Sooooo.... I have a gap

<p>Why does it bug us photographers so much to have a focal length gap?</p>

<p>Current lenses: 17-40L, 50mm 1.8, 70-200 F4L</p>

<p>I just recently loaned out my 50mm 1.8. I LOVE the fact that I can toss my 50 on my 5D and walk around town with it, but hate the fact that it is plastic and I feel like it is going to snap. I wouldn't mind having given it away permanently. However, now I have a gap from 40-70.</p>

<p>I have considered the 24-70 lenses, however I'm afraid for what I use that focal length for, it is just too much of a lens, I like having something a little more compact. So... I guess that leaves me with not so many options... actually alll I can think about that is compact is a 50 prime. Is it time to upgrade to the 50 1.4? Or is there a zoom I am overlooking and is worth trying out?</p>

<p>Thanks for your opinions!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why does it bug us photographers so much to have a focal length gap?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speak for yourself. Gaps don't bother me at all, and in fact most of the time I have lots of gaps. My camera bag is typically loaded with a few prime lenses and maybe a 70-200mm zoom if I think I'll really need it. (Which usually means I think I'll need high-quality autofocus to deal with moving targets; the zooming isn't really the issue.)</p>

<p>The 50mm f/1.4 is a big improvement over the f/1.8. Better built, less noisy, more reliable AF. The f/1.8 makes very nice pictures, so IQ isn't really a reason to upgrade, but the cheap plastic construction is annoying. The f/1.4 is still plastic, but it seems to be better quality plastic.</p>

<p>The other zoom you might consider is the 24-105mm f/4L, which is more compact than the 24-70mm and quite sharp, but suffers more from geometric distortion (if it had any more barrel distortion on the wide end, they'd have to market it as a fisheye lens).</p>

<p>Seriously, though, if a gap from 40-70mm really bothers you that much, learn to zoom with your feet. I often have gaps from 28-50mm and 50-105mm (shooting with primes) and I just don't see it as a problem.</p>

<p>I have the same exact lens set up on a 1D II. Yes the nifty fifty feels plastic and cheap, but it works well and I will keep using it until it actually snaps. As for the gap, I don't really even use the 50mm as a gap filler, (even though in theory that's what it is) I use it more as a low light and or bokeh lens. If someone were to take it away from me, I think I would miss the 1.8 aperture more than the focal length. So for me, a 24-70mm f/2.8L sounds nice and I'm sure it would be, but I would like to always have a fast prime for situations when no zoom will do what I need. As for gaps, they don't bother me...as long as they're not too big. Heck, I've considered selling my 70-200mm for a 400mm, then I'd have a gap from 50-400mm, but the 70-200mm is too good a lens and gets used too much to justify that, even though a 400mm would help me tremendously with wildlife and birding. Enough of my rambling, bottom line, I'd try to always have at least one fast prime, and as for the 50mm f/1.8, everyone talks about how cheap and "cheap feeling" it is, but for the most part that's all it is, talk. I've never had any problem with mine.</p>

<p>I've got overlap (24-105mm and 70-200mm), who should I call? What should I do?</p>

<p>I have many lenses (I am very lucky) but even so the Canon 50mm f1.4 is one of my most used. It also makes sense to get a prime, it gives you a distinct speed advantage over your f4 zooms.</p>

<p>Oh-no, I have only primes and I seem to have gaps <em>everywhere</em>! But seriously, between 40-70mm the <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50mm</strong></a> is the only (full-frame) prime -- Canon versions include f/2.5 macro, f/1.8 (2 versions), f/1.4 USM, f/1.2 L USM and f/1.0 L USM ($$$ and discontinued). There is also a good f/1.4 Sigma lens.</p>

<p>If you want a zoom by definition there are tons of standard zooms with that range -- some very compact and cheap.</p>

<p>I am strongly of the opinion that gaps are fine. I think it is a mistake to think that a photographer must have *every* *single* focal length available.<br>

That being said, I love 50mm primes. Check ebay or keh.com for the 50mm f/1.8 EF Mark I lens, which has a metal mount and sturdy construction, unlike the Mark II 50mm f/1.8 EF. It's cheaper that the f/1.4 model.<br>

The 50mm Mark I uses an arc-form drive, however, which some people dislike. It never bothered me, however. AF speed is fast, and the motor makes a happy chirpy sound when operating.</p>

<p>I guess I have to be a little more clear, I'm fine with gaps, it just freaked me out that I loaned out my 50 1.8, and then realized, it's one of my favorite walk around lenses!</p>

<p>But, I also guess it would be a good excuse to upgrade to the 1.4? :P</p>

<p>Erik, try out more primes, they all make fine walk-around lenses without sacrificing optical quality. For me all these L zooms are too heavy and bulky, while even Canon's non-L primes pretty much always are optically superior (and faster!).</p>

I must say I was about to come down a bit hard on you Erik, for knocking the 50's build and for whining about gaps ;-) Thanks for clarifying your original question. I too own the 50 1.8 and often use it as a walkaround on my 5D2, especially if attending a wedding as a guest ;-). I love it precisely because it is so light and inconspicuous. As for build, I have no issues with it. Mine has fallen twice (both times I was at full sprint) with no ill effects to the optics and not a noticeable scratch either.

<p>One day I may move to the 50 1.4 but I'm in no hurry to do so. You wouldn't be badly off with getting a second 50 1.8 you know :) It is my go-to portrait lens...

<p>Surely digital makes these 'gaps' even less of a concern?<br>

People raved about the quality of a the 5D MkI and a photogrpaher may have had 17-40, 24-70 (or 105) and 70-200. But surely now with the IQ of the 5DII, then you could have just the 17-40 and 70-200, and if you want 50mm you crop the 70mm image and get something just as good as a 50mm on the 5DMk1. At sane print sizes, that is.<br>

So no, with modern DSLRs I don't fret about the gaps. I carry fewer lenses. But then again I started taking pictures in the 80s with 3 primes (28mm 50mm and 180mm) so it has never really bothered me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Oh-no, I have only primes and I seem to have gaps <em>everywhere</em>!</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Not if your leg powered zoom function still works.</p>

<p>I don't mind the gap.</p>

<p>However, a 50 in the bag never hurts. (simple EF 50/1.8 not so simple Zeiss 50/2 MP)</p>

<p>Zoom wise you could do worse than the Tamron 28-75/2.8.</p>

<p>If money and weight don't bother you the EF 24-70 L is very fine.</p>

<p>If you got the itch and really wanna burn cash, (which is what this really sounds like lol) then you might as well go back to the 1.8 or get the 50 1.4.<br>

Both will give you apertures you won't have on the mid-range L zooms.<br>

Both are excellent lenses. (I love my 1.4 more though)</p>

<p>Dunno... The 24-105 seems like the perfect solution, unless you need something faster than f/4. I agonized between the 24-70 and the 24-105 and chose the 24-105 mostly because of the IS. I didn't expect the image quality to be quite as good as the 24-70. However, I was pleasantly surprised that at least my copy of the 24-105 was even better than what had been represented on the internet. It's actually a very sharp lens, with very little CA. There's some vignetting on the wide end, but no lens is perfect. In retrospect, I think the 24-70 would have been too heavy, and I love having the IS. So I think I made a good choice (for me).</p>