Good compliment to 85mm 1.8 and 17-55mm 2.8

[damian_rees]

I have a 60d and both of the above lenses. I'm thinking of an additional lens to add to my kit and I keep looking at the 50mm 1.4

longingly. The extra portability and the even lower light capability is attractive, but I then worry that I already have the 50mm covered

with the 17-55 and wonder if another lens may be a better fit to complete my range.

 

Am I over thinking things here? What would you do?

[g dan mitchell]

<p>A really practical question to ask yourself is, "What have I tried to do with this gear only to be frustrated by its limitations?" And follow that up with, "what features would deal with the specific source of the frustration?"</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The 50mm and the zoom are not really duplicates-- each has its strengths.<br>

If you feel the need to try longer focal lengths, a good place to start is the EF-S 55-250mm IS lens, which is a great bargain, and far more <em>valuable</em> than its <em>price</em>.</p>

<p> Dan's comment is appropriate - in the end only you can answer the question of where YOU want to go.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>Any of the 70-200mm's are an excellent compliment to any lens collection. I don't know what you want to achieve, but the 70-200mm is one of, if not the, most versatile zoom around.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Of course, the old editor in me also wants to say, hell, can't resist, suggesting that the answer to the question (a <em>compliment</em> to the 85mm f/1.8) is</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You are a beautiful lens, little EF 85mm f/1.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The other answers, including my own, went off-topic by suggesting <em>complements</em> to the lens. :)</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM focuses 10 times better than the EF 50 1.4 USM in low light. No problem in good light but I found 50 1.4 low light AF a real lesson in frustration.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I have and like the 50 F1.4 but as Puppy says it has slowish AF - it should also be thought of as an F2 lens as it is soft wide open. Not sure what you want to shoot but the 70-200 F4 or if you can afford it the 70-200 F4 L IS would be a great addition. If you want to shoot landscapes then a lens like the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 or Canon 10-22 would also be worth considering</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>I own both of these lenses and in my opinion the 17-55 is a bit sharper at the similar focal lengths - 55mm vs 50mm</p>

<p>FWIW I've created two images (100% crop from original files) that you may compare, the first crop was made with the 50 the second with the zoom (EOS 50D).<br>

As Philip and Puppy said the 50 is definitely a dog for AF in low light but does have the advantage that it is very easy to hold compared to the 17-55 which of course is a much larger lens but AF is pretty snappy in and positive in low light. For portraits, on a cropped body shooting at f/8 provides an adequately sharp image though fine details are resolved noticebly better with the 17-55 at the same aperture. <br>

I'm not sure the differences are obvious in the web versions of these crops.<br>

Don Bryant</p>

<div></div>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Well darn the first uploade image was made with the zoom not the 50mm f/1.4/<br>

The attached image with this post IS a 100% crop from the 50. Sorry for the confusion.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>Well darn the first uploade image was made with the zoom not the 50mm f/1.4/<br>

The attached image with this post IS a 100% crop from the 50. Sorry for the confusion.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[matthijs]

<p>Portability?</p>

<p>I love my 28/2.8. It's a standard on my 400D and 50D and it's a wide angle on my 5Dii.</p>

<p>I often go out with just the 28 or the 28 and my 100 macro.</p>

<p>For low light you'll only need the 50/1.4 to freeze subject motion because your 17-55 has IS. It will probably give better results than the 50 with static subjects in low light.</p>

<p>Other options would of course be ultra wide angle, macro, longer tele, flash etcetera but those should only be considered if that's where you want to go.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, Matthijs.</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>A good place to start is to consider what you can't do now with the gear you have and to think about filling that gap. That's going to guide you to the lens length you are looking for and your budget will guide you most of the rest of the way. If, on the other hand, you are enjoying photography and want another bit to add to your gear - and that's a perfectly reasonable starting point - the world is your oyster.<br>

I think the Sigma 50/1.4 is an excellent lens, it's not a little lens, it takes a 77 mm filter and weighs quite a bit. It seems to be welded to my 5D just now.<br>

I think the idea of a 70-200 seems very good. I started off with the f4 Non IS and absolutely love it. I kept it as a lightweight portable lens when I bought the f2.8 IS.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

[damian_rees]

Thanks for all the great advice. Thinking about what I can't do atbthe moment that I'd like to be able to do is to have a

longer zoom (but I don't think that too often) and to get much closer to the subject. So answering that question

suggests that maybe the 100mm macro might be a good shout. Trouble is I can't quite afford that, so maybe the

60mm macro.

 

Although I would really like the 50mm prime I think what people have said here I probably don't really need it.

[jasonweddington]

<p>2.8 is pretty fast, and if you're talking about the IS USM 17-55, it's a much better lens than the 50 1.4, in most conditions. Sure the 1.4 is better in low light, but in low light the AF falls apart. </p>

<p>Unless you wander the streets at night, I don't see the 50 1.4 as the next step. (I used to have the 17-55 IS USM when I was shooting on the 30D, I have the 5D MKII now, and I currently own the 50 1.4) </p>

<p>For most situations, you have the wide end covered. Go long. Look at the 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4. Or look at one of the 75-300 options if you want more reach and are OK with a variable aperture.</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>You seem to want a smallish lens. How about the 35/2? It's so small and light that you might start bringing your 60D when you otherwise wouldn't because your 17-55 is kind of big. If that's what your purchase will mean, you've added functionality to your gear.</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I'm not against duplicating lens focal lengths but it seems that you are staying pretty close to the lenses that you already have. If you are looking for a nice lightweight walk around for your 60D I would pick up the 35 /2 as stated above. The reason being, I find the 50 to be too long as a walk around lens personally.</p>

<p>Otherwise, if you have the 85mm, I wouldn't personally look at a 100mm macro unless you want it ONLY for the macro, the focal lengths aren't that much different. If you were to go longer, I would go with at least the 135, and personally I went with the 200 2.8</p>

<p>But, as many have said, only you can best determine your needs. The best suggestion I can make is that if you are looking for something longer, get a zoom, and then decide if you like the ability to zoom, or if you stick at certain focal lengths at which time you could sell the zoom and pick up a nice prime in that range.</p>

[rohin2k]

<p>Damian,<br>

You could look at Sigma 30 f1.4 for low light avenues. Also, as other people have mentioned, any of 70-200 mm lenses would be great too.<br>

Regards,<br>

RM</p>

[eric_duncan3]

<p>Further to Jason Weddington's nomination of the 70-200 L, it does make a great complement to the 17-55 f/2.8, in terms of focal length coverage, and image quality. I think there are four current versions of the 70-200 L, and I have the least expensive f/4 non-IS. I use this focal length range with a monopod or tripod most of the time anyway, so I have found this lens very useful, even without IS. Image quality is worthy of the 'L' suffix. And because you mention portability, the f/4 non-IS is also the lightest of the four 70-200s. My cameras are a 50D and 7D, so should be very similar to the performance you would see on the 60D. Among others, I also have the 60mm macro, and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which I like for really low light work. (IS on the 17-55 helps to close the gap, but although a claimed 3-stop hand-holding advantage is probably about right, IS is not a total substitute for 2 more aperture stops.) But your 85mm f/1.8 is a very good performer in low light, too, and with a maximum aperture of f/2.8, plus IS, the 17-55 isn't bad, either. So as an all-around complement to the lenses you already have, I second Jason's nomination of the 70-200L in any of its versions. (But beware the price tag of the f/2.8 IS!)</p>

[eric_duncan3]

<p>Sorry Rohin -- your comments posted while I was writing mine. You more succinctly state similar recommendations!</p>

[dave_kim2]

<p>If the 17-55 and 85mm are the only lenses in your bag, I would not be duplicating any focal lengths. Sounds like you want a little extra reach, you have two choices, a 70-200 f2.8 (with or without IS) or if you prefer primes the 135mm f2.0L. Sure there are other lenses out there, the 70-200mm f4L IS or the 200mm f2.8L II, both great lenses, sharper than what you currently have, I've had them both, they have both been made obsolete by my purchase of the 70-200mm f2.8L IS. I would have saved a lot of money by just buying the 70-200 first. The only drawback is that it is very big and heavy, if that is a factor the 135mm f2 might be the best choice. You did not mention what your photographic interests are, if sports is one of them I'd go with the zoom.</p>