Next lens: prime or wide angle???

[plba1126]

<p>I've heard good things about a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 lens, also about wide angle zooms like 12-24mm 2.8 etc. Which one should i invest in first as a second lens? I'm currently using a stock 28-135mm 3.5/5.6 for my 40d.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Depends what you want to do with them. They are not alike in use. Do you need the wide focal lengths more than you need a wide aperture tele? Answer that question and you'll have the answer to the above question.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Sorry but I do not like the 28-135. Since you want wide and performance of a prime. 17-55 2.8 IS. v/r Raz</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>A second lens for weddings?</p>

<p>If that is your question, I would be as concerned about a second everything. Unless there is no expectation that you will produce, in which case....</p>

<p>The best for a 40D (IMO) from where you are now, would be the 17-50 Tamron, Tokina 16-50 or for even more money, a used 17-55/IS.</p>

<p>If you want to shoot in low light without flash on a 40D, then the 24/1.4 Mk1 would be a great prime. Or if you want more of a portrait type lens, the 50/1.4 Canon, or Sigma. Sigma is better by a good margin at the wide apertures.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Personal taste and style should make the decision for you. Personally, I don't like the WA distortion that happens below about 24mm - but I'm likely in the minority with this opinion.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Christopher, you're such an old fuddy duddy ;-).</p>

<p>Go wide (opposite of "go long").</p>

<p>Kidding, D.</p>

[candice]

<p>The 50 1.8 is a waste of money, do the 1.4 Do yourself a favor and go to the camera shop and just feel the two. The 1.4 is way better built :-)</p>

<p>CC=)</p>