Too much lens choice ?

[macvisual]

Just wondering from more experienced folk here is it always best practice to have more lens choice in your kit bag..?

I've presently got these;

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MkII
Samyang 35mm f/1.4
Samyang 85mm f/1.4
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L (non IS)

I'm getting into 'primes' of late, I quite like fixed focal lengths (it seems), on my 'wants list' of next lenses I'd fancy the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L macro and the Canon EF 135mm f/2 L.

I really would like a wider lens for my full-frame 5D/1 in the near future also.

Can you have TOO many lenses (?), or is it best sticking to around three or four good quality lenses?

All advice welcome.

 

[magicaxeman]

You can never have to many lenses but I wouldn't carry more than 2 with me at a time myself.

When I was able to go out I would have an idea of what I wanted to shoot before I left and take the appropriate lenses with me.

I think as you have full frame I would be looking at replacing the EF/S nifty fifty with a 50mm F1.4 for full frame.
The macro sounds like a good idea too if you want to shoot macro.
On the wide end either a 17-55 F2.8 or a 10-20
It's also worth looking at the canon 85mm F1.8, its a cracker for portraits especially on full frame.

 

[mortimerhill]

Always go for quality over quantity. You remember the quality long after you've forgotten the price.

A few good lenses mean you will be much more likely to take all of them with you and thus not miss so many opportunites

For a full frame camera, my normal selection would be 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200

 

[Dave *]

I think as you have full frame I would be looking at replacing the EF/S nifty fifty with a 50mm F1.4 for full frame.

There is no EF-S 50mm, all the Canon 50mm versions are EF (f1.8 mkl, f1.8mkll, f1.4, f1.2, f1.0, f2.5 macro).

 

[Jonathan Shl]

Nifty fifty (50mm 1.8 prime) is an EF lens - good quality and not expensive (for a lens at least)!

It "only" has six elements so its simplicity makes it cheap and good quality - unless you're bothered about zoom.

Also, to a complete noob, the F number doesn't make much difference. As I get into it, the F number becomes more important.

 

[macvisual]

Is there really that much difference between the Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 & f/1.4 photo quality wise?

I appreciate the f/1.8 is quite cheaply made, plastic and nearly disposable, but does the (better made) f/1.4 shine above it that much in terms of end result I wonder?

Hhmmmmmm..........(?).

 

[Dave *]

People say the bokeh is better, and it focuses quicker. Ive yet to see any real world images showing the picture quality to be much different (except of course for images shot at f1.4, the nifty struggles with those ).

It's definitely not worth the price difference on the quality/sharpness of images IMO.

 

[twist]

I think the Canon 50.18 bokeh is less pleasant than the 1.4, its a bit more "nervous". King of fiftys is the Sigma, its big, expensive but stunning. In Canon mount youll be VERY lucky to get a copy that doesnt have crazy AF.

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

 

[mrwaverley]

The 135mm L is so nice to use that my 70-200 seems to stay at home a lot these days! If you want something really wide try the Samyang 14mm, I just bought Twists one and its a nice lens once you get used to it's manual focus. 24mm f2.8 is nice on a 5d aswell. I havn't used the 100 L macro but the non L version is an amazingly sharp lens with many uses other than macro.......you're gonna need a bigger bag

 

[Badger UK]

You need to make sure that you're not just buying lenses for the sake of collection lenses - unless of course you want to collect lenses.

I think you should stick to fast L series lenses if you're keen on quality and worried about street cred. In my case, I've got a Canon 24 - 70mm f2.8 L, a 70 - 200mm f2.8L and a wide prime 14mm f2.8 L and have pretty much never come across anything I can't take a photo of.

Travel light may boy.

 

[modchild]

Is there really that much difference between the Canon EF 50mm F/1.8 & f/1.4 photo quality wise?

I appreciate the f/1.8 is quite cheaply made, plastic and nearly disposable, but does the (better made) f/1.4 shine above it that much in terms of end result I wonder?

Hhmmmmmm..........(?).

I bought a 50 1.4 last week and have been blown away with the IQ difference between that and the 1.8. The 1.4 is so much sharper than the 1.8 wide open and it feels a much superior build than the 1.8 as well. I bought mine on ebay for £225 and it's every penny well spent.

 

[Dave *]

I bought a 50 1.4 last week and have been blown away with the IQ difference between that and the 1.8. The 1.4 is so much sharper than the 1.8 wide open and it feels a much superior build than the 1.8 as well. I bought mine on ebay for £225 and it's every penny well spent.

Proper testing shows the f1.4 to be moderately better (none of the reviewers thought the 1.8 was "blown away"). Perhaps a little "new toy" syndrome for the f1.4?

DP Review - Canon 50mm f1.8

In most regards it comes very close indeed to its much more expensive bigger brother, the EF 50mm F1.4 USM, lagging marginally behind in corner sharpness at any specific aperture.

Photozone.de

The 50mm f/1.4 USM may be a tad better at large aperture settings and surely regarding build quality but at quite hefty extra costs.

BobAtkins.com

The Canon EF 50/1.4 maybe slightly better optically at wide apertures and is somewhat better built, but it's 3.5x the price of the 50/1.8 II