People With Experience, Reviews Please Canon 35mm F/2 , Yongnuo 35mm f/2 , Canon 24mm f/2.8 STM

[gothgirl]

Take a look at the Sigma 50-100 1.8 or the tamron 17-50 2.8

The tamron is one I'm considering .

When I say zoom I mean from the lower range up , such as 18-55, 17-50, 24-80 etc , I need something that starts up a fair bit lower than 50mm .

 

[a1ex2001]

35mm f2 is cheap and as sharp as your 50mm but the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is a very good lens and pretty versatile. Everyone will tell you to get the non IS version as it is cheaper and sharper but I wouldn't rule out the IS lens there isn't a lot in the sharpness and IS is a great bonus on any lens!

 

[gothgirl]

35mm f2 is cheap and as sharp as your 50mm but the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is a very good lens and pretty versatile. Everyone will tell you to get the non IS version as it is cheaper and sharper but I wouldn't rule out the IS lens there isn't a lot in the sharpness and IS is a great bonus on any lens!

I don't know if it's something I need though , I want something sharper and faster in low light .

I need the 2.8 as I cannot get good results at 1/200 on my 3.5

I can't ever see me using a slow enough shutter speed to need or see the benefit of the IS

 

[a1ex2001]

I can't ever see me using a slow enough shutter speed to need or see the benefit of the IS

IS can save you when your technique is off or you quickly bring the camera up for a grab shot and are slightly off balance. It's not a replacement for good technique but it is a great backup!

 

[rpsmith79]

The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is also worth considering, similar in price to the Tammy one too, also has IS

I have had both the Tammy 17-50mm non IS, and currently have the Sigma

In real world terms they are all pretty much the same, no noticeable difference, but having never owned either of them at the same time i have never compared like for like shooting the exact same subject with each lens, but i have never thought "damn i wish i still had the other one"

Only reason i changed is that i dabbled in FF for a while and sold my Tamron, then went back to crop and thought i'd give the Sigma a try, i have not been disappointed

I have also shot many gigs (local pubs/clubs) with both lenses and had some very good results, the last thing i'd want to be doing is changing lenses in some of the places i went to shoot bands

EDIT:

That should be 17-50 not 18-50 as originally posted

 

[odd jim]

Well I'm down to a deciscion between the STM 24mm 2.8 or the 35mm f/2 .

Is the Original non IS version of the 35mm f/2 ok ?

Because my budget does not stretch to the IS version

Yes the mk1 non IS canon 35mm is very good, see my post!

 

[gothgirl]

The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 is also worth considering, similar in price to the Tammy one too, also has IS

I have had both the Tammy 18-50mm non IS, and currently have the Sigma

In real world terms they are all pretty much the same, no noticeable difference, but having never owned either of them at the same time i have never compared like for like shooting the exact same subject with each lens, but i have never thought "damn i wish i still had the other one"

Only reason i changed is that i dabbled in FF for a while and sold my Tamron, then went back to crop and thought i'd give the Sigma a try, i have not been disappointed

I have also shot many gigs (local pubs/clubs) with both lenses and had some very good results, the last thing i'd want to be doing is changing lenses in some of the places i went to shoot bands

I had the sigma 18-50 , I hated it .

it was really slow and sluggish for my liking , and the shots were never that great

 

[rpsmith79]

I had the sigma 18-50 , I hated it .

it was really slow and sluggish for my liking , and the shots were never that great

My mistake, i meant the 17-50mm (Tamron and Sigma), not 18-50