Canon 40mm or 50 1.4mm

[lowfatgraphics]

<p>Hey guys,</p>

<p>After everyone helped me purchase my recent setup (T3i), which came with a kit lens. I took the kit lens around shooting and it does add a little bulk in my backup.<br>

I made a small little project for myself to shoot 3 "good" images a week, but I was thinking if I should pick up the new 40mm 2.8 at that amazing price or should I spend a little more and pick up the 50mm 1.4? <br>

I'm also working on my thesis for grad school and wanted to add some video footage of interviews and figured I could practice and use this cam as well.<br>

Also, any external mic options at a good price?<br>

Thanks everyone and happy sunday!</p>

<p> </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>If the 18-55 adds 'bulk', then a 50/1.4 USM is going to add about the same amount (even w/o a lens hood), and the the 40/2.8 is going to be preferable. If you want/need to shoot @f1.8-2.8 though, the 40/2.8 is going to be utterly useless for that.<br>

On the T3i, The 50/1.4 is probably going to be slightly preferable for video, since the full time manual USM is easier to manually use than the STM manual focus ring on the 40/2.8.</p>

<p>As far as extrnal mic options, perhaps you should ask for 'good' external mic options at a good price, which are a fair bit more difficult to find, but do exist.</p>

[philip_wilson]

I have both and have to say the 50 is the better lens although it only gets really sharp at F2.0. The 40 is quite a lot smaller

and I do not use a lens hood with it as the cannon offering looked terrible. The 40 is really an AF only lens - you can use

MF but it is not the easiest MF lens and you tend to rely on the confirmation from the camera. I have not used my 40

much on an APSC body - only on full frame. This is probably the biggest issue for the 40 mm lens as it really seems

designed for full frame as an effective 64 mm lens is a portrait lens and the DOF of the 40 F2.8 and Bokah are not really

up to this use. I often use a 50 F1.5 Zeiss on my M8 (effective 65mm) but somehow the 40mm Canon on my 7D does

not feel very useful. So long as you don't need a faster lens than F2.8, and don't mind the focal length or using AF then

the 40 is a great bargain.

[Mark Keefer]

<p>I have a 50mm f/1.4 Sigma and love it, but I have to back away from subjects for portraits and group shots as the 50mm on a crop sensor camera is 80mm. I also have the Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM. You may find the 40mm will give you a little wider angle and will behave like a 64mm on your camera.<br>

Trade off, yes the lens isn't as fast, but at f/2.8 will still perform well, f/2.8 is OK in low light. The 40mm will have a little advantage doing HD Wide video with the ability to have the gear a little closer to the action, and still give you nice portrait shots. There really is no wrong lens, it is just a matter of where you will have to set up for your videos based on lens choice.<br>

The more lenses you have allow you to choose the correct lens for your shooting location as apposed to have to move your location for the lens, but in the end, it all come down to how you want the final production to look. There is no wrong lens, just choices for what you prefer.</p>

<p> </p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>If you think the tiny 18-55 "adds bulk" to your bag, you must have a really small bag! There are very few smaller lenses than the 18-55, save for the 40 2.8 or a pinhole cap. Try shooting your zoom at 40mm and see if it fits your style. I suspect you'll find it a bit long on APS-C. If I wanted a fast prime for walkaround on APS-C, I'd probably buy something wider, e.g., 14 to 24 range.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>If I wanted a fast prime for walkaround on APS-C, I'd probably buy something wider, e.g., 14 to 24 range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1.<br /> I use a 24.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm also working on my thesis for grad school and wanted to add some <em><strong>video footage of interviews</strong> </em>and figured I could practice and use this cam as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On an APS-C - if I were using a Prime Lens, I would use a lens wider than 40mm for this purpose.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[paul_brenner1]

<p>I recently bought a T4i and the 18-135 STM lens, and am happy with it. But it is a bit heavy, and after to'ing and fro'ing, I also bought the 40mm (at a local big box store where I have up to 30 days to return no questions asked).<br>

Like for others, what held me back was the effective 64mm focal length on APS, which is a little "weird". However, after using it for a couple of weeks, I'm pretty sure I will keep it:<br>

1. Obviously, makes for a very light carrying-around camera.<br>

2. More importantly, I've found that for many situations where I need to be a bit wider, it is very practical simply to back up several steps, and voila, the framing is right. (Amazing!) Even 64mm (effective) is short enough to do this in many situations. (And sometimes I need to move forward!) I realized how much I (and I'll bet others) tend to get a bit "lazy" with a zoom. And more broadly, living with a "limitation" can help make you a better photographer. You need to be a bit more deliberate.<br>

3. Even without IS, it is a reasonably good very low-light lens (compared to a zoom) with f/2.8 and its super light weight.<br>

4. It should make a good camera for "street" photography given that it's pretty unobtrusive. (I need to do more with this and with other people photography, as I can foresee leaving the zoom at home if I'm going somewhere where I'm doing people shots only.)<br>

<br />Not a review, just some early thoughts/reactions.<br>

Paul</p>