Canon 50mm 1.4 or wide angle 28mm 1.8 for 40D ?

[sher]

<p>I have purchased a 70-200 2.8 L series (which I am in love with..) but I also need something for indoors/low light/ small venues.<br>

Obviously, I'm new to photography but already adicted. (I got the L for soccer pics) <br>

Thanks</p>

[mostly sports]

<p>I would go wide angle, just because you've got the tele end covered. On a 40D the 28 is a "normal" lens. After that I'd consider the 17-40.</p>

[pbalko]

<p>Another Phil for the 28. I'm quite happy with mine. You can always throw down another hundred bucks or so on the 50 1.8 if you feel you're missing something.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>Out of those 2 lenses I'd recommend 50 1.4. 28mm 1.8 is just not a good lens. Very soft and bad CA. You might want to consider 35mm f/2 instead. That would be a true "normal" lens on a crop and its got very good IQ.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Not to be disrespectful of the advice you have been given, but I would not follow any advice until you specify what you are going to be shooting. Portraits? group shots? Flash? Available light? And I would not rely on advice alone. Tastes vary.</p>

<p>Even on a 40D, 28mm is on the short side for portraits, a bit shorter than a 'normal' lens. Many people find the perspective of wide angle very unflattering for portraits (do you like bulbous noses?), which is why an old standard for portrait lenses, translated to crop sensor format, is in the range of 56mm. (I looked recently in response to someone else's query, and most of my indoor small space shots of people are in the range of 55-75mm). However, you might like a very different look. And if you want groups in a small space, you may need to go wide, bulbous noses or not. Last year, I was taking pictures of a party in a small house using my standard people lens (28-75mm Tamron f/2.8), and I backed myself into a fireplace trying to get an entire group into one frame. Fortunately, there was no fire going.</p>

<p>My suggestion is that you borrow or rent a zoom that covers that range and see for yourself what you like.</p>

[craigd]

<p>I agree with Ilya -- the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM is nearly unusable due to severe CA. I had one. Sold it. Most of the serious technical reviews online make the same complaint.</p>

<p>If you want a 28mm, save a little money and get the f/2.8. If you need it to be faster than that, the 35mm f/2 is a decent choice. Neither of these is as nicely built as the 28mm f/1.8, and neither has USM, but they're both better optically.</p>

[alec_style]

<p>I would also recommend the Sigma 30 or 50mm F1.4 EX lenses.<br>

I own the 50mm and use it on my 40D. Great for portraits with excellent bokeh.<br>

I usually buy Canon L lenses but have very pleased with the Sigma.</p>

[paul_m__austin_]

<p>I have both lenses. The 50/1.4 is better but the 28/1.8 is not nearly as bad as some people say (at least the one I have isn't). I think you should base your decision on which focal length would be more useful to your type of shooting. 50 isn't that much wider than 70. It's just my opinion, but I think 28 would be more useful if you're only other lens is a 70-200. </p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>I have seen some amazing photos with the 28 1.8 so I would not call it unusable by any means. Both the 50 1.4 and 28 have strengths and weaknesses. I agree about being more concern with the focal length you need and not about which is better. FWIW I stick with all Canon lenses but the Sigma 24 1.8 and 30 1.4 as well as the 50 1.4 all seem to all get good reviews ( just to give you a few more choices ) I have been seriously considering the Sigma 24 and 50.<br>

<br /> Another thought, why not a zoom like The Tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-40 with a 50 1.8, seems a little more versatile. Again just some thoughts but I own both primes in question and both are very capable.</p>

[bueh]

<p>For low-light photography the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50mm</strong></a> f/1.4 are pretty good on APS-C. I haven't used the 28mm f/1.8 but I don't believe technical tests so much -- real world photography is what counts and I have yet to find a really poor Canon prime (although I hate the flare-proneness of the EF 20mm), but just for the speed I would prefer the Sigma 30mm lens over Canon's 28mm.</p>

<p>In the end, focal lengths of these lenses are different and you need to decide which working distance you are going to use. Available light photography is always a challenge and even with the best lenses a lot depends on luck, technique and the actual lighting instead the technical specs of your gear.</p>

<p>As most cameras struggle in low light to AF focus accurately, I highly recommend a Speedlite for AF assisting. Turn off the flash firing, but use the red assist beam for much faster and better focusing. Then use your lens' FTM to start over.</p>

[mike dixon]

Don't know how well the 28/1.8 would suit your needs, but it's been my most-used lens (primarily on a 5D) for the past five years. While not perfect, it is far from "unusable."

[mike_sinquefield]

<p>I would get the 28 1.8 AND the 50 1.8 (since the 50 is only around $100). That way you have both focal lengths covered, and despte the plasticy feel of the 50, it is a great little lens. Save up to upgrade to the 50 1.4 later...</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>On the 40D the 28mm will be more of a "normal" lens with the 1.6 crop factor and I expect you will find it's not as wide as you would like.</p>

<p>My suggestion would be to consider something in a "wide zoom" that will be more versatile for the situations you indicate. <em>"for indoors/low light/ small venues." </em>Something with an f/2.8 for the low light conditions.<br />Although I'm "generally" for sticking with Canon, . . . I was in the same situation about a year ago! The Canon offerings with apertures in the f/2.8 range were quite expensive. I wanted something with the image quality near my EF 100-400 L, <em>I already had </em>the Canon EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM MkII, (<em>Not wide enough or fast enough</em>) the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, (<em>Not wide enough, but great in low light</em>).</p>

<p>I purchased a used Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AF SP XR Di II LD IF. It's my only third party lens and I am very pleased with it's low light capabilities, zoom range, build & image quality. My only regret is that it wasn't the VC (image stabilization) version. "As I age, I find IS very useful!"<br />The image quality of the Tamron is as good as my 50 f/1.4 and near that of my Canon L's. (<em>I'm blessed to have 2</em>!)</p>

<p>Just something else to throw out there, and elaborate on Tommy's post.</p>

[sher]

<p>Thanks so much for all the comments! I want a lens I can use as a general everyday use, but with a bent toward indoors/lowlight specifically for indoor parties, small concert venues, night parties. I live in a small town and no where to rent equipment locally to try it out first. </p>

[jim_j2]

<p>The Tamron 17-50 is the lens found on my 50D most of the time!<br>

I like the versatility of the zoom, the f/2.8, it's supplied tulip lens hood that reverses for storage, and the image sharpness it provides, and most of all it's price compared to the Canon offerings in the same focal lengths.<br>

My .o2 worth!</p>

[tpurvis]

<p>I have both, with the 28 being the latest purchase and most used. I like the normal focal length it provides and am looking forward to one day mounting it on a 5D. I do agree that the 50 1.8 is a great lens for the price. A fast lens is not always the answer indoors. You may find the DOF at 1.8 does not give you the sharp images you are looking for. I would hate to think you purchased a fast lens and ended up stopping it down anyway. You best friend indoors is a camera that will take clean photos at 800 to 1600 ISO and a decent lens set to 4.0. I have some great shots with the combo of 7D and 10-22 set at 3.5. <br>

My advise would be to try a 50 1.8 and see how the larger aperture works for you.</p>