broke my Canon 50mm F1.4 ... considering replacements

[patrickv]

Hi,
So I have dropped a lens for the first time. Luckily it's my cheapest one...
I use a crop sensor Canon body, the 7D.

My current collection goes like this :
- 10-20 f/4 : for landspace, indoors and "funny effects"
- 30 f1.4 (all-around 50 "equivalent" - the most used)
- 50 f1.4 : the broken one. I used it for portrait and as a slightly longer walk-around
- 100 f/2 : portrait + action

+ sometimes I get to borrow a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II but since it's not mine it's inconsistent.

So now that I have to replace the lens to fill the gap between 30mm and 100mm, I'm considering a few options :
Canon EF 50mm F1.4 ($380): same one I broke. Build quality is not too good, images are nice enough though they look nothing like the fantastic Sigma 30 1.4
Canon EFS 60mm 2.8 ($450): super sharp as any macro lens, could do macro (I don't do macro but why not try). Not so fast for a prime, could be hunting a bit for focus in low-ish light, it's and EF-S so not useful for the day I upgrade to FF.
Tamron 60mm f/2 macro ($480) : can't do FF either, is a tad longer which I don't mind at all. Can do macro. Seems like a good short term choice. Not sure about how good its image quality is, and more than anything else, how fast the focus is, since its a macro
Sigma 50mm F1.4 ($480) : less sharp than the Canon, superior bokeh and build quality, a bit bigger/heavier too
Or I could go a totally other road and get the new Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 with image stabilization, which has super good reviews. It's a bit heavy, I'd have to try it in a shop to know how it feels. When I go FF it means I'd have to buy a fast 50, but I'd already have a fast all-around lens. A bit expensive but useful long term.

What are your thoughts? Not too sure about what to do. The two tamron lenses seem awesome, though the crop sensor only part annoys me a bit on the 60 f/2. Not sure what the resale value is either, Canon lenses tend to keep their value better.
I intend to upgrade to FF when the 5D3 goes under or at least very close to $3000 which will realistically happen it a year or so (won't go for the 5D2, it can't focus in low light and I'm a sucker for low light)

[mikew09]

Hmmmm, When I started on my cycle of moving to better glass I made (which was sometime ago) a decision that in the mid term I would go FF so only buy FF type lens ie 24-105 L. I made the decision about 2 yrs or so ago and though I still dont have my 5D :-( , I am glad I did as my purchase of the 5D3 is not that far away and considering the cost of he body I am glad I decided to go FF lens only and will not be burdened with the cost of upgrading EFS lens. Not sure what the Tammy is but just room for thought.

[patrickv]

Thanks for your comments. As much as I'd like a wide range such as 24-105, the f/4 is super slow
BTW I mostly photograph people.

[Mary Anne]

On my 40D I use the 17-55mm EF-S f/2.8 lens its a terrific fast lens though up there price wise with the L series lenses.

P.S. If you are thinking of using the 60mm macro for shooting macro *Insects Portraits* you are right in their face ..

[ameerat42]

There are two Sigma 50mm offerings that will do full-frame. The DG in the name signifies this, as opposed to DC for crop sensor:
1. Non-macro:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50mm-f14-ex-dg-hsm-sigma

2. Macro version:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50mm-...dg-macro-sigma

I don't know anything about either, except they're dear! But reports on the second are either "swear by" or "swear at". I guess that depends on the "copy" you get.
A couple of months ago some Aus prices were very good. I haven't looked since.

The adjacent 70mm macro (on that page) is a universally "sworn by" lens.

It is also dear, and maybe a bit long for what you want.
Am.

[mikec]

If you basically want to spend less than $500, have a lens that will be compatible with FF and also have a fast aperture then you've pretty much summed up all the choices in your list apart from the new Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens that just got announced.

If you want a fast zoom, Sigma, Canon and Tamron all do a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens, but it'll be more than $500. They all have good and bad points.

Just try and get to some stores to try all the options out and see which you prefer.

[patrickv]

Thanks!
I love my sigma 30 1.4, it's sharp enough, the colours and bokeh are superb.
I probably won't buy another Canon 50 1.4, its general build quality puts me off. It's not like I dropped it from very high... I suppose that the Sigma 50's bokeh is probably just as beautiful as the 30, so it's a candidate.

the efs 17-55 2.8 is nice but not very useful for me as 17 on crop is not that wide (if I go wide I'll use my 10-20), 55 is not that long, and I already have this beautiful 30 prime that's two full stops faster. If I get a 24-70 it would be to have a 30, a 50 and a 70 all in one without having to change or carry extra lenses... With the benefit of optical stabilization. As I don't shoot full frame it would have a 38-112 equiv perspective which works a lot better for me, as a normal to medium telephoto.

Maybe I'm just trying to justify myself using the credit card for an expensive lens and the broken 50 is just an excuse! The review on the 24-70 2.8 VC are consistently positive, and it's under $1300 in a local shop (same in grey import, may just as well go down the street)

[William W]

When you buy the 5DMkIII are you keeping the 7D?

WW

[patrickv]

Yes I'll probably keep it as a backup. The 7D is a good camera, I'm mostly happy with it. It can focus fast, shoot fast, and its image quality at low to medium ISO is quite nice, particularly with good glass. The 4 extra f-stops of clean image of the 5D3 will be handy though, I'm often in situations where I need 2500+ ISO.

[patrickv]

I got the 24-70 2.8 VC, I managed to buy it for a reasonable price from my local store (1200). It's nice: good build quality, fast and silent focus, and the VC (optical stabilization) does its job well. I'll put it to work this weekend for image quality. What I like less about it is that it's heavy, really large, and even on a crop sensor, 70mm isn't really that long. I wouldn't use it for travel. I think I should get a 15-85 or a 24-105 4L for that. But I have no travel coming up until at least a couple months, so I'll see then.

[William W]

Thanks for answering.

I’d advise to seriously consider the new Lens as a member of a DUAL FORMAT KIT, rather than merely a replacement for the 50/1.4, which was broken.

With regard to planning ahead I’d suggest you note that the 10 to 22 and the 30/1.4 will become non-compliant as fully functioning lenses in a Dual Format Kit: so this impasse of a broken lens might a good opportunity to begin planning that entire NEW lens KIT.

If you eventually want F/2.8 Zoom lenses in that Dual Format Kit - then note that for effective FoV coverage, the 16 to 35 and the 70 to 200 make the 24 to70 almost superfluous: as the F/2.8 ultra wide and the telephoto zooms in a combined use with the two cameras, have only a small gap of (equiv. FocalLength) 57mm to 69mm.

If you like the FL = 30mm on the 7D now, then maybe consider how a 35/1.4L would fit into a Kit of Fast Primes, for a Dual Format Camera Kit.
BUT - with that in mind - consider how much a fast 50 would then be warranted on the5D MkIII - would the 5DMkIII necessarily become the main 'normal fast PrimeCamera'?
If yes, then the sale of the 30/1.4 might make way for a perhaps more interesting 24/1.4L MkII - and then that pair (24 and 50) would scream for the 135/2L as the third fast Prime. (noted you already have a 100/2)

Which brings us back to the question of the fast 50 Prime Lens ? ? ?
It seems you don't like the 50/1.4: I do, but I won't try to sell you on it. T
he 50/1.0L is out of the question IMO, even if you could find one second hand: it is slow and heavy and really not all that great.

Recently I've been drawn closer to the desire for the 50/1.2L - at first this was a lens I thought too expensive for what it was, but the more results I see at F/1.2 and F/1.4 by dedicated exponents of Available Light, the more I appreciate that despite all the internet claptrap to the contrary - the lens is very, very good: maybe you should have a serious squiz at this lens.

WW

[ameerat42]

Although I agree with WW, I can't help thinking how you'll potentially upset the country's balance of trade at this rate.
(I)Am(F).

[patrickv]

Wow thanks that's an impressive post you seem to have put a lot of thought in my setup...

It's a large and very costly lens set you are suggesting, about $7000. I'm very interested your comments on these lenses. My 30 1.4 being a not very expensive lens and its resale value is around $350, so I'll definitely keep it too, it's my walk-around "50mm equivalent" for the crop sensor camera. For a normal 50mm, it's just the build quality of the Canon lens I'm not fond of, a Sigma 50 1.4 would do fine: not only it's a lot tougher, but its surface has a rough, non slippery texture.
Sure I'm the one to blame for dropping the Canon lens, I wasn't holding it tightly enough and my hand was a bit sweaty, but I would like to point out it happened while I was mounting it on the camera. It slipped out of my hand, which would not have happened with any other of my lenses (and it's never even been close to happening!), since none of them have that "plastic fantastic" slippery surface.

What's so "interesting" in the 24 1.4, particularly considering already having a high quality zoom that includes this focal length? What use are you considering it for?

In my experience, long telephoto is useful for low light action, normal to short telephoto is useful for portraiture and being fast allows shallow depth of field, and wide angle is useful for creative stuff, landscape, and architecture, where speed is not particularly important since we will mostly want to stop it down and put it on a tripod to get maximum depth of field. So what is the application that I have missed?

Cheers

[LJG]

I love my sigma 30 1.4, it's sharp enough, the colours and bokeh are superb.

If you love your 30 the 50 is just the same. I sold my Canon 50 f1.4 and went Sigma. I have a Sigma 85 F1.4 and it is just superb, so figured why not sell my Canon 50 and go Sigma with it as well. I was already a bit disenchanted with the Canon so it made the decision easier. I have also had the Sigma 30 F1.4, and like you loved it on my crop body, till I went full frame and that ended that love affair. I am now on my second copy of the Sigma 50, the first one had severe focusing issues, but as far as bokeh, colour, sharpness, it is certainly a winner in that. Just make sure if you do buy one get local stock so you are covered by CR Kennedy warranty. The warranty is terrific, I phoned in with the problem and they immediately swapped it for me, no questions asked. You cannot get better than that. My second copy has no issues at all so will get plenty of use.

[Rattus79]

I too will second the sigma 50 1.4 - Mine's a pentax version but is very nice. VERY nice.
Easily my favourite lens in my kit.

[patrickv]

Yes I had the 30 f/1.4 front focus problem too... Took it to CR Kennedy in Mascot and they calibrated it. It's super awesome now.

[William W]

. . . seem to have put a lot of thought in my setup...

Not really, but I did spend about six months designing optimum Dual Format DSLR Kits for a W&P Studio a few years ago: the basic knowledge just sticks.

It's a large and very costly lens set . . . are suggesting, about $7000.

Not really - it is not intended to suggest a purchase of ALL the lenses mentioned. Sticking with fast Primes - the 24MkII and 135/2 and a 50 (not the 50/1.2) would be about AU$3000

My 30 1.4 being a not very expensive lens and its resale value is around $350, so I'll definitely keep it too, it's my walk-around "50mm equivalent" for the crop sensor camera. For a normal 50mm, it's just the build quality of the Canon lens I'm not fond of, a Sigma 50 1.4 would do fine: not only it's a lot tougher, but its surface has a rough, non slippery texture.

The point here is to define why would one would want a 'normal lens' (i.e. the Sigma 30mm) which can ONLY be used on the APS-C camera when the 7D is destined to take the role of: "a backup. The 7D is a good camera, I'm mostly happy with it. It can focus fast, shoot fast, and its image quality at low to medium ISO is quite nice, particularly with good glass. The 4 extra f-stops of clean image of the 5D3 will be handy though, I'm often in situations where I need 2500+ ISO.

The point here is to ask, why wouldn't a 35/1.4L be better - such that it could be used on BOTH cameras?

The point then to ask is, why would either a 35/1.4L OR the Sigma 30/1.4 be useful for 'my walk-around "50mm equivalent" for the crop sensor camera IF that camera is to become the 'standby'.
Wouldn't it be better to invest in a fast 50 which can be used on BOTH cameras? Especially considering that the MOST used lens at the moment is the 30 (on an APS-C) wouldn’t it be logical that a fast 50 would become the MOST used lens when the 5DMkIII is purchased as the 5DMkIII is designated to be the main camera - and 50 is the 'normal' lens on it.

The point then to ask - IF a fast 50 is decided upon, then how really useful is the 35/1.4L, when it is compared the 24/1.4LMkII (which acts as a fast 24 and a fast 38 in a dual format kit).

And thus the same logic also a to why a 135/2 would be added to a pair of fast 24 and 50 Primes - with those three Primes the Dual Format Kit has effective FL equivalence of 24, 38, 50, 80, 135 and 216.

What's so "interesting" in the 24 1.4, particularly considering already having a high quality zoom that includes this focal length? . . My current collection goes like this :
- 10-20 f/4 : for landspace, indoors and "funny effects"
- 30 f1.4 (all-around 50 "equivalent" - the most used)
- 50 f1.4 : the broken one. I used it for portrait and as a slightly longer walk-around
- 100 f/2 : portrait + action

Assumed the lens is the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM ?
This lens will NOT work suitably on the 5DMkIII. (and it is F/5.6 at FL = 20mm)

What use are you considering it for? In my experience, long telephoto is useful for low light action, normal to short telephoto is useful for portraiture and being fast allows shallow depth of field, and wide angle is useful for creative stuff, landscape, and architecture, where speed is not particularly important since we will mostly want to stop it down and put it on a tripod to get maximum depth of field. So what is the application that I have missed?

A fast lens is a Fast Lens - it has two major features: to allow a faster Tv (shutter speed) and to see better and clearer through the viewfinder in low EV.
There are many applications for a fast 24 - both for use on a 7D and a 5DMkIII.
These uses might not apply to every Photographer and some are:

> Sports where a close SD and no flash is allowed or a slightly wider shot is employed for cropping later - Kick Boxing / Gage Fighting etc; BBall under the Backboard, Swimming at the Starting Blocks.

> Close Quarters Concerts; Live Music; Bars; Clubs etc where No Flash is allowed.

> Any tight Quarters when AL shooting is required.

> Doorstop, Hail Mary or Hip Shooting, Discreet shooting where Flash is prohibited or distracting.

> Shooting wide (to crop later) in any low light situation without Flash or without Flash Focus Assist.

> Landscapes or any wide angle low light scene capture, where a Tripod is not available or allowed.


WW

[patrickv]

Thanks. I understood you were also recommending the 16-35 and the 70-200, which add about another $4000 together.
I'll have to figure out things when the time comes... It won't be until a while, it's a lot of money. For now I have the 24-70 f/2.8 VC which I use on the crop sensor and covers most of the useful focal lengths with great image quality, stabilization, and a not so slow f/2.8, it's great. I'll probably soon replace my Canon 50 1.4 with the Sigma 50 1.4 - its build quality is in another league, it's very sharp, and it has a nicer bokeh.

[William W]

Yes. The 16 to 35 and 70 to 200 were recommended as the Zoom Lenses for a Dual Format Kit

To explain further: Post #10, where you stated that you already had purchased the Tamron 24 to 70 Zoom lens, was NOT noticed when I responded in detail to your answer to my question about keeping the 7D, or not.

Had I noticed that you had already purchased a lens and thus settled the thread's original question, I would not have commented: sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Enjoy your new lens - I've seen some very favourable work, including movies, made with that lens.

WW

[john99]

I bought an Canon 85mm 1.2 prime lens. It's fantastic for portraits and in low light.