PhotoGator Loc: Florida

Check out the 24-70mm f/2.8

papajwatt

I have the 1.8 cannon and love it. I am not sure the image quality would be worth the extra $. I shoot with a 5D MKll that has very good low light quality so the faster lens isn't that important to me.
Hope this helps.

daddybear Loc: Brunswick, NY

I would start with the F1.8 for the hundred bucks. Learn to use it well and if you like it move up. Everyone can use a spare lens

texasdan78070 Loc: Texas Hill Country

I recently bought a 50 mm PLASTIC lens. It's f1.8. Does a good enough job for me, but I'm not a perfectionist. The metal one was triple that. I normally use the 18-55 for everyday shooting. Buy the best you can afford. It will pay in the long run.

pigpen

I have watched several instructional videos done by pros, many of them say the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a better, sharper lens than the 50mm f/1.2 L.

Also, someone mentioned the 85mm f/1.8. This is an awesome lens!!

davidheald1942 Loc: Mars (the planet)

Art, I know there are a lot folks with a lot of experience giving you advice, and I just wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

I subscribed to both Popular Photography, Modern Photography and several other magazines over the last 50 years and. one thing that was branded on my mind was, the in-depth lens test they conducted.

After reading a thousand lens test, one thing was very apparent, The wider the aperture the higher the resolution wide open. At least one writer stated just that.

They quit giving the resolution numbers way back in the 1970's or early 1980's.

I wish they still gave the reso numbers. If they do still give them I apologize.
I only started subscribing again about a year ago.
I didn't quit photography, I had all the gear I needed and felt I didn't need to read photo mags,

My gear back then included a Leica R1 SLR W/50mm f 2 lens that was tack sharp (Yes they were very hard to find & very costly).I only had the one lens for the Leica. I also have a Kodak Retina rangefinder that will give any camera lens a run for the money even today. I still have most of my gear.
BTW, Although I never sold them, my ex-wife has custody of them. I'm not LMAO about that. Let me think,,,Umm,,I have a Pentax MX that I just love. The Pentax has a 50mm f/1.8 lens. It too is a very good camera/lens combo. I had a Canon range-finder, but I don't have it anymore and can't remember the model #.

I have a Beesler (spelling) w/a 50mm & 75mm Schneider Compenon (spelling) both. I have a Mint Yashica Mat 124G , and no I don't have anything that I'd sell. BTW, I sold my Leica back in 1973 in order to buy the kids Christmas. I don't regret that at all. Damn, I sure wish I could spell.

I will post about my gear at a later date.
All this typing with bursitis is hard for me to do but
I love it. Seeya for now David

JimGuy

If the larger aperture is the only difference, and performance is similar, then #1. You will likely not shoot a 1.8 or larger aperture lens wide open very often any way. Most of the time you will probably be stopped down some.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Thanks for the reply, Gene. I learned that, f1.2 is "only" 1/3 of a stop faster than f1.4. I always thought f1.2 was a full stop faster, than f1.4.
I thank you very much for clearing this up for me.

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

your right, but when your in a low light situation . you have the extra fstops for using a faster shutter , if you have to

GaryS1964 Loc: Northern California

I have the 1.8. Really like it but I've seen what the 1.4 can do and it is better so it's #2 on my purchase list. The 1.2 is very nice but for me the difference between the 1.4 and the 1.2 is not worth $1300.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Jim, I have a couple of fast lenses and I shoot them wide open ALL the time.
For example, landscape shooters are "sweet spot", shooters. If you're a landscaper, you probably don't have any use for a fast lens. Your best buddy is a tripod, not a fast lens.
Sports, wildlife and product shooters shoot wide open all the time. They're lenses are never fast enough.
So what and how you shoot dictates how fast you need, and every 1/3 stop starts to add up. Admittedly fast lenses are expensive, so we all need to temper our need for speed, with our need to pay the bills! :lol:
SS

amehta Loc: Boston

Yes, sports and wildlife shooters shoot wide open all the time, but how often is it with a 50mm? Even with the 85mm f/1.4 shooting indoor volleyball with horrible light, I shoot at f/2 or f/2.8 so I get some depth of field, though I do like the option for f/1.4. And what product are you going to shoot a 50mm at f/1.4 or f/1.2? If it's small enough that you don't need DoF, you're using a macro. Otherwise, I would think most people like seeing more than just 2-4cm of the product in focus. And a portrait photographer should also be using a longer lens than a 50mm.

Maybe, for the OP, it comes back to "get a more useful lens like the Canon 85mm f/1.8 for the same price as the 50mm f/1.4."

davidheald1942 Loc: Mars (the planet)

I've read a hundred times over the years that the sweet spot on most lenses is two stops down (a smaller aperture from wide open)and believe this to be the case.
I always tested a new enlarger lens by putting a new white piece of typing paper on my enlarger & with a negative that I knew was tack sharp I looked at the image
through my focus magnifier (grain magnifier).
The sweet spot was always two stops down.
Thanks for the very interesting thread. ,,
seeya
David

I think most of us would love to have a job photographing beautiful women like her. (a little too skinny for my taste though).

JimGuy

I have a couple f2.8's and they are plenty fast, especially when iso 1600 is very usable on the D800.

I shoot a variety of things, but dont do much in the line of sports.

Wildlife on occasion. At 500mm f6.3-f8 will blurr the background, and a large animal may not even be entirely in focus at that focal length and aperture.

Faster long glass would be better in many instances. It would aid in focus since lens focus's at widest aperture even though shot goes off at what you have it set at, but I dont feel like spending $6000 for a lens I would use "on occasion" so I get by with long variable aperture glass for the critters.

With long glass most of the time you will be on a tripod anyway, unless you got a real lot of light, and even then, if you are shooting a 500mm f2.8 or even a f4 it might be kind of cumbersome to hand hold.

The most used lens I have is a nikkor 24-70/2.8. Its plenty fast for 90% of images a I take. If I cant get the shot at f2.8 iso 1600 or under I just pull out a speedlight.
DOF is too short most of the time wide open so f4-f8 is more of the working range.

Product shots....most often those are close, and you would be stopping down much smaller to retain dof . Ive shot some microstock in the past. Never wide open.

I do fair amount of landscapes....most of the time f5-f8, rarely to f16 if its a very wide shot with a strong anchor in the foreground, and I want the background as well.

For portraits I would probably grab the 70-200/2.8

For me a 50mm prime would be a waste of money.

RJ Loc: Montana

I have the canon 1.4 and am very pleased with it. It is a great low light lens that I use in many indoor situations and forces me to "zoom" with my feet for the more up close & personal shots.