Nifty .... 24?

[zbo2408]

I have been thinking about a good quality prime lens to go with my XSi ... But am not sure about getting the

EF 24mm f/2.8
or
EF 50mm f/1.4

From reading reviews the 50mm sounds like a much higher quality / sharper / faster lens ... and I want it over the 24... but I think the 24 MIGHT be a more usable focal length? Without pulling out a calculator the 24 is = to about 38mm on my camera and the 50 is = to about 80mm ... When I use my 18-55 and I zoom it to 50 it just seems like it might be too much zoom ... but also 24 is still pretty wide ...

I mainly play around w/ land scape / still life ... I occasionally am able to talk a girl whom is a friend into modeling for me ...

Just looking for some input on which may be more useful / better for me.

Thanks

 

[tirediron]

To be honest, I would skip both of those. I have found 35mm a much more useful focal length on crop-body cameras. I don't speak enough Canon to know exactly what's available, but there are some good third-party primes available.

 

[Aayria]

If you primarily do landscape work, the 24mm is definitely a great prime lens. If you'd like to get into portraiture, though...the 50mm on a crop sensor is great. Keep in mind, if you want the "blurry background" effect, it's about a whole lot more than just your aperture...so the faster glass isn't really as important. Presumably for landscape work, you can use a tripod more...so I wouldn't sweat the low aperture.

However..if you get into portrait work, you're going to have to stand REALLY close to your subject to get the "blurry background." Your distance to the subject is a major key to seperating her from the background, so personally I'd find that really annoying on a 24mm.

Sorry for rambling on, but basically both lenses are great.. I love my 50mm, but I do mostly portraiture... If I was doing landscapes I'd want either a wider lens, or a good zoom to get those far off scenes I can't walk to, or to isolate my subject. The wide lens would be great for getting a lot of the scene in focus for a detailed landscape though.

 

[zbo2408]

My concern w/ the canon 35 is it appears to be very cheap in the materials / quality department ... and I do want to stick with canon brand at this point in time ... no good reason for it, just feel like I need to...

My reason for wanting a faster lens is I seem to find myself in low light settings very often and it seems on my XSi that 1600 and even 800 ISO produce way to much noise for my eye :/ so f/stops have become very important in my lens shopping

No apologies needed for long posts... those are exactly what I need / want

 

[Dao]

I would rather buy the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 instead of the Canon EF 24mm f/2.8


The following charts are from Photozone.de
MTF for Tamron
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/2...pherical-if-canon-test-report--review?start=1

MTF chart for Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/153-canon-ef-24mm-f28-test-report--review?start=1

If you just compare the 24mm focal length, the Tamron seems slightly better.

 

[bigtwinky]

When I want a prime, I want to mainly for the wide open apertures which come in really handy for lower light shooting. Yes, they are sharp lenses when stopped down some, but I would not pick up a 24mm f/2.8 when I can have a 24-70 f/2.8. If the 24mm was an f/1.4 or even an f/1.8, then I'd consider it.

So my vote would be the 50 f/1.4 and keep your kit lens for the landscapes. The kit lens isn't a horrible lens, specially when you stop down to f/8 or so. If you are doing landscapes, you should have a tripod, so shooting at a smaller aperture / slower shutter isn't a huge deal for you.

But yeah, 50 f/1.4 simply because of the wider aperture.

Primes I would/will purchase:
24 1.4
35 1.4
50 1.2, 1.4, 1.8
85 1.2, 1.8

Then the specialty primes like macros, tilt shift and fisheyes.

Just my 2 cents

 

[MohaimenK]

Big do you really need a 50 1.2 then 1.4 and then 1.8?? LOL!

 

[bigtwinky]

ROFL...euh...yes I do! Backup lenses! Yeah!

They are just the ones I would "consider" buying. I dont think I'll ever get the 50 1.2, but never say never, right? Give me 10 million in lottery winnings and I just might.

 

[MohaimenK]

haha hey if you get $10m let me $100k

 

[John Mc]

If you won $10 on the lottery,why buy a 50/1.8 as a back up? i'd have 3 50/1.2's as back up's

 

[MohaimenK]

If you won $10 on the lottery,why buy a 50/1.8 as a back up? i'd have 3 50/1.2's as back up's

Forget Canon/Nikon then with $10M I'll be getting a Hasselblad 60mp Lenses that ranges from $5k-$50k Just cuz I got $10m muahahahahaha

Leica 50mm f/0.95 comes to mind :mrgreen:

 

[altitude604]

the 50/1.8 is a little on the long side on the XSi, but if you're doing a lot of low light stuff it's the better bet than the 24/2.8 so get the 50 and just stand back a little further. lol

and you're right about the ISO performance at 800 and 1600 on the XSi... i try to avoid anything higher than 400 at all possible.

 

[zbo2408]

lots of good information to consider thanks ya'll!

 

[reznap]

Nobody suggested the Canon 28mm f/1.8 USM? It's not cheap ($460) but I've heard good things about it and it's much cheaper than the L lenses bigtwinky suggested. If you want some L primes, I've heard so many people gush over the 24L and 35L.. apparently they're just outstanding.

 

[Ryan L]

I know you were looking into primes, but someone suggested the Tamron 2.8. I bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC about a year ago, and I really really like the quality of it. It's a very sturdy lens, much more so than my 50 1.4 or 1.8, focus very quickly, and very sharp. The only thing I can say is Tamron repair is VERY expensive compared to Canon. (My own dumb fault for dropping it on cement and distorting the barrel) I used to say I only liked Canon gear as well, but I have changed my mind. Go to a shop and check them out. Not a cheap built at all.

Since you do want to do a little of both I think a zoom would be more suited for you liking. Also you cannot go wrong buying the 50mm 1.8 for a good lens, Everyone should own one at some point.