Want to replace my beloved 50mm 1.4 for 20D

[brett_bartlett]

Greetings. I love to shoot natural (low) lighting shots with my 20D. I have

been using a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 for some time now and I love the color this

lens renders. Unfortunately, I don't have much coverage with the 50mm due to

the crop factor on the 20D and I am just too limited. It has been a real

problem, so I am wanting to sell the lens on eBay and use the money toward

buying a EF 17-40mm f/4 L. I understand it's a fixed F/4, but ironically I

always shot between f/5.6 -f/11 with the 50mm, as I often shoot on a tripod. I

would appreciate it if anyone would give me their input on the lens and/or any

suggestions for a different lens that is in the same price range. The price of

the lens is about what I can afford, otherwise I would go for the EF 16-35mm

f2.8 L instead.

 

Regards- Brett

[gdanmitchell]

If possible, I'd hang on to that 50mm f/1.4 and add the 17-40mm to your line-up. The

combination is pretty useful.

 

Obviously, the 50mm is one sharp lens. It will give you a bit more reach and is a good

portrait lens on that camera. And the f/1.4 (or at least the very usable f/2) will still be useful.

[jon_austin]

The 17-40 was the second lens I bought for my 10D 3 years ago (shortly after its release). It's a great lens on a cropped sensor body. I'm of the opinion that I'll probably sell it when I move up to a full frame body, though, since my 24-105 will be wider on full frame than the 17-40 is on my 20D (27mm equiv), and I haven't had the need to go wider.

[brett_bartlett]

Dan, Do you think the 17-40mm would not be as good for portraiture? Indeed I do get sharp results with my 50mm but only at close range. It (my copy) can a little soft for objects beyond 8ft.

[pto189]

Buy the 17-40 <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=435775&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">here</a>. You must buy it before 7/15/06 for $50 rebate. Keep the 50. It's a good lens.

[brett_bartlett]

Okay, I will seriously consider keeping the 50mm, but I suspected I would get better use from the 17-40mm. Perhaps I should sell off the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG instead.

[steven_fuller1]

I have the EF 17-40, it's a great little wide angle zoom but it has it's limitations.

I often find myself too cramped and wishing I had a wider lens. You may

consider also the EF-S 10-22. It's not an L series but I have seen many

photos taken with it and the results are quite nice. An excellent lens for the

artistic eye, if that's your thing.

[ken munn]

Left field suggestion:

 

Sigma 30mm f1.4. Pretty much the same fov as your 50mm on full frame.

 

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/dclenses/30mm.htm

[andy_van_eynde]

Why not replace it with that new EF-s 17-55 f2.8 IS USM

 

...unless money is an object (since the price is quite high)!

[tom_m2]

I have yet to find a Sigma 30/1.4 that has acceptable performance. Of the five different ones that I tried, all of them had awful off-center sharpness, and most of them had focus problems. I ended up getting a Canon 28/1.8 for low light. You might also consider the Canon 24/2.8, which is fairly inexpensive, light, and optically excellent.

 

The 17-40 doesn't make much sense to me: it has coverage you don't need, and it's not optimized for APS digital. I'd rather get a 17-55 or 17-85.

[andy_van_eynde]

"The 17-40 doesn't make much sense to me: it has coverage you don't need, and it's not optimized for APS digital."

 

Tom...did you ever encounter a proffessional (L-lens) that has been "optimized" for digital!

 

Like a new "digital version of the 70-200F2.8L IS USM?

 

Think it has more to do with marketing than real digital performance...otherwise the first thing they would do was bring out a "digital" version of their L setup!

[gdanmitchell]

Brett wrote: "Dan, Do you think the 17-40mm would not be as good for portraiture?

Indeed I do get sharp results with my 50mm but only at close range. It (my copy) can a

little soft for objects beyond 8ft."

 

I think you could do fine portraits with the 17-40 in certain circumstances - if you want to

work close enough to use the 40mm end, and if you are willing to forego the narrower

depth of field available at the f/4 max aperture.

 

As far as being soft "beyond 8ft," (that was the 50mm, right?) I don't see that on my copy.

 

One place I like to use the 50mm is for indoor photography where I'm a bit further back

and/or shooting a group. For example, I find it useful for concerts and musical theatre

performances when I'm trying to get several people in the shot or include a single subject

along with some surroundings.

 

Dan

[paul_mcevoy]

I've heard the 18-35 Tamron is a great lens and much cheaper than either Canon lens. Just a thought.

[lovcom_photo]

Brett, available light photography + F4 lens = not much flexability.

 

Forget the 17-40L...great lens, but no good for available light (landscapes aside).

 

Get a fast wide prime. There are several Canon L and non-L primes that will generally do a better job then the 17-40L, especially for low light shots. As for the F2.8 16-35L, well, F2.8 is not considered fast, especially for available light (indoors, challanging light).

 

By the way, you say love to shoot "available light" shots, then say you "always" shoot F5.6 - F11....this seems a bit peculiar. Do you mostly do still lifes?

[brett_bartlett]

Thank you all for you input in this matter. I really appreciate your thoughts and reccomendaions.

 

Dan L, I do manage to get by with 5.6 quite often for my type of shooting. I did look at some of my shots and noticed that more were at f/4.0 instead of 5.6. Below is a pic I did with my Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 at 55mm, f5.6, at 1/50th second. The ISO was 400 which allowed me the leeway.

[brett_bartlett]

Same Sigma Lens, but at 4.0 at 1/100th. ISO 100.

[brett_bartlett]

A final one with the Sigma, but at 4.5 at 1/30th, ISO 400, (ALL 3 above were done with my 300D by the way, I just recently bought a 20D)

[brett_bartlett]

I like the Sigma giving what it will do for the small price I've paid. I like the color tone that seems to come easily from the Canon EF 50mm 1.4, which many say is an unmarked L. Unfortunately both lenses are a bit soft when it comes to shooting objects that are at a distance. Or I should probably say that I have not been able to achieve the razor results as many do with their same lenses shooting in the similar distance, shutter speeds, and f/stop.

[goran1]

"Get a fast wide prime. There are several Canon L and non-L primes that will generally do a better job then the 17-40L, especially for low light shots. As for the F2.8 16-35L, well, F2.8 is not considered fast, especially for available light (indoors, challanging light)."

 

Which primes would that be? I'm genuinely interested in getting one but most reviewers appeart to agree that the 17-40 does a better job, especially in terms on color and tone. The-digital-picture.com reviews suggest only the 24L or 35L beat the L zoom in this regards.

 

Brett....stop toying with the idea of replacing the 50mm. If FOV is a problem, rather start thinking of ways to getting an EOS 5d:)

[lovcom_photo]

Brett, who says that the Canon 50mm F1.4 is an "unmakred L"?

 

I can assure you that is far from it. It does not have the color rendition, nor contrast, nor build of, nor wide open sharpness of an L prime.

 

Far from it actually.

[lovcom_photo]

Goran,

 

You wrote "...but most reviewers appeart to agree that the 17-40 does a better job, especially in terms on color and tone...".

 

The only thing great about the 17-40L is for landscapes, and outdoor good light shots.

 

I can assure you that any and all Canon wide and normal non-L primes surpass this L zoom. F4 is PAINFULLY too slow for most available light shots, and for this reason, this lens should be avoided by all available light shooters. If all one does is daytime landscapes, then this lens is supreme, and only 2nd in image quality to the 16-35L and all the wide L primes, except perhaps the 14L.

 

The only areas that the 17-40L surpasses non-L wide primes is with color rendition, and contrast....and yes, the 24L and 35L provide better color and contrast then this zoom, but you'll have to pay.

[goran1]

I agree with you there Dan. F4 is a touch too slow. The lens I love best is the 50mm 1.4. The lenses I'd love (to have) best are the 24l, 35l, 85l and maybe 200l. So you could say that I am a huge fan of low light photography.

 

Until I can get the aforementioned wide L lenses, I am looking for an alternative to the 17-40l, since I don't really care much for zooms. Would the 28 1.8 be a good alternative and can the quality of color rendition be compensated for in PP?

[gdanmitchell]

<p>Someone wrote regarding the claim that the EF 50mm f/1.4 is an "unmarked L" lens:

 

<blockquote>"I can assure you that is far from it. It does not have the color rendition, nor

contrast, nor build of, nor wide open sharpness of an L prime.

 

Far from it actually."</blockquote>

 

<p>"Far from it?" That's certainly not my experience.

 

<p>I'll agree that it doesn't have the same exceptional build of an L lens, but the build

quality

isn't exactly bad.

 

<p>It is well known that the EF 50mm f/1.4 has low contrast and soft focus at f/1.4.

However,

it produces quite excellent color rendition, contrast, and sharpness at apertures of f/2 or

smaller. I find it is pretty darn good at f/2 and I'll shoot it at f/1.8 on occasion. (Heck, I'll

shoot with this lens at f/1.4 if the choice is between a soft, low contrast photo and no

photo at all.)

 

<p>At smaller apertures it is one of the sharpest Canon primes out there, and certainly

sharper than

any other realistic options at this length.

[chris_fritz1]

I would suggest the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I found it superior in image quality to my 17-40L and my 28-70L which I sold both. It makes a wonderful portrate lens.

 

http://www.fritzplace.com/photos/tamron_photo.jpg

 

Also, for travel, I use my 50 f/1.4 and the Tamron 28-300. I have also found that stopped down, the 28-300 is acceptable, but if I shoot weddings or portraits, I always take the 28-75 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8L IS, and the 50 f/1.4 for low light.

 

- Chris