Do I really need a 50mm prime?
- Thread starter danski
- Start date
- Messages
- 43,206
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
Note... you have a 60D which is APS-C, Trench has a full frame camera. The 17-40mm will be a completely different animal on your camera and one that I as a fellow APS-C user wouldn't be happy with on my camera.
A quality 17-50mm f2.8 makes much more sense on APS-C IMVHO.
halshaater
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 128
- Name
- Haroun
- Edit My Images
- No
cheers Alan, my only hesitation is that if I ever upgrade the 17-40 will be sweet on FF too, but guess I can't really think that far ahead have to think what's best now.
Bluesmachine
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 666
- Name
- Niall
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll stumble into the thread late (as usual 
) to add my rusty penny.
I've had the Canon 50 1.8 and currently use the Sigma 1.4. The 1.8 is an absolutely fantastic lens, even more so when you consider the price. I rarely even consider the build quality as it's so cheap, I think it's unfair to use it as a negative point. I've kept mine even though I upgraded, as I know I can rely on it. If you search Flickr you'll find some breathtaking photos using that lens, and cameras much MUCH older and (I suppose technically) worse than yours.
I'm not really sure you'd benefit from it looking at the lens you mention you have, but personally I'd buy it if I had the spare cash, as it can come in handy, depending on how/what you take photos of. If you're really flush, the Sigma is a no brainer. I LOVE mine, it's fantastic.
It really does depend on what you want out of a photo, and what style you use.
Personally I'm not sold on the 17-40. While there are a lot of plus points, and (I haven't checked what I'm about to say so it may no longer be true) it used to be the cheapest L series lens. A lot of people have had various complaints with it being slow or soft. I actually opted for the Sigma 12-24 when mulling over getting that or not. Still, if I'd waited a few weeks the 10-22 would have been out and that may have been a better option!
) to add my rusty penny.I've had the Canon 50 1.8 and currently use the Sigma 1.4. The 1.8 is an absolutely fantastic lens, even more so when you consider the price. I rarely even consider the build quality as it's so cheap, I think it's unfair to use it as a negative point. I've kept mine even though I upgraded, as I know I can rely on it. If you search Flickr you'll find some breathtaking photos using that lens, and cameras much MUCH older and (I suppose technically) worse than yours.
I'm not really sure you'd benefit from it looking at the lens you mention you have, but personally I'd buy it if I had the spare cash, as it can come in handy, depending on how/what you take photos of. If you're really flush, the Sigma is a no brainer. I LOVE mine, it's fantastic.
It really does depend on what you want out of a photo, and what style you use.
Personally I'm not sold on the 17-40. While there are a lot of plus points, and (I haven't checked what I'm about to say so it may no longer be true) it used to be the cheapest L series lens. A lot of people have had various complaints with it being slow or soft. I actually opted for the Sigma 12-24 when mulling over getting that or not. Still, if I'd waited a few weeks the 10-22 would have been out and that may have been a better option!
I did exactly the same on my Nikon D300, went from a 50 f1.4 to a 35 f1.8 and never looked back. I find that the 35 is definitely better suited to a crop sensor for general day to day shots.