30ish or 50ish prime for a 1.6 crop factor?

jkcashin

I've had my eye on a 50mm prime for my soon-to-arrive 20d for some time.. but I got to thinking, with a 1.6 crop factor, wouldn't I be better off with a 28 or 30, like the ones reviewed here: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1291043

Needs? Well, I wanted a good low light prime for available light portrait shots.

Jamie

ian408

The answer is (of course) "it depends". What do you want to shoot?

If you're concerned about quality, either would be a fine lens to own. The
only caveat being focal length.

Ian

jkcashin

ian408 wrote:

The answer is (of course) "it depends". What do you want to shoot?

If you're concerned about quality, either would be a fine lens to own. The
only caveat being focal length.

Ian

Well, mostly it would be used to shoot low light, mostly indoor, shots of people at about arms length or a bit more. But who knows.... If I was flush with cash I'd get both the 28 and the 50! But I'm not, just yet.

jamie

wxwax

I'd go with the 50, then.

BenA2

jkcashin wrote:

Well, mostly it would be used to shoot low light, mostly indoor, shots of people at about arms length or a bit more. But who knows.... If I was flush with cash I'd get both the 28 and the 50! But I'm not, just yet.

jamie

I have both a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and a Canon 50mm f/1.4 on a 1.6 crop factor body. For the situations you're describing, I always turn toward the 30.

I have only used the 50 for outdoor waist-up portraits and indoor low light situations where I'm stuck in a location further than I'd like to be from the subject and I need the extra reach.

If you can only get one, I recommend the 28/30.

wxwax

My concern with the 30 is that you'll get unflattering distortion if you're close. No chance of that with a 50 on a 1.6, plus you'll be able to get decent bokeh.

I'd go for the 30 if you were shooting wide, but that's not what you say you'll be doing.

For example, these were shot across the dinner table at 70mm on a full frame. IOW, more or less what you'd get with a 50 on a 1.6 body. And these are actually cropped a bit.

ian408

What Sid said. Get the 50.

pathfinder

I love primes, and generally suggest them over zooms, but the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di zoom is an excellent lens and costs in the same ball park as the 30 and 50mm primes. And it allows you to shoot from 28 to 70 which works very well on an APS sensored DSLR.

I have dozens and dozens of images in my galleries shot with the Tammy zoom. It was the most used lens on my 10D and I still use it on my 20D.

Just a couple of stops slower though than the 30mm f1.4 or the 50mm f1.4

wxwax

Don't forget the 50 1.8, BTW.

Bargain price, nice and small lightweight lens. A little slower on the autofocus, but a very sweet piece of glass, IMHO. In a crowd, it makes a very comfy, non-threatening combo on a smaller body like the 20D.

badtz

Id have to find some examples to back me up which I couldnt do till I got home, but the 30 isnt at all bad in terms of distortion with a close subject. I find for most indoor stuff I reach for the 30 before the 50.

BenA2

badtz wrote:

Id have to find some examples to back me up which I couldnt do till I got home, but the 30 isnt at all bad in terms of distortion with a close subject. I find for most indoor stuff I reach for the 30 before the 50.

I agree with you here. I've heard a lot of people express "concern" that the 30 would produce distortion problems. But, I've never seen any. Granted, however, I'm not doing head shots with it. For those, I'd use the 50.

I do have some examples:


Hope that helps.

Steve Cavigliano

Jamie,
I agree with PF. That 28-75mm Tammy is schweet But it can be a bit long (45mm at the wide end) on a 1.6X camera. It is stellar for indoor shots, with or without flash. I have been looking to go a bit wider and the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 looks to be the long lost brother of the 28-75.....lol The reviews. sample pics and test results look great! If interested check out this comparison.

Given the choice of the 30 or 50mm primes, I agree with Sid. The 50 should give you less distortion. Especially, when shooting tight. From maybe 6 feet on out, either should do well distortion-wise.

Ckeck out my avatar for the distortion we are talking about. Surprisingly, in real life, my nose really isn't that long....lol

Steve

kdog

It depends. If you want indoor full-body shots, get the 30. If you want headshots only, get the 50. You cannot get an entire person's body, even a child's body indoors with a 50mm, unless you're in a very large room -- larger than you will find in most homes. At least that's been my experience.

Regards,
-joel

claudermilk

I dunno, Ben. That third shot look pretty heavily distorted to me. I don't even think running it through PTLens will help much. :heh

Every kit ought to have the 50/1.8 in it. It's so cheap & the lens does such a great job, there's no reason not to get one. BTW, it's about an 82mm full-frame equivalent.

BenA2

claudermilk wrote:

I dunno, Ben. That third shot look pretty heavily distorted to me. I don't even think running it through PTLens will help much. :heh

Ahh! Good point. Guess I shoulda used the 50 for that one.:D

Vich

BenA2 wrote:

I agree with you here. I've heard a lot of people express "concern" that the 30 would produce distortion problems. But, I've never seen any. Granted, however, I'm not doing head shots with it. For those, I'd use the 50.

I do have some examples:


Hope that helps.

Actually, these are perfect examples of the issue.

Photo 1, her nose, forehead, and head are big - ever ever so slightly.

Photo 2, it's the perfect FL. Nothing is distorted.

Photo 3, the forward hand is really large compared with the back one. (just look how the wrong focal length lens twisted his face all around ... lol )

Photo 4, she looks great with that slightly smaller head. The sideways plane of her face evens out the nose and adds flare, although that forward cheek is noticably bigger looking (that I like). Nice pose.

For head and shoulder shots, a 30 will encourage you to be too close. For full body shots, you're back far enough that you're probably OK, but even then you have to be pretty careful on group shots to have them at the same plane-of-distance from the camera.

30mm isn't so bad, not nearly the problem of 18mm we see so often by kit-lens shooters. It's more a question of do you want the true picture, or do you want to flatter them a little.

Anatomy distortion due to distance from camera as a ratio to distance between the parts of the subject(s) that might look odd if they appear the wrong size. Focal length has nothing to do with it, nor does Field of View - except that they encourage wrong distance.

Therefore; a full body shot has to be shot from greater distance (than just face shot) because the feet might be disproportionately small if shot from eye-level.

Ideal focal length is generally considered 85mm (35mm EFL). Anything up to about 135 and beyond that they may begin to look flat (some say up to 110). These encourage proper distance.


So; how disiplined are you? The 30 is a great length and not too dangerous. I think more useful for party-shots, but expect to be punished for giving in to temptation.:uhoh

BenA2

Vich wrote:

So; how disiplined are you? The 30 is a great length and not too dangerous. I think more useful for party-shots, but expect to be punished for giving in to temptation.:uhoh

OK, I confess, you've nit-picked out some real distortion in those shots. But, shooting informally like this, I've never gotten any complaints. And, so, I guess I should say that all my comments have been in the context of "party shots" since that's what I (perhaps incorrectly) assumend Jamie was wanting to shoot.

Frankly, when you're talking about indoor, low-light people shooting, I have a hard time conceiving of shooting situations that aren't party-type events and where people will be so critical of distortion. Whereas, they are far more critical about the effects of flash on skin tones. In these situations, I just find the 50 on a 1.6 crop is too long.

For shooting formal portraits, where I expect more criticism, I won't go near the 30. I stick with the 50 then, and sometimes whish I had the 85.

I've enjoyed this exchange, and I hope it's helpful to the original poster. But now I feel lime I'm :deadhorse.

So, good luck Jamie! Let us know what you choose.

JamieC

BenA2 wrote:

I've enjoyed this exchange, and I hope it's helpful to the original poster

It is! It really is. Sounds like I can't really go wrong with a 30 or a 50. Each has it's advantages or disadvantages.

BenA2 wrote:

So, good luck Jamie! Let us know what you choose.

Well, it might be a while. A job I had been selected for has evaporated (cutbacks... no money to hire me)... but I am going to keep the camera anyway... and pray a bit more (can't help it... closet Christian). But once I have secured employment again, I will be buying a prime (or maybe even a zoom based on the feedback)... will keep reading to see more of your (collective "you") fantastic feedback.

Jamie

Vich

BenA2 wrote:

OK, I confess, you've nit-picked out some real distortion in those shots. But, shooting informally like this, I've never gotten any complaints. And, so, I guess I should say that all my comments have been in the context of "party shots" since that's what I (perhaps incorrectly) assumend Jamie was wanting to shoot.
But now I feel lime I'm :deadhorse.

So, good luck Jamie! Let us know what you choose.

My humble apologies for seeming to nit-pick. My intent was merely to point out the down-sides, that I think was accomplished.

Facts are facts. I did not say "don't get the 30". Rather, "if you do, beware of this ...". It's not a competition and nothing to "Ralph" over.

I was stuck at a party with only a 50 2 weeks ago, because I thought a shorter zoom was on the camera but when I arrived it was a 70-200 - so I mounted my trusty 50.

The shots were wonderful, but many I would have liked were not attinable. If I had the zoom I though was packed, I'd have used 24mm and 30mm at least half the time.

In fact; if I had to use a prime, I would bring a 28 or 30. I would just be careful to not get lured into 3 foot portriats, or at least pay close attention to how perspective will play out.

BenA2

Vich wrote:

My humble apologies for seeming to nit-pick. My intent was merely to point out the down-sides, that I think was accomplished.

Yeah, I know, it's no biggie.

Vich wrote:

Facts are facts. I did not say "don't get the 30". Rather, "if you do, beware of this ...". It's not a competition and nothing to "Ralph" over.

That's not "ralphing," it's "beating a dead horse," simply representative of the fact that I had exhausted all my input on the matter. Like I said, I enjoyed the exchange. :

Vich

BenA2 wrote:

That's not "ralphing," it's "beating a dead horse,"

Oh (visual dumb stare).

Yeah, lens discussions (yawn).

Guess this one at least touched on technique behind appropriate lens choice.

JamieC

Well, I did my first shoot yesterday.... and even though they were all outdoor shots, not indoor people shots, I have quickly come to the conclusion that either lens would probably be a great choice. I have had a friend be so kind as to loan me his 50 1.8, and today we have a soccer party... so it will be interesting.

You know, I need to to less thinking and more shooting. I'm really enjoying this camera!

jamie