I have EFS 17-55 2.8 IS, is there any point buying 50mm 1.4?

[andrew_dunn]

Has anyone compared the long end of the 17-55 2.8 with the 50mm 1.4?

 

Is there noticably different DOF & Low light capability? I'm wondering whether

it's worth having both for portraits...

 

Cheers

[joshroot]

Only if you care about shooting photos in two stops less light.

[wandern]

<a href="http://dofmaster.com/doftable.html">http://dofmaster.com/doftable.html</a>

<p>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number</a>

<p>

 

Those two links should pretty much answer your quantitative question. As to whether it's worth having for portraits- it depends on whether you want a razor-thin DOF or need extremely low light capabilities.

[steve santikarn]

how about getting a 85 mm f1.8 for portraits?

[William Michael]

Q: `Is there noticably different DOF & Low light capability?`

 

A: Yes, for DOF, and it varies but is very noticeable.

 

A: Yes, for Low Light Capacity and it is 2 stops.

 

Q `I'm wondering whether it's worth having both for portraits...`

 

A If I had both the lenses you mention, it would be very unlikely that I would use the zoom, for portrait work.

 

It is assumed you have a 1.6 crop body. Without knowing your other lenses, if any, I suggest you consider the 85mmF1.8 or 100mm F2. as the first step to complement the zoom for portrait work, thus negating the overlap which seems to be your concern.

 

I have a 20D and use a 50mm F1.4 and an 85mm F1.8 extensively for portrait work.

 

I am biased toward these lenses, over zooms, because I shoot a lot of available light / candid work and F2.8 doesn`t cut it.

 

And, when I have full light, for Portraiture, I do not like the limitations on DoF by a F2.8 lens: to me, it is too stifling

 

WW

[m3rdpwr]

I habe a 20D and use my 17-40L for group shots and my 85mm 1.8 for single person shots. These are my favorite two lenses with only two things I wish. The 1) 17-40L's zoom is a little on the short side. 2) The 85mm 1.8 seems quite a bit soft wide open. May justbe my copy...

 

I rarely ever use my 50mm 1.8 unless I want something light to carry to Photo Class. I think I bought it originally because it is said everyone should own one.

 

That being said, I shoot my single person portraits from about F2.2 to F4.5.

 

-Mario

[gdanmitchell]

I do have the 50mm f/1.4 in addition to L zooms that cover the same range. I get

reasonable use from my 50mm but I probably could live without it.

 

How and for what you use the lens probably matters a lot. I occasionally use mine for

landscapes when I have a lot of time to get the shot ready, when 50mm is the right length,

and when I want just a bit more sharpness. (But only a bit, really.)

 

The larger aperture of the 50mm lens can let you shoot in lower light when subject motion

renders the IS feature of your lens not so helpful. On the other hand, are you feeling

limited by the f/2.8 plus IS now?

 

You can get narrower DOF with the wide aperture primes. Do keep in mind that the 50mm

f/1.4 is very soft and not particularly contrasty at f/1.4. It is usable there, but not

outstanding. (The lens is excellent once you stop down a bit. It is quite good at f/2 and

excellent beyond that.)

 

Dan

[William Michael]

Mr Mitchell wrote (re 50mm F1.4):`The lens is excellent once you stop down a bit. It is quite good at f/2 and excellent beyond that.

 

I ditto that.

 

On a previous post a colleague paraphrased me thus:`the Canon 50mmF1.4 is a very good 50mmF2 and excellent 50mmF2.4`

 

WW

[jim_simon6]

I will 2nd, 3rd, 4th... the suggestion to get the 85/1.8. This should complement your 17-55 nicely.

 

Jim