[saadsyed]

Hi guys,
Which lens for a 1.6 crop would you prefer in terms of standard/normal-view/portrait lens? I've read a lot of reviews on both and so I like both. The question is, when compared to each other, which one would you actually get?

Canon 35mm f/2 (~200USD)
Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM (~400USD)

I am looking for good quality focus/sharpness, but what is more important to me is the quality of the blur that the large aperture provides, and how much of it I can have while still keeping the main object in relatively sharp focus. Considering this, I really don't care how these lenses perform at f/8 or f/11 or whatever. I care how they perform in regards to each other at f/1.8 , f/2 , and so on.

Thank you in advance!

[Pat]

have no experience of the two lenses mentioned however the 50mm lens L or the nifty fifty are very popular for portraits, I have the nifty fifty and it is very good.

[Wedding Shooter]

Canon 50 1.4 or the Sigma 30 1.4 are both good. If you are really serious about good/smooth background blur than you need to go to an L lens - something like the 35 1.4 L. But that is big money. If you are choosing between the two lenses above just go into a shop and take a few frames on your own card and have a look at home. I think the 35 will be more useful as a general portrait lens than the 28.

[shuttertalk]

Well, standard perspective (50mm in the 35mm world) is smack bang between 28mm and 35mm in the 1.5 sensor crop world...

I would probably lean towards the 35mm. I've got a Nikon 28mm, and I find that I prefer just a bit more reach...

[epicurus]

The longer focal length will give you more blur and the shorter will keep more things in focus. The 1/3 stop difference is big in price but not in light transmission. A standard 50mm lens will give a pleasing perspective, equivalent to the old 80mm lens, for portraits.
Have you considered getting the sharpest lens and adding blur in Photoshop, as much of it as you can stand, then when you're fed up with that you'll still have a nice sharp lens. Or buy a cheap UV filter and degrade it with petroleum jelly. Alternatively panty hose/ stockings/tights with a hole in, stretched over your lens.

[epicurus]

Sorry, I'm a newbie; only just saw the the last comment was over 6 years ago. Doh!

[alberm]

35 1.4 on Canon all day long for the crop sensor

[Don Schaeffer]

The 35 mm lens is closest to the standard (50mm in 35mm film terms). 28 mm is a little wide angle and 50mm is a little bit telephoto. Is that what you were asking?

[MrB]

This thread was from 2007 but, for anyone who might be interested now, a standard lens is one that gives a view similar to that perceived by human vision. Its focal length should be close to the diagonal dimension of the film frame or image sensor. For full frame, i.e. equivalent to 35mm film, the diagonal is approx. 43mm, and Pentax still make such a lens - the Pentax SMC FA 43 mm f1.9. For an APS-C sensor, the diagonal is approx 28mm (27mm for Canon), so the closest to a standard lens would be one with 28mm focal length. In practice, lenses up to 58mm (FF) and 40mm (APS-C) have usually been regarded as being in the standard range.

Philip

[EdMak]

Philip, are you saying that my, (Everybody's ) eyes, see what a 50mm lens, or equivalent, sees. Always thought this angle was 180 Degrees. Try looking at an object, check peripherals, without moving eyes/head, and then look at same view with 50mm lens. Or, a good possibility, I am missing something. Ta. Ed.

[MrB]

No, I did not mention angles, I used the word "view" (not "angle of view") as a noun just as we would in everyday use of English. To try to clarify, when we view the image recorded by a standard lens, the various parts and objects in the image appear to have similar spacial relationships as we perceive when viewing the same real scene with our eyes. Other lenses appear to distort our real view. When we view images from wide-angle lenses, objects appear more spread out into the distance compared with our real view. On the other hand, when we view images from telephoto lenses, objects seem to be squashed up and thus apparently nearer than we see them in our real view.

Philip

[EdMak]

Still lost, thanks. Ed.

[epicurus]

Don't be lost EdMak. Forget about angle of view and diagonals.
When I hold my ancient OM1 to my right eye with its 50mm lens on it looks pretty much the same as my left eye looking on its own. You can blink alternate eyes and see only a small difference. When I fit the 28mm everything looks smaller but more is visible. With my 100mm the view is magnified but there's less in the picture. The standard 50mm lens gives a view most like my eyes on their own.

[EdMak]

Ta. Really, it's immaterial, does not make my pics, any better, or, worse. Must not have been in circulation when I trained in 50's, times change, seems I don't. Had an OM1 when they came out, still have a half frame Pen outfit somewhere. Ed.

[MrB]

When I hold my ancient OM1 to my right eye with its 50mm lens on it looks pretty much the same as my left eye looking on its own. You can blink alternate eyes and see only a small difference. When I fit the 28mm everything looks smaller but more is visible. With my 100mm the view is magnified but there's less in the picture. The standard 50mm lens gives a view most like my eyes on their own.

This topic can be difficult and confusing and is also not easy to describe but, as Ed has written, understanding it or not doesn't really matter in terms of taking good photos.

However, for those who are interested what you have described above might be misleading to some readers, because you would see the same effect if you looked through an APS-C DSLR using those same focal length lenses. But, of course, those observations do not make the 50mm a standard lens for the APS-C format cameras.

Philip