28mm 1.8, 35mm f2, 50mm 1.8 and 1.4. Favorite?

[carlwakefield]

I have the 50 1.4 and am very happy with it. I also have the 85 1.8 and am very happy with it. I use both on a 30D and 5D. I must say I love the 85mm at 2.2 or 2.8 on the 30D as a head and shoulders portrait lens it makes wonderfull portraits and backgrounds with a nice distance where you do not disturb to much. I would choose that first for portraits but you will not go wrong with the 50mm 1.4 I have no experiance of the 50mm 1.8 but I would choose the more sturdy lens.

[anthony_hicks]

Tommy, because:

 

- obtaining the best possible image quality is important to me, and a good prime at those apertures will often out-

perform a zoom

 

- although I can mostly use f4 and above, sometimes I need f2 - f2.8 (but rarely wider than this)

 

- lens size and weight are a big consideration, as I also lug around a selection of medium format gear - sorry, I

should have contributed to your size & weight thread shouldn't I! :o)

 

- I just like using primes!

 

Everyone's needs are different. I appreciate that for some people, centre sharpness at wide apertures is the priority

and the IQ away from the centre is less important, or even irrelevant, portraiture being the classic example. Lenses

like the Sigma 30 (and by the sound of it the new Sigma 50) appear to me to be designed with priorities like this in

mind. Personally I dont need an f1.4 lens, and would gladly trade that extra stop in return for a more even

performance across the frame at mid-range apertures.

[tdigi]

"- lens size and weight are a big consideration, as I also lug around a selection of medium format gear - sorry, I should

have contributed to your size & weight thread shouldn't I! :o)"

 

LOL

 

I am with you on the primes. If your need is 2.0 and up the Canon 28 1.8 performs well IMO. I so wish they made a 20 or

24 1.8. that was not a huge L.

[alan_myers]

Hi Hans,

 

First of all, you mention f4 zooms. Have you tried f2.8 zooms? The reason I ask, zooms are awfully handy when trying to keep up with kids. I'd use my 24-70/2.8 most of the time, in the examples you give.

 

But, I must say I personally prefer to work with primes whenever possible. My prime lens kit (for use on 1.6X and not counting specialty lenses like long wildlife teles, macros and tilt/shift) consists of 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. The latter three are my "portrait" kit primarily. Occasionally the 20mm might see use as a broad, environmental portrait lens. But I have to be careful about WA distortion effects with it, keeping a distance from the subject and not placing them too near any edge.

 

The 28/1.8 is a fine lens I enjoy using on 1.6x crop cameras, where it serves as a slightly wide normal lens. (It isn't my favorite focal length and doesn't see a lot of use on full frame/film, but that's not at issue here.) It's a relatively compact lens even with it's lens hood, fast focusing, plenty sharp on a crop sensor and has great color rendition, contrast and reasonably good flare control, IMHO.

 

For portraits with the 28mm you'll still need to keep some distance to avoid wide angle distortions. So, this might also best be described as an 'environmental portrait', full length vertical portrait (adult) or couple/small group portrait lens.

 

The 50/1.4 is a bit soft wide open. It's still a substantially better lens in a number of respects (bokeh, anti-flare, built quality) over the cheaper f1.8, making it my choice. There's a close comparison of the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 made by someone on the Internet, with lots of examples. Judge for yourself. Sorry, I don't have the URL so you will need to Google for it. My own experiences pretty much jive with what's shown on those close, side by side tests. The 50/1.8 is a true bargain. For what it costs, it delivers a lot (as did the FD version in the old days. But it's 5 bladed aperture simply cannot give as nice looking bokeh as the slightly larger, 8 bladed aperture on the f1.4 version. A plastic bayonet mount would not last long the way I use lenses.

 

The USM motor on the f1.4 is the old style and needs updating, some see problems with AF or have it break on them due to a lot of manual focus overriding or due to careless storage or a hard bump. It's recommended that you get the hood and store the lens with it in the reverse position, which helps protect the lens. Also don't stack other things on top of it. I bought my 50/1.4 used and don't know how hard it was used before I got it. It's another focal length I didn't use heavily on my film cameras, but now use a lot on crop sensor digital (going on 5 years now). I've not had any problems with the lens at all, knock on wood.

 

I haven't used or compared it with the new Sigma 50/1.4. All I've seen indicates that lens is sharper wide open, but starts to get softer at around f8 and smaller apertures. Just the opposite of the Canon. Not that the Canon's softness is all that big a deal. It starts to clear up immediatly upon stopping down 1/3 or 2/3, and is completely gone by f2.5 or f2.8. The lens is still very usable wide open, a bit of softness is often nice in portraits and some unsharp mask in post processing can help a lot if needed.

 

On crop sensors, a 50mm is a wonderful head & shoulders portrait length with good working distances.

 

Canon has referred to the 50/1.4 their 'reference' lens. That's in terms of color rendition and contrast, as I understand it. Supposedly, all the other lenses in their system are designed to emulate as nearly as possible the performance and capabilities of the reference lens. The 'normal' lens in many manufacturers' systems was considered the keystone lens and reference, in this manner. So, this could be nothing more than marketing hype.

 

The 85/1.8 is at least equal to and in some ways superior to the other two lenses. It's got fast AF, great color, good mid-range build quality. This is another lens I bought used and am glad I did. It's a great, tight portrait lens. You need adequate room to work with it, of course, or plan to use it for pretty darned tight shots on any crop sensor camera.

 

I really don't know if current ones are the same as mine, but the only minor thing I don't like about the 85 is the lens hood. It's the older clip on style - at least on my older copy - which is a little more fiddly to install than the more common bayonet style hood attachment. I have bumped the hood off my lens a couple times, but it's seen a lot of use so may be a little looser than a new one would be, if they are still using the same method of attachment. For me, this lens has seen a lot of use on both full frame/film and crop sensor. It's one of my favorite focal lengths, either way. (If I were shooting more full frame/film, I'd really want the 135/2, to fill a similar roll. But, I currently don't have that lens or that need.)

 

Many of these lenses are available for rent, something you might want to do to give them a test drive and see how they work for you before buying. On the other hand, all of them are mid-range price in Canon's line, widely available used if you want to save a few bucks, and easily resold to recoup most of what you paid for them if you find they don't do what you need them to do.

[daniel flather]

50/1.4 is my favorite, as it's the only lens I have.

[ronno]

I suggest the 35mm or the 50mm. 85 is a litle long for general kid shooting, IMO. The 50 1.8 is great optically, but it

feels like cheap junk. The 1.4 is a great performer, but some of them are soft wide open. The 85 1.8 is great and

sharp, but probably too long for this purpose. I wrote a brief article abot 50mm lenses on my blog the other day:

 

http://www.afashionshooter.com/

[carlwakefield]

Hello Ron very nice 50mm shots I am sold I will use mine exclusivly for a couple of weeks.

[yakim_peled1]

I had them all and sold them all but it's just because I am so hard to please (I have the 35/1.4 L today). For you I'd advise the 1.8 trio as the best compromise.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[taner]

Anthony, I would not hesitate to use the Sigma 30mm/1.4 at f/8-11 for landscapes. However, I do have the EF

17-40/4L, and that lens is a better in the corners at those kinds of small apertures (of, course this is to be

expected - the 17-40 is a full-frame lens...). Plus the flexibility of the zoom in terms of variety of

perspectives and framing, so it does not make sense for me to take the Sigma with me when I shoot landscapes. It

is my extreme-low light lens. And at that, it excels.

 

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/8115377-lg.jpg"></p>

[philip_wilson]

I will start by saying that I rarely use a crop camera and that i mainly use l series zooms for EOS. However, I do have the EF 50 F1.4 which is a good lens and will probably be great on the crop body as an 80mm lens. I do have extensive experience of the FD lenses and own or have owned most of them over time. Canon has always made a better F1.4 50mm lens than the 1.8 and the new 1.8 is very cheaply constructed but optically not bad. If it were me this is the lens I would go for on a crop body. Indoors for primes and kids I generally use a 24-70 F2.8 zoom on EOS cameras (full frame so effectively a 15-44 on a crop body). the primes i use most indoors are almost all on FD bodies (or MF) of these the 85mm F1.2 is used the most, followed by the 24mm F2 (there is no EF equivalent of this great lens) and the 35mm F2. Thus I would suggest the 50mm F1.4 is your best bet, otherwise go with a wide angle although with the crop camera non of the lenses you list is really very wide - even the 28mm is a 45mm equivalent. I always find indoors that I want mild tele (70-85mm) or wide to ultra wide (14 - 24mm)

[tim gray]

The only two lenses I own for Canon are the 50/1.4 and the 28/1.8. I used to shoot 1.6 crop and found the 50 to be a

good lens, but way to tight for general use (for me). Its like an 85. Great focal length, but not for all around use for me

on 1.6 crop.

 

Now I shoot film. Both lenses are great. They can flare some, the hoods help. Personally, I think I like the 28 more,

but I like a little wider.

 

The 28 is built better. I think it focuses faster too. I think it would be much better on 1.6 crop. You can probably hand

hold the 28 one shutter speed slower than the 50, so you make up the aperture difference. For example, on my

rangefinder, I can get reasonably decent photos with a 28 at 1/15s at f/2. At 50, I go to 1/30s at f/1.4.

 

I'm sure the 35 is a good buy too.

[des adams]

35/f2 But it needs USM.

[yakim_peled1]

That's exactly why I sold it. Actually, there are many primes which need an Mk II with ring-USM and IF design. The USM implementation in the 50/1.4, 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 is - unfortunately - lacking.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[nrb]

In a small room I prefer the 2.8/24mm on a 1.6 crop sensor. The 2/35mm on a full frame.

The 1.8/50mm is good in both types of sensor, either as a normal lens or a short tele.

I find it good to have my 3.5-4.5/28-105mm zoom handy for some situations.

Canon glass is generally great, the full frame sensor is much better than the small, though, and it show in your pictures.

[anthony_thornborough1]

I also am considering the 28 f/1.8 as a grab-shot lens to complement the 85 f/1.8 and 17-40 f/4 L used on the 40D, for winter town shots.

 

Is it worth it? Or am I just better off fiddling about with some of the 1000 ISO grab shots I get on a 40D using the 17-40 f/4 L?

 

Tony T<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

>> Is it worth it?

 

Provided you find a good copy (mine flared awfully) then yes, absolutely.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[tim gray]

I think it's worth it. You'll get 2+ stops difference from f/4 to f/2 or f/1.8. Buy the hood and you should be protected from

most flare. Imagine your shots at ISO 1000 and f/2...

[m._jennejohn]

I've owned both the 50mm 1.8 and the 1.4 and I definitely prefer the 1.4, it's better all around. I mainly use it for people photos (especially of my baby girl) and low light shooting, and for these it is great. It's sharper than the F1.8 at wide apertures and has richer colours (compare 1.8 and 2.8 for example). Plus the autofocus is better...less hunting in darker situations. For example I decided to get rid of my F1.8 when I attempted to take pictures of my sleeping baby in the morning while the curtains were closed...the autofocus hunted so much (and is noisy) that she woke up before I could get the picture. The F1.4 autofocus isn't superb but is better. I don't think you'll be disappointed with the 1.4, it's worth the extra money.

[yakim_peled1]

About 3 years ago I had both 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 at the same time. I found them equal in terms of AF speed, AF accuracy and sharpness wide open. I did find difference in BQ, bokeh and AF noise but felt these are not worth the added cash. I sold the 50/1.4 very quickly.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[m._jennejohn]

Compare the reviews of the 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8 at Photozone:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

The 50mm 1.4 tests sharper at large appertures, look at 1.8 and 2.8 for example. My practical experience gave

similar results, the F1.4 lens (the forum won't let me spell lens with an "e" for some reason) was sharper, even when

not pixel peeping. Plus the bokeh is noticeably better as well, much smoother. The hunting autofocus drove me nuts!

To me the F1.4 was worth the extra money and it's the favourite "lens" in my line up.