Is L glass compatible to 50D camera?

[spencer28n]

Sounds like you should spring for the 24-70L to me.

[inkista]

Except that 24mm isn't exactly wide angle on a crop-body, which may not be so desirable for landscape shooting. Which is why I suggested the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, and why ericw recommended going for two lenses: the 17-40L for landscapes, and the 85/1.8 for portraits.

[irispatch]

If you are shooting wildlife or macros L glass on a crop body is a great way to go. For some the full potential is on a FF ( wide angle lenses come to mind) but image quality does not suffer on a crop the 70-200 line up are stellar performers on what ever you use.

[DRs]

Originally Posted by inkista

Except that 24mm isn't exactly wide angle on a crop-body, which may not be so desirable for landscape shooting. Which is why I suggested the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, and why ericw recommended going for two lenses: the 17-40L for landscapes, and the 85/1.8 for portraits.

thanks again inkista, ill consider your good point here. and i think i will get myself a 50mm f1.4 also. would that be great? what do you think?

thanks once agin for your thoughts.


cheers!

[RustySterling]

Originally Posted by DRs

thanks again inkista, ill consider your good point here. and i think i will get myself a 50mm f1.4 also. would that be great? what do you think?
thanks once agin for your thoughts.
cheers!

If you are getting the 17-40, than the 50 would be a good addition. But with the 17-40, I'd consider the 24-105 if you are looking for some range. The f stop is the same and you'd have range from 17 to 105. I'm not saying don't get the 50 -- it's a great lens. Just offering another way to go.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by DRs

thanks again inkista, ill consider your good point here. and i think i will get myself a 50mm f1.4 also. would that be great? what do you think?

If you know that 50mm is what you want, it's a great lens. The problem is that different people have different expectations on using a 50mm lens. On a film camera, a 50mm lens was "normal" (i.e., a good approximation of the field of view of the human eye), but on a crop body, it's more like a short telephoto. It is, however, relatively close to what 85mm did on film, which still makes it a good portrait length.

If you just want experience with a prime lens, the 50/1.8 is a lot cheaper (it's about a third the price of the f/1.4), and has about the same image quality as the f/1.4. It's cheaper because its build quality is lower and it's not as nice to use; its manual focus ring is very thin, there's no distance scale, and it lacks USM so its autofocus peformance in low light is a little wonky. But the image quality is good.

You could analyze the EXIF you got with the 17-85 with something like ExposurePlot to see what prime might be the most useful for you. I actually ended up deciding on getting the 24-105 for myself because looking at the exif of my 18-55 photos out of about three thousand photos, I went below 25mm about six times, and I was maxed out to 55mm over half the time.