Available light lens for APS senor

[Giedo]

Hi,
I'm looking for a lens to do indoor shooting (musea and churches) with available light. I prefer not to go beyond ISO 800, so I think I need a lens that is at least f 2.0. My camera body is a Canon 20D.
The sigma 30mm f1.4 looks good to me, but there are no test yet available. I was also looking at a second hand Canon 28mm f 2.8, but this might be just too slow.
Any recommendations?
Thanks in advance,

Giedo

[kenstrain]

I tried an EF 28/2.8 (300D).  I was disappointed due to chromatic aberration and corner softness at f2.8 - I had expected it to be better than my f4 zoom at ~f4, but it was worse.  
Is this typical? I suppose so. You could try one.

I'm not clear about what you want to achieve.  Church lighting varies a lot, f2.8 does not give much depth of field with 28/30mm for "architecture" - it sounds like you are not expecting to be able to use a tripod or flash.  

In that case, for handheld photography indoors a lens with IS, stopped down a bit, might be worth considering (not that there is a big choice around 28mm, and they are more expensive).

A friend has the EF 24/f2.8 and it seems a bit better than the 28 ( but I did not do a very careful comparison).

At f2.8 focus unsharpness is likely to be the problem with 3D subjects.

Ken

[Giedo]

Ken,

I think I can use a tripod and I allready own the 17 - 85 IS lens, so I could use that. It's just that the lens is a bit soft at the wide end...
My main focus will be people in their surroundings: church / musea, etc. To eliminate motion blur, I was under the assumption that I would need shorter shutter speeds and thus larger apertures, but I forgot your point: depth of field.
The best solution would be the 24 - 70 or maybe the new 24 - 105 IS (but that is an expensive lens!)
Maybe I should just start shooting...

[giles]

The sigma 30mm f1.4 looks good to me, but there are no test yet available. I was also looking at a second hand Canon 28mm f 2.8, but this might be just too slow.

Canon also make 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4 lenses.

I have a 35mm f/2.  The 35mm f/1.4 was Too Expensive and the Sigma 30mm hadn't been released at the time I was buying. I don't like that the 35mm f/2 is "buzzy" but otherwise it's fine, although I haven't attempted any formal testing.


Giles

[Jonathan Wienke]

If f/2.8 is fast enough, consider the 24-70/2.8L. It's actually better than the same-aperture 24mm & 28mm primes. Another alternative would be the 16-35/2.8L.

[kenstrain]

Ah, I did not think about people in the churches...that makes it harder.  A bit of subjcet movement is sometimes more acceptable than camera movement, but I guess you know that. The zooms mentioned are really very good.  I've never tried the 17-85, so can't use it as a basis for comparison.
Ken

[Yakim Peled]

The Canon 28/1.8 USM is cheaper, smaller, lighter, uses a more conventional filter size, is FF compatible and future proof. Optically both are in the same ballpark: Excellent in the center but only so-so in the borders. Other viable options are the 28/2.8 and 35/2. Not as fast, not as well built but even more smaller, even more lighter, uses an even smaller filter size, are also FF compatible and future proof and are <b>a lot</b> cheaper.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

BTW, I just bought the Canon 28/1.8 USM but as I don't have it yet, I am unable to give you any first-hand experience with it. I also had the Canon 24/2.8 and Canon 35/2 and think very highly on them. The only fault I found in them was that AF was a bit on the slow and noisy side.

Of course, if money was no object I'd go for the 24/1.4 L.....

[viewfinder]

Giedo,...The Sigma 30mm was reviewed in the November edition of 'Outdoor Photography' (UK mag)....

There is a Sigma 24mm f1.8.........