Lens suggestions for 60D

[jeff_kwon]

<p>I own a 60D and only the lens I own is the 18-135mm. I was thinking about purchasing the 50mm f/1.4 but some suggest that I buy a wide angle lens. I wanted to know about the differences between the f/1.4 and the f/1.8 I. If it's really worth spending more money to get the f/1.4. And some suggestions on the wide angle lenses. I'm saving up for an L lens so suggestions on one that is around $1500.</p>

[wayne_woodruff]

<p>I think you're approaching this a little backwards. I'd suggest determining what focal ranges you may like or need, then decide on what you can afford.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>Well, there are a lot of options here.</p>

<p>First question, the difference between the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 are a few. The 1.4 is slightly faster (obviously). It also has a less-noisy AF motor, and is built sturdier (metal lens mount + focusing screen and bigger focus ring). The Bokeh is slightly better due to more aperture blades.</p>

<p>If you are looking for some wide angle lenses for $1500 or less you've got lots of options. Do you want a prime or a zoom?<br>

For the zooms you could look at the EFS 17-55 2.8 (it's not an L but I've heard that with it's IQ it might as well be). You could also look at the EF 16-35 2.8 II L or the 17-40 F4 L. Lastly if you are looking for ULTRA wide you could pick up the EFS 10-22 or whatever it is.</p>

<p>It all comes down to what you are really wanting in your Wide lens. Are you using it for landscapes? Street photography? Wedding photos? </p>

<p>Really your request is a little too broad to be able to narrow this down for you much.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>I wanted to know about the differences between the f/1.4 and the f/1.8 I.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me the most important difference of the EF <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50mm</strong></a> f/1.4 USM is FTM (full time manual) which enables me to quickly "defocus" and refocus a shot. I use this when taking several pictures of my subject to avoid AF accuracy issues. Take three shots this way and at least one is perfectly in focus even when shooting at large aperture. Speaking of which, having the option to go to f/1.4 helps a lot in some low light situations. However, I am planning to switch to the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens because it is better at large apertures than the Canon lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm saving up for an L lens so suggestions on one that is around $1500.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The best wide angle for APS-C dSLRs is the Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8. It's not a Canon lens, but pretty awesome nevertheless.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I wouldn't buy anything yet. It seems like you have money to spend and want someone to tell you how to spend it. If you do that, you'll get what others want and not what you need. I'd shoot with your current kit for awhile and see what you are missing. Shoot lots of stuff and after a bit you'll be saying, "man, I need a ...., or I could get the shot if I had a ...." When you get that moment, you'll do some research and find the lens that will fit your photography needs. When that time comes, then you can spend your money, but if you spend it now you may waste it on something you don't need. With regard to the 50's, I have the f/1.8 alongside a few L zooms and don't feel any need to replace it. The f/1.4 is a great lens, but only you can decide whether you <em>really</em> need to spend the extra money or not. For some people its worth it, for others its not.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I agree with Wayne and Nathan, Jeff. You should first determine which focal lengths you're actually going to use, rather than ask us which focal lengths we recommend.</p>

<p>As far as the 50/1.4 versus 50/1.8 issue goes, the former is the superior lens in every respect. And I think that, given it's outstanding optical quality, it's inexpensive, too. But whether you agree with this is up to you to decide, not me.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I'll add to the general advice that you should not buy anything until you can specify what focal range is most useful for what you want to shoot, but I would add two more points. One is that you need to do the same with speed. For some uses, fast glass is essential; for others, a waste of money. Last, you said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm saving up for an L lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not a good way to start out. Many L lenses are wonderful (2 of my 5 are L lenses), but in many cases, it is not the best choice, and buying L won't make your images great. (I doubt most people would be able to tell which of my macro shots I took with my L or my non-L.) In some cases, there is a reasonable alternative that costs literally 1/3 of the L price, and if you don't really need the L features, three of those lenses may be a much better purchase than one L. Here's my advice for getting the most for your $$:<br>

-- decide what focal length range is really most important for you<br>

--decide whether you need fast glass, either for the speed or the narrower DOF<br>

--if you can, decide whether for that particular lens, you need other features, such as full-time manual focusing, a parfocal lens, or a non-rotating front element.</p>

<p>Then post and ask for opinions and pointers to reviews</p>

 

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Someone at my work has exactly the same considerations: just purchased the 60D, and looking for a fast prime. You don't really say what you're looking for in that prime, ie: what your needs and expectations are.</p>

<p>Guessing that you might want a lens that approximates normal field of view, ie: neither wide angle or telephoto, decent speed, and you are willing to spend a moderate amount, for the crop-body 60D I'd suggest the Canon EF 35mm f2.0:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2.0-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>