50 1.4 17 - 40 or 16 - 35

[korys_ins]

for shooting indoor family pictures if the have 50 1.4 does it

have better sharpness than the 17-40 4.0 0r 16-35 2.8

I understand that both of those lens are wide angle lenses versus 50

1.4 is not i'm just trying to see if there is an advantage beside

zooming and wide angle ? 50

[jbq]

I find the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 to be both very sharp at f/2.8, decent at f/2.4 and usable at f/2.

 

For indood family pictures, get a shoe-mounted flash that can be tilted up, and attach a bouncer to the flash. I have a 420EX and a lumiquest pocket boucer, and routinely shoot indoors at 1/90s f/5.6 ISO 400.

 

There's a big difference in angles of view. I have shot some family pictures at 17mm, I have shot some with a 135mm, all that on the same day, and the results aren't interchangeable.

 

Why aren't you considering the 24-70/2.8L?

[digitmstr]

my 24-70L is actually on par (if not better in some ways) with my 50mm f/1.4. I use it for indoor candids all the time and always wide open. It's costly but, worth it IMO.

 

The 16-35 (which I do NO own but have used and have many friends who use it) is also a great lens. Not quite as "good" as the 24-70 or 50mm (understandably so, considering it's an ultra-wide zoom!) but, it's the best I have seen in that range. Great contrast and "snap".

 

Ultimately, it's more a choice of FOV.

 

Among the lenses you listed I would STRONGLY suggest the 16-35 over the 17-40.

[marrio]

Yes, the 50/1.4 prime will be sharper than both zooms. Plus, the faster max. aperture will

allow you to occasionally use ambient light as main light with flash as fill for a more natural,

artistic look. And it also gives you the option of blurring the background and filling the

frame with your subject more.

[alfarmer]

I second the choice of 16-35 over the 17-40, assuming budget isn't an issue. I've had all three of these lenses and the 16-35L has been the sharpest so far. Not a huge difference in the center frame, mind you, but on the edges it's noticable if you pixel peep. And that extra stop of light is REALLY nice to have. It means I'm less likely to resort to one of my primes in low-light situations.

 

Regards,

ALF

[henrik.ploug]

I have the 50mm f1,4 and while it is a nice lens, it is a bit to long for indoor shooting (unless you mostly want head-and-shoulder-portraits). So now I have bought the Sigma 30mm f1,4 which is perfect for indoor shoots (assuming you have a 1,6 crop camera).

[colin ward]

Most reviews compare the 16-35mm and 17-40mm as optically equal and the sharpness being slightly better on the 17-40mm (at certain focal lengths). If you don't need f2.8 or the 1mm extra don't bother spending twice as much on a lens that FM Reviews rates as no better than the 17-40mm. the-digital-picture.com states that the 50mm is slightly sharper than the 24-70mm but if your willing to spend 4 times as much you will get a more versatile lens that is widely regarded as the best Walkabout lens for any Canon DSLR/SLR.

 

Another point is the 50mm would be 85mm on a 20D/10D/350D so most probably no good for group/full body shots indoors.

[jan_thomas1]

50mm becomes 80mm on the 1.6 body.

[skipd]

The 50mm lens DOES NOT "become" anything but a 50mm lens on the APS-C sensor bodies (20D, etc.). A lens NEVER CHANGES because you are putting it on a camera with a different format. Too many people are totally confused about this.

 

The "crop factor" thing is REFERENCING a 35mm camera body's image size. A 50mm lens used on a 20D, for example, produces the same image as an 80mm lens would USED ON A 35mm CAMERA. The 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens, though.

[haunting_your_thoughts]

If money is not an issue: The the 16-35, but dont be disappointed when you find out that you are not going ti get images that are worth your money due to barrel distortion or soft-on-the-35mm-side issue. However the overall quality of the lens is excellent compared to other lenses in the same range.<br><br>If money is an issue the 17-40mm lens produces images that are of just as good quality except that you cannot use it as well for low-lit environments.<br><br>If money is really really an issue, the 50mm f1.4 is an EXCELLENT lens that in my opinion excels other lenses in may ways and its quality is superb with excellent flare control. It's a GREAT lens for the price and also in low lit situations. You can also get several other lenses that are just as good if you are willing to opt for other non-canon name brands. I would absolutely recommend the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. If you are looking for something like an all-purpose around the house lens where one lens will solve all issues and yet not be going out on an arm and a leg. There's the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8, or the Canon 17-85mm EFS lens, or perhaps the most common kit lens of the Rebel XT and 20D... Canon 18-55mm lens. I recommended the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 because eventually you will see the need for a longer lens and will wish you had one to get the job done. Also get a bag in which you can carry all your lenses so that your equipment is protected.

[marrio]

After looking at the question again, I think if sharpness is your goal then I'll recommend the

24/2.8 and the 35/2.0 primes. Plus, they're faster than the zooms you mentioned.

[ian_collins1]

Hi John,

That's a pretty nice budget you have! I guess it all comes down to use. I have both the 17-40 and the 50/1.4 (used on a 20D mostly). Personally I'd certainly take both of these over the extra stop of light the 16-35 gives you (and for less money). On a 1.6 camera (Most DSLR's), the 50 is an excellent portrait lens.

 

If the choice is one lens, then the 17-40 may be more useful, but the fixed field of view of the 50 plus the shallow depth of field will help make a better photographer out of you and hence better pictures. In summary it's difficult to go wrong with either choice, but from experience I'd rate the 50/1.4 as the sharper lens (by a hair).

 

Enjoy!

 

-Ian

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have the 50/1.4 and the 17-40, and use both on my 20D. You ask about sharpness. The 50/1.4 is, for my tastes, unusably soft wide open, but quite usable at f/2, and very sharp from f/2.8 to f/8 (I rarely if ever use it stopped down beyond f/8 so I can't say how it does beyond there, other than a guess that it probably loses sharpness beyond that point due to diffraction). The 17-40 is quite good wide open and gains a bit as you stop it down, but it never gets as good as the 50/1.4.</p>

[John Crowe]

Although the 50/1.4 is a superior lens for all kinds of reasons it will quite likely be too long for indoor family stuff, as it becomes a short telephoto on a 1.6x body. The high quality zooms, in my opinion, are too expensive for what you get, especially for indoor family stuff. I'd put your 50/1.4 budget towards the 20/2.8 which becomes a moderate wide angle for indoor family stuff on a 1.6x body and pick up the inexpensive 50/1.8 for indoor portraits with fill flash. Don't forget to bounce your flash light off of neutral coloured ceilings or walls. Good luck.