Does the 50 mm/1.4 really add anything to the 17-55/2.8?

[jeff_bubis]

<p>This is the first question I've posted here and would like to start by thanking everyone for the very instructional posts I've read in the past. I've learned so much here. Currently, I shoot with a 40D. My primary lens is a 17-55/2.8, which I love. I've read so many posts on the how wonderful the 50/1.4 - same with the 50/1.8. I have no plans or desire to stop using the 17-55, but do the added stops make either of the 50's that useful to add to my bag? I would be using it primarily for portraits and street photography. I've never shot with a prime before, so I suppose it would present an opportunity for additional challenges and to work on technique, but beyond that, I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing out on anything. Thanks in advance for your advice.</p>

[sattler123]

<p>The shallow depth of field of the fast primes can be addictive - I love using it for abstract shots - see below. If shoot in low light situations a prime is indespensible. For portrait work you probably wouldn't open any lens more than 2.8 anyway - so not sure how much you would profit from a prime for that application.</p><div></div>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>if you do street pics at night or in subways.....the extra speed of the 50mm f/1.4 can make all the difference in the world.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Then there's also the compact size and additional sharpness of these lenses. If you're unsure of the benefit to you, why not just get the 50 1.8 for $80. It's a minimal expense and can act as a spare lens if nothing else. Then if you love it, you might upgrade to the 50 1.4 which is a bit more expensive but so nice and well built.</p>

[gregf]

<p>Well, for the price, it's hard to beat F1.4. With digital you can get the speed, but the DoF is amazing (I've had the luxury of borrowing the 50 F1.0, and for the price the F1.4 is the best lens than Canon sells)</p>

[chris_iannicello]

<p>I just got the 50mm f/1.4 and it's pretty sharp at 1.8 and even better at 2.2... at 2.8 and up, it probably beats the 17-55mm...<br>

You get 1 1/3 of extra light and very good sharpness, and the limited dof of course...</p>

[tdigi]

<p>The obvious is its 2 stops faster that allows you a shallower DOF as well but I love primes because they are so small</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Yes it does.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>It might add something, depending upon your needs, but I think it might add less that certain other lenses that don't duplicate a focal length you already have.</p>

<p>I own the 50mm f/1.4, have shot it on a cropped sensor body and currently shoot it on full frame. I've used a 50mm (and other FL) prime for street photography, but I've also used zooms that are roughly comparable to yours. As far as that genre goes, I'd say go out and shoot some street photos, and then ask yourself what you might gain by giving up the flexibility of the zoom. My hunch is that if you have both available you will still likely select the zoom in most cases. It covers 50mm at the apertures you are most likely to use for street, and it provides additional flexibility.</p>

<p>For portrait, again it depends on how you shoot. While you can shoot portraits at larger than f/2.8 apertures, in most cases you probably won't want to. As you may know, at the very largest apertures the depth of field can become very narrow, to the point that one eye may be in focus and the other eye blurry. Quite often in makes more sense to shoot portraits at apertures that you'll get from either lens.</p>

<p>A lot of people are going to tell you that you "have to have" the "classic normal prime." But it isn't the equivalent of that lens on your cropped sensor body. If you are thinking of replicating the lenses that were typically used by classic street photographers - to the extent that we can generalize about this - they were <em>50mm or a bit shorter</em> on film SLRs or rangefinder cameras. On your camera that converts to more or less <em>30mm or a bit shorter</em> .</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a 50 1.8Mk2. The Tamron is sharp and the colours are excellent but if I know the scene fits the 50 that's what I put on. Why? I think it's because the 50 is lighter, better handling, focus seems better!? and there is a slight sharpness edge to the 50. For the money it is worth it, don't know if I would do it for the extra cash of the 1.4 or CM2.5. ...... thinks....... yes I would! those primes are just nicer to use than zooms. Geeesh I don't know why.</p>

 

[boblester]

<p>If you do a search you'll find endless conversation about how the 50/1.4 is very soft until 2.0 and the 1.8 is soft until 2.5. There are focus issues at 1.4 becuase of the razor thin depth of field that can be overcome with technique but auto focus wide open is hit and miss. There's a thread below this one about whether the 50/1.4 is overrated. Read it and see what you are missing. That said, the 50/1.8 is a great, cheap lens. I have one, but the 17-55 stays on my camera.</p>

[boblester]

<p>Didn't really finish my thought. I love the selective depth of field of fast primes. The 50/1.4 was my favorite lens on a film body. And the one thing I don't like about the 17-55 is the size. So, by all means, get a prime. You might also consider the 35/2. Good luck.</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><strong><em >“Does the 50 mm/1.4 really add anything to the 17-55/2.8?”</em></strong></p>

<p ><strong><em > </em></strong><br>

<em>Yes, emphatically.</em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em><br>

<em><strong>*** </strong></em><br>

<em><strong> </strong></em><br>

<em><strong>"but do the added stops make either of the 50's that useful to add to my bag? I would be using it primarily for portraits and street photography. . . I suppose it would present an opportunity for additional challenges and to work on technique, but beyond that, I'm trying to figure out if I'm missing out on anything."</strong></em><br>

<br>

You mention: street photography; portraiture; and additional techniques - by way of examples, I do not like Flash and I shoot a lot informally in the street and at night . . . all of the following would have impossible with an F2.8.<br>

<br>

And not wishing to start and extrapolated discussion, but the F1.6 and F1.4 images are sharp enough, though agreed: at F2.2 the lens is sharper, but “sharp enough” at F1.4 and F1.6 – the very narrow DoF requires the focus to be nailed – often miss-focus and or the DoF is mistaken for “Not Sharp”, IMO.<br>

<br>

WW<br>

</p>

<div></div>

[William Michael]

<p>Specifically for some genre of more intimate "Street Photography" the prime most often chosen would be slightly wider than a normal filed of view - to get a Canon Prime, and at a fast speed for your 40D you are looking at the 24L . . . so a budget option, not as wide, would be the EF35/F2, though not really that much faster than F2.8, a stop is still a stop and the 35/F2 is a very useful value for money lens.<br>

There are many posts on the Sigma 30mm - I have not used the Sigma lens - you could look at that lens too, it seems a very popular lens.<br /><br />WW</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>I just recently shoot the birthday party (5th birthday) of my daughter. I used flash for a while, but noticed, that the flashlight drew too much attention on the camera, so I switched from an f/2.8 zoom to an f/1.4 prime. In that case, ambient light wouldn't have been bright enough to maintain acceptable exposure timesat f/2.8, so the two stops of the prime came very handy.</p>

[allardk]

<p>Those 2 stops make the difference between ISO 1600 2.8 1/30 (typical indoors at night situation) and 1.4 1/125. Motion blur through moving subjects or not.<br>

I have a sigma 18-50 and a Canon 50 1.8. I use the prime a lot less than the zoom, but when I do it not because of sharpness. The prime is smaller (less intimidating), faster, lighter, nicer bokeh. For portrait and street these are desirable characteristics. Get yourself a nice fast prime and experience how that is. It is different, that's sure. Some people never touch their zooms again, others sell the primes. Personally, I would not get the 50 1.4 if I had the 17-55, but rather spend the money on getting a lens outside of that focal length. If you don't feel you need a tele or ultrawide (no affordable primes, pity), by all means try that 50.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have had a 50/1.4 for many years; I bought it as a fast normal lens back in the film days, and now use it occasionally as a fast medium tele on 1.6-crop digital. I am among those who will not use it wide open due to softness. To me, with this lens, f/1.8 is for emergencies only. If I need f/2, I'll use it; at f/2, it's pretty sharp, but definitely not at its peak, so if I don't specifically need the lens to be that fast, I'll usually go with f/2.8 instead. From f/2.8-f/8, it's excellent. I would rarely use it beyond f/8 simply because I'd probably already have a zoom that includes 50mm mounted on the camera, and with that zoom (previously the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, currently either the 24-105/4L IS USM or 17-55/2.8 IS USM) stopped down to f/8, there's really no reason to waste time swapping lenses.<br>

So, to me, the 50/1.4 doesn't add much to the 17-55. It adds about one usable stop, and probably vignettes less (the 17-55 has significant vignetting at or near wide open; the 50/1.4 vignettes on full-frame but much less on 1.6-crop). I haven't done a sharpness test between the two; I would expect the 50 is somewhat sharper at f/2.8 and probably marginally sharper at f/4. The 17-55's AF hardware is quicker and likely more robust. It gives you the option of using IS. And it's already paid for and mounted on your camera. If I didn't already have the 50, I doubt I'd buy it, in part because its field of view isn't dreadfully useful for me (it was much more useful for me as a normal lens on film than it is as a medium tele on digital), and in part because I don't think there are a lot of times I'd feel a need to swap the 17-55 or 24-105 off and put the 50 on.</p>

[josephbraun]

<p>just spend $100 on the 50/1.8.. it's a steal! </p>

[vrankin]

<p>Try a test using flash indoors, since the flash will cancel most of the potential camera motion (I recommend a bookshelf full of books around 8 feet away with a variety of colors and print sizes on the bindings) with your kit lens wide open at 5.6 and then with your prime at 1.8, 2.8, 4 and 5.6. You might find that your kit lens at 50mm is sharper at the edges with better depth of field when used wide open at f/5.6, compared to your 50 prime from 1.7 to around f/4. That's definitely the case for me, using a Minolta AF 50/1.7 against my Sony 18-70 kit lens. The same optical properties would appear in ambient light shooting.<br>

The main advantage of the prime in low light is a brighter view for the AF and higher shutter speeds, but <em>not </em> better optical performance at those settings from 1.7-2.8. The selective focus effect can be nice, if you like that kind of thing. Sometimes in a small print it just adds to the impression of a lack of overall sharpness. Also, the bokeh (a favorite topic here) can be beautiful. I also tested my 50 prime against the kit lens with both at their "sweet spots" on f/8. Since the kit lens has a "D" feature and the prime doesn't I've sometimes found the kit lens shots more pleasing. The acutance from the 50 is not appreciably better. I believe that in the case of Minolta's older AF 50/1.7, the "prime hype" is overblown. The kit lens at 10 MP looks very fine at f/8. Maybe Nikon's primes are of better quality, but I doubt it.</p>

[ben_quinn1]

<p>Nothing beats a good prime at f/2.8 for portraits or general low light situations. Its absolutely essential. My current bag for my 40d is 17-55 IS f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 28mm f/1.8. </p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"Try a test . . . with your kit lens wide open at 5.6 . . . </strong></em><br>

<br>

Howard, I understand your points and the test you describe, but note the OP has the EF-S 17 to 55F2.8IS and this lens is neither of the two "kit lenses" supplied by Canon. <br>

<br>

The Canon Kit Lenses are: EF-S 18 to 55 F3.5 to F5.6, and the IS version thereof.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>I appreciate everyone's advice. Adorama has a refurbished "plastic fantastic" for $77... For that price, it might be worth experimenting with. I think the points about going with a 35mm are well taken - I'll probably consider that as well. Thanks to all who answered.</p>

<p>jeff</p>