Canon 10D lens - 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 versus 50mm 1.4

Hi everyone, I am looking for a good portrait lens for my Canon 10D. Which would

be a better buy, the 28-138mm f3.5-5.6 IS OR the 50mm 1.4. I know that the

multipler factor will make the zoom lens 45-216mm and make the prime lens

80mm. I want very sharp portraits and I read that the zoom can give you those

results. Will the prime give me the sharpness that I need, even on a 10D.

Which would be the better buy for sharpness. Also I love that the prime is 1.4

fast...

 

thanks in advance.

Roger,

 

 

Simple answer and it will be 50/1.4, you won't be dissapointed,good luck!.

 

 

 

Ike

Hi Roger, no doubt about it, the 50mm will be sharper... But the zoom more flexible and some would say a better "all around" lens. Best wishes . . .

Are these just guesses or reports of actual experience with those lenses on a 10D?

<p>

See <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/</a>. While the article does not address this exact question, it does provide some food for thought.

<p>

The major difference you will see with the 50/1.4 is a reduced depth of field when used wide open vs. the zoom. Those extra 3 stops make a difference. This will be <em>much</em> more obvious than any difference in sharpness.

<p>

Personally I'd save money and go for the 50/1.8, but I'm sure others will tell you a different story.

<p>

FWIW I actually do use both the 50/1.8 and the 28-135 IS lenses for portrait work, so I'm not just making wild guesses here.

<p>

You also might want to think about "really sharp portraits". Unless you're going for an art look, most people do not like to see themselves "really sharp", making every skin blemish stand out! Sharp is always good, but <em>ultra</em>sharpness (which you won't get wide open anyway) isn't usually the prime requirement for a portrait lens.

Bob has a valid point abt too sharp portraits. I have the Nikkor 50/1.8 which is razor sharp. I would assume the Canon equivalent is as good.

<p>On the other hand the lowly Canon G2 has a zoom that can capture all skin blemishes. I did a casual shoot for a friend and when he saw the initial work, he cringed looking at all the razor burn spots and red spots. I had to use PS to cure his skin :-)

An odd comparison roger.I assume you left out the 50/1.8 because you can afford the 1.4 (and you want less DOF)

<br>-Seriously...get the 1.8 AND the 28-135

<br>I can never understand why anyone would buy the 50/1.4.Sure it IS an awsome lens...but at the price they want?!!! No way

I am with you Ron. Esp. with digital bodies where the whole lens circle of image is not even used....

<p>I can understand if someone might want it for low light, but i had taken my Bogen 3221WN for that anyday.

I got the 50 f/1.4 to do portraits with my 10D. It's small, fast and gives me a wider range of control over aperture. This lens-body combination also suits my shooting style for informal portraits and the results are amazingly sharp. I don't have the 28-135 zoom but I recommend reading Bob's article comparing these lenses to help you decide.

 

Good luck.