F/2.2 1/60 sec ISO 200 50mm

[Jon L]

Frustrated over the choice among Canon 28mm F/1.8, Canon 35mm F/2, and Tokina 35mm F/2.8, I just bid and won this little thing.  What the hell, the stock market was up... Audiophiles don't stick to budget anyway.

Zeiss ZE Distagon T* 35mm F/2

[Goosepond]

That's a very nice lens. But I hope you realize you just gave up auto focus? 

Gene

[Jon L]

That's a very nice lens. But I hope you realize you just gave up auto focus? 

Gene

I know, but I don't shoot moving objects, and trying manual focus on my Canon and Tokina lenses of late has opened my eyes to the freedom MF gives you.  Besides, the MF mechanism of the Zeiss is reportedly fantastic.

[Goosepond]

Yes, as long as you go in for MF, you could do a lot worst than Zeiss. Usually the key to lenses designed for MF is to just look at the focus ring. Usually they are much longer than modern AF lenses.

And the ZE series do talk to the Canon body so you can shoot in AV, TV, etc.

I have a feeling you're in for a big diff comparing the look of your Zeiss images to your 50 F/1.8.

I took a big plunge a couple of years ago and bought the Canon 50L F/1.0 just to touch it. It's 19 years old and looks new 

Gene

[Wind Chaser]

If you decide you need a focus screen, break down and buy a Katzeye.  They are expensive but the best by far.  Even in the lowest light imaginable you can still pull perfect focus.

[Jon L]

If you decide you need a focus screen, break down and buy a Katzeye.  They are expensive but the best by far.  Even in the lowest light imaginable you can still pull perfect focus.

LOL.  One buy begets another!