So many reviews! Can someone semi pro tell me if this focal distance is worth the purchase if you already own the canon 50mm f 1.4? I have a 7D and a full frame 5D and I use the 50mm on both. I am looking to gain that "better bokeh" mainly. Thoughts? Thank you!! So many reviews! Can someone semi pro tell me if this focal distance is worth the purchase if you already own the canon 50mm f 1.4? I have a 7D and a full frame 5D and I use the 50mm on both. I am... » Read More So many reviews! Can someone semi pro tell me if this focal distance is worth the purchase if you already own the canon 50mm f 1.4? I have a 7D and a full frame 5D and I use the 50mm on both. I am looking to gain that "better bokeh" mainly. Thoughts? Thank you!! « Show Less
1774787
You can't go wrong with this lens, you may find it somewhat long on your 7d, which is still okay, and a perfect addition for your 5d. I have used this lens for years and I highly recommend it.
1774788
I love the bokeh on this - however I very rarely use it - I use my 50-1.2 more and my 200mm - however it is a lovely lens that really I should pull out and use more often!!
1774789
If soft depth of field and creamy bokeh are your principle aims, you're better off with the 50mm f/1.4. Its soft DOF is unbeatable for this standard lens focal length.
1774790
one more thing. When you put this on your 5d you will get about the same working distance and similar bokeh as you get when you use your 50mm f1.4 on your 7d.
1774791
As a user of both lenses, you will get possibly better bokeh with the 50mm f1.4 if for no other reason than the wider aperture on the 50mm.
1774792
If you already have the 50 1.8, you already own one of the best so I'm not sure it's worth the money to gain the distance. On the other hand, i love the 80mm and use it primarily for portraiture; while I use my 50mm for shots requiring a wider angle such flowers, fields, horses. I solved the problem by buying a 28mm x 75mm. Covers all ranges and creates nice bokeh.
633136
This is a wonderful lens and would be a amazing addition to your bag. Takes great shots and adds fantastic bokeh to your pics.
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
1011445
I shoot weddings and started out with the original 100 macro, I then upgraded to the 100 IS macro (which is amazing) but that lens got dropped and I had to ship it out to have it repaired just before an event so I ordered the 50mm just as a place holder till I got the 100 back. I was able to make some decent images with it and it will certainly get you closer to your subjects than a non macro lens however it doesn't even come close to either of the 100 macro lenses. So short answer: if you have the money go for the 100 2.8 IS it's absolutely worth it, but if money is tight and you're simply looking to add another trick to the back then the 50 will get you by for the moment, what you will be missing is sharpness/clarity but you'll still be able to get in close and get "macro" images.
1421743
I went from shooting with a bridge camera with a pretty small sensor to the A7's full size sensor, and the change was significant. I was back to my old days with a 35mm camera. You won't have trouble getting nice bokeh, even with the kit lens. You'll actually have to make sure you have enough depth of field with certain shots, especially if you've been shooting with anything smaller than a micro four thirds camera.
910057
Go for it. This is an awesome lens. I use this lens along with my EF 70-200 L Series f/2.8 for all my wedding and other event shoots (including portraits, sports etc). But if money is not an object why not get the 50MM lens (along with this) as others have suggested. I am happy with the two lenses (ie EF 24-70 mm and EF 70-200 mm). I've taken thousands of pictures with these two lenses (almost 80% with the 24-70 Lens). Hope this helps.
358177
completely different lenses, especially for full frame. Why do you have a 50 f/1.8 on a 6D? that's almost a toy lens on a near professional camera. Although I don't have a full frame camera, if I did, I'd get the 24-70 L Zoom. If price is the issue, get the 24 2.8 IS for outdoor, landscape work and a 50 mm 1.4 for indoors, portraits, everyday use. Another nice lens is the 35 mm f/2 IS. bit wider, very sharp, with IS.
1787339
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full... » Read More Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Camerasmy cameras have been the rebel xti, the 30d, and the 5d classic. my second lens purchased was the 24-105. it stays on my 5d. i take it off for the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 is. sharp, u betcha, almost cant tell it from the primes, although i know that my 2 best lenses are my primes. i have had the 24-70 on my camera many times. my partner prefers it and he's very good. i have a shot of the city in porch light at 1/6 sec that is unbelievable. i am a full believer in is, and the 24-105 is the best walk around particularly for full frame that i have met. « Show Less
503711
I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a... » Read More I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. « Show Less
910058
Photofun123-I am in a similar situation. What did you decide on and what do you think of it? I will be getting a 50d and only one lens. My main subject will be my toddler. I am considering 24-70 and 24-105. Thanks.
578412
its simply perspective, the 50 is too short (on full frame) to get a headshot, 3/4 or longer shots are fine with the 50mm. but for a nice headshot the 50mm brings in distortions where the 85mm is more natural looking. Either at 1.2 is very very touchy for technique as DOF is very small at close distances, I own both and prefer the 85mm 90% of the time. the only time I break out the 50mm is if space is really cramped and need the wider field of view or for groups but then I am not shooting at 1.2, the 8m 1.2 and the 50mm 1.4 would probably be my ideal combo but since I had the 50mm 1.2 first I just keep it along with the 85. its simply perspective, the 50 is too short (on full frame) to get a headshot, 3/4 or longer shots are fine with the 50mm. but for a nice headshot the 50mm brings in distortions where the 85mm is more natural looking. Either at 1.2 is very very touchy for technique as DOF is very small at close distances, I own both and prefer the 85mm 90% of the time. the only time I break out the 50mm is if space is really cramped and need the wider field of view or for groups but then I am not shooting at 1.2, the 8m 1.2 and the 50mm 1.4 would probably be my ideal combo but since I had the 50mm 1.2 first... » Read More its simply perspective, the 50 is too short (on full frame) to get a headshot, 3/4 or longer shots are fine with the 50mm. but for a nice headshot the 50mm brings in distortions where the 85mm is more natural looking. Either at 1.2 is very very touchy for technique as DOF is very small at close distances, I own both and prefer the 85mm 90% of the time. the only time I break out the 50mm is if space is really cramped and need the wider field of view or for groups but then I am not shooting at 1.2, the 8m 1.2 and the 50mm 1.4 would probably be my ideal combo but since I had the 50mm 1.2 first I just keep it along with the 85. « Show Less
40106
In short. How much bokeh effecf there is. How much is in focus.. The 1.4 will blur your background more than the 1.8. I have the 1.8 and it works great for me.
1974651
I've had the 50mm 1.8 and the kit lens, and I can definitely say this will blow both of them away! This is essentially a high-quality upgrade from the kit lens, and in my opinion gives at least as good an image result as the 50mm prime - but with the range of a zoom. The 35mm I don't have experience with, but I would still bet that the Sigma would compete just fine :)
987142
I owned the 50D and now own a 7D. I have had my 17-55 f/1.8 IS for over 2 years. I bought the 24-105 a year ago to replace my 17-55 hahaha yea let me say right now I am not selling my 17-55 and when shooting indoors the 17-55 f/2.8 is will be my first choice over the 24-105 f/4 IS. Indoors f/4 is slow period. I ended up buying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to shoot indoors for low light and I LOVE it. Anyways on a crop body I would pick the 17-55 f/2.8 IS over the 24-105 f/4 IS for indoors unless its a really well lit room or I am using my 580 EXII. I am leaning to primes anymore and would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 for you. Another option is Sigma 30 f/1.4 and the Canon 85 f/1.8 and you spend less then either of those lenses heck you can throw in a 50 f/1.8 and have 3 lenses for the price of 1 if you don't mind switching lenses. Nick
120648
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected. The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
1199011
My opinion goes against some other comments. I use a Sigma 150-500 and Sigma 70-300 (the newer version) on my D7100, shooting motorsports, where the speeds reached are quite a bit higher than kids playing football, and the focusing speed is very good, especially on the 120-300. I've never lost a shot due to slow focus, even when panning as the cars go by at 150mph+. I've used the 20-700 Sigma, and it's even a bit faster.
1848271
I think I was misunderstood? When I bought my 50D, it was a toss up between the 5D and the new (at that time) 50D with a couple of kit lenses. I chose the 50D (newer tech wise and more stuff) and I'm satisfied for now. If and when I upgrade, it would be the latest (tech wise) full frame Canon like the 5DMkII. I was just thanking John M. and ED F for validating my non-researched decision to go 50D instead of older 5D at the time.Bob
32352
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected.The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.