50 vs 50 vs 50

[ishootRAW]

I kinda think that I should have a 50mm. I already have a sigma 30mm f/1.4 so I'm not sure how much I would actually use a 50. I also have a Canon FD 50mm 1.8. As I see it here are my options.

• Get the Canon 50mm 1.8, deal with crapy bokeh and build because I'm on a budget and probly will not use it all that much.
• Get the Canon 50mm 1.4, Just suck it up and make the investment.
• Get a FD-EF adaptor, yes it will probly be a bit soft, yes its manual focus, and yes you have to stop it down before each shot, but hay, its $25

Of course I would love to get the 1.4, but I'm a landscape guy, and i'm not sure I would use it enough to justify it. I'm also getting the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 in a couple of months. Oh and I'm trying to save for a 10-24.

Any options would be great.
Thanx

[RichardTaylor]

You have 50mm covered all ready with your 17-85.
Do you do much hand held low light shooting or need (not want) super shallow DOF?
If the answer is yes then get the 50mm F1.4.
If the answer is no then put the money towards the 10-24.

[jerome.oneil]

I can't speak for Canon lenses as I have Olympus but I recently bought the ZD 35mm and love that focal length. I have the 50mm to but I find myself using the 35mm more.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

Jerome

[ravncat]

Originally Posted by ishootRAW

I kinda think that I should have a 50mm.

Why is that?

Originally Posted by ishootRAW

Of course I would love to get the 1.4, but I'm a landscape guy,
Thanx

Then you really won't need the 50 1.4 for landscapes, f8 is the great equalizer and your fast zoom will be about the same quality if not better stopped down for landscape work. Sounds like Gear Aquisition Syndrome to me. You'd benefit more from the wider field of view of the superwide zoom for landscape work, I think.

[ceremus]

If you're already going to have the 17-55mm, the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 are going to be useful primarily in doing portraits in available light. Personally I think it's good enough reason to keep it around for doing family and friends shots indoors w/o a flash, the only other real reason to have one is if you want the option of getting a razor thin DoF using a "normal" focal length.

[ishootRAW]

Originally Posted by ravncat

Why is that?



Then you really won't need the 50 1.4 for landscapes, f8 is the great equalizer and your fast zoom will be about the same quality if not better stopped down for landscape work. Sounds like Gear Aquisition Syndrome to me. You'd benefit more from the wider field of view of the superwide zoom for landscape work, I think.

Exactly this.

Originally Posted by ceremus

If you're already going to have the 17-55mm, the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 are going to be useful primarily in doing portraits in available light. Personally I think it's good enough reason to keep it around for doing family and friends shots indoors w/o a flash, the only other real reason to have one is if you want the option of getting a razor thin DoF using a "normal" focal length.

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by ravncat

Why is that?



Then you really won't need the 50 1.4 for landscapes, f8 is the great equalizer and your fast zoom will be about the same quality if not better stopped down for landscape work. Sounds like Gear Aquisition Syndrome to me. You'd benefit more from the wider field of view of the superwide zoom for landscape work, I think.

these would be my questions/comments as well

[ravncat]

Well if that's why you want it, skip the 50 and go with an 85 1.4 you've already got the 30 and can do low light. The 85 may be more useful than the 50 in combination with your 30 and give you even narrower DoF.

Justification for a new lens is easy, knowing if you really need it is they key. If you kinda think you need it you'll just convince yourself you do. Shoot the hell out of whatchya got and you'll know when you get home and say wow, I needed thinner dof in that shot or, if only this 30 were a bit longer. Have that thought often and you'll know, have it rarely and maybe it doesn't matter so much

[ishootRAW]

85 1.4? canon does not make a 85 1.4. I would think that 85 would be a bit tight on a 1.6 body?

[ravncat]

Like the classic 105. (geeze typing on a phone is hard, i should say like a classic 135, good for headshots etc, and nice for the "intimite landscape")

Actually I forgot canon was 1.6. I'm used to thinking 1.5