Prime for 7D?

[ud4steve]

I'm looking at getting a prime lens to help with low light shots on my 7D. I primarily shoot landscapes when I go hiking but also do some travel/ vacation photography; so lots of museums and the like. Most of my favorite shots though are at the wider focal lengths of my 17-40 f/4. I've been looking at the 20 f/2.8, 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8, and 50 f/1.4 but thought I would try to get some perspectives from other people, get their experiences with these lenses, and maybe at least help me narrow things down a little. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

 

[ferdi]

Have you also considered manual focus lenses like a Canon TS-E 17/24mm or a Zeiss 21mm?

 

[ud4steve]

ferdi, thanks for the response. I have looked at the TS-E lenses because I think they would be a great lens to shoot with, but unfortunately they are a little out of my price range at the moment, plus they aren't a whole lot faster, if at all, than the 17-40 f/4 I have right now. I haven't really looked at the Zeiss, but at first glance it also seems a little expensive.

 

[bainsybike]

How about a Sigma 30mm F1.4?

 

[whatta]

I wanted a fast normal prime for aps-c. I went for the sigma 30 1.4

 

[RS]

I have used Canon 7D. I have 17-40, great lens but F4 limits you for inside using. I also have 50 F1.8. This great the superb piece of the glass. For me there is very small diffrence between F1.8 and 1.4 (at 50mm). If you do not want to carry more than one lens (travelling), think about the 24-70 F2.8 - for me the best walkaround lens.

 

[dr croubie]

I'll swear by my Samyang 35/1.4, sharp corner-to-corner, 'normal' framing on 7D for half-full body portraits and groups if you've got room, and I stitch a lot of panoramae taken with it too. A tiny hair below the zeiss for IQ, built sturdily enough but not zeiss or canonL quality.
Manual-focus isn't for everyone, but TS-E and Zeiss are also MF.

There's not much else in the faster-wider-affordable wide of the market, from every review i've seen stay away from the sigma 20/1.8, the 28/1.8 and the 20/2.8 are kinda old designs and don't really cut it on digital sensors either.
14/2.8L II and 16-35 f/2.8L are too expensive i presume?

 

[danski0224]

The wider end of your 17-40 on a 1.6x crop body = 27mm on a full frame.

Every other lens that you have listed is more than that.

The tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a nice lens, and used at 16mm will be 25.6mm equivalent- closely matching what you have now.

The Canon 16-35 LII is f2.8, much better for low light than f4, but not the same as f1.4.

 

[Jettatore]

I've never used it, but a person named 'Pag' from this forum posted shots taken with an 8mm Fisheye that looked really good. I am probably going to buy it and use it on a 7D myself.

Their post is here, and check on some of the later images in their gallery for more info in the caption. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2193.msg47387.html#msg47387

 

[neuroanatomist]

Most of my favorite shots though are at the wider focal lengths of my 17-40 f/4. I've been looking at the 20 f/2.8, 28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8, and 50 f/1.4 but thought I would try to get some perspectives from other people, get their experiences with these lenses, and maybe at least help me narrow things down a little. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Of the lenses you list, the one that gives the best IQ is the 50mm f/1.4. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 also delivers good IQ, but the usual caveat is that you need to get a 'good copy' as there are many reports of AF issues with Sigma lenses.

On APS-C, 17-40mm covers wide angle through normal - that's a reasonably broad range. You might look over your favorites from that lens, and see if there's a focal length you prefer or shoot at most often, and let that guide your choice.

Not sure if your budget covers it, but IMO the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is the best walkaround lens for an APS-C camera, I'd choose that over the 17-40mm unless I had an absolute need for weather sealing. It's a stop faster, and for static subjects the IS system means it's effectively 4 stops faster than the 17-40mm.

 

[TexPhoto]

The 28 1.8 is a great little lens and makes for a nice "normal" lens on a 1.6 crop. And it's FF so it can stay with you if/when you move to FF. I would take it over the Sigma 30mm all day long because of that.

For wider than that, you really are stuck with a zoom unless you want to spend $$$$. There are lots of great choices, but I'd recommend the Sigma 8-16mm. If you like wide, you will love crazy wide. Also the Sigma 12-24 II as it's very wide and FF.

 

[S29Blackhawk]

I mostly use the 17-55 2.8 on my 7D with occasional use of a 50 1.8 and a 100 IS 2.8. I do a lot of low light shooting (early morning light) of animals and travel and find the 17-55 to be a fantastic lens. It is so sharp that you can crop to get much more reach and is wide enough to cover city shots as well as landscape. Both the 50 and 100 are also good lens and the 50 is so inexpensive that if you have room in your bag it is a no-brainer.

 

[AprilForever]

45mm TS-E? You might really enjoy it...

 

[87vr6]

The 28 1.8 is a great little lens and makes for a nice "normal" lens on a 1.6 crop. And it's FF so it can stay with you if/when you move to FF.

Of the lenses he listed, this is the one I would also recommend. He likes landscapes, which means wider, and the 28 1.8 fits this bill perfectly for the crop body. You can get them refurb'd from Canon, Adorama, B&H for about 400, so go for it. You won't regret it.

 

[ud4steve]

Thank you everyone for your advice, I really appreciate it. I think I'm going to go with the 28mm f/1.8 as it seems like the best compromise of being somewhat wide, maximum aperture, capable of being used on FF when (hopefully) I switch over, optical quality/ performance, and price. Thank you again for all the replies, I looked at a lot of lenses I wouldn't have before and I'll keep in mind until I actually purchase the lens.

 

[Zuuyi]

I was in the Sigma 30/1.4 camp too. But have fun with the 28/1.8.
And regarding to transfer to Full Frame; sell the 30/1.4 then buy a 50mm. Because a 50mm will give you a similar shot on FF as the 28-35mm will on Crop.

 

[DJL329]

Thank you everyone for your advice, I really appreciate it. I think I'm going to go with the 28mm f/1.8 as it seems like the best compromise of being somewhat wide, maximum aperture, capable of being used on FF when (hopefully) I switch over, optical quality/ performance, and price. Thank you again for all the replies, I looked at a lot of lenses I wouldn't have before and I'll keep in mind until I actually purchase the lens.

Have fun with the 28mm f/1.8! I love it for landscape shots. One thing it has over the 50mm f/1.4 (my most used lens) is a 7-bladed diaphragm, which makes great 14-point stars on bright lights at smaller apertures. I don't know why lenses with an odd number of blades make "stars" with twice the number of points, but perhaps neuroanatomist can explain it to us...

 

[coolguy1793]

have you considered the EF 14mm 2.8 IS? GREAT lens!!!! The EF28 1.8 is really great but a used 28mm 2.8 is a really great lens and can be had for under $150.

 

[alipaulphotography]

28mm f/1.8 - useable on full frame.
sigma 30mm f/1.4 - wider aperture.

Take your pick.

 

[KacperP]

I don't know why lenses with an odd number of blades make "stars" with twice the number of points, but perhaps neuroanatomist can explain it to us...

Just a theory:
With even numbers rays overlay themselves in pairs, with odd number rays spreads does not stack, i.e. 7 blades create 14 "rays", 8 blades would create 16 rays, but due to "stacking" it would look like 8 rays anyway