which 1 of 4

snigg

snigg

Suspended / Banned
Messages
359
Edit My Images
No
looking to buy my first good lens but can't pick from those four?

canon 50mm 1.4 (not sure if it's worth £300, over the 1.8)
canon 50mm 1.8 (built quality could be an issue)
canon 35mm 2.0 (not heard much about this lens but built should be better)
canon 17-40L 4.0 (slower than the others and size?)

it's to go with my canon 40d,just starting out so no real style or subject matter yet,apart from wanting very good picture quailty,the canon 17-40 jumps out to me as the one to go for but I keep holding back as its not as fast as the others and bigger so may be limiting and also with it being a zoom lens I'm thinking the PQ will not be as good? the other three have in their favour size and speed.

any help would be great.

p.s budget is no more than £600
 
Last edited:
I've just got my hands on the 50mm 1.4 and build quality is way above the 1.8. saying that the 1.8 was a cracking lens I just couldn't resist the 1.4 in the Jessops bargain sale last weekend :thumbs:
 
if i was to choose a 'general' lens for your body, it would be the 17-40. it's flexible and has a good range. the only disadvantage is that if low light or narrow dof photography is your style, this isn't the lens.

but out of all the lenses you've listed, the 17-40, in build quality terms, flexibility and most probably optical quality (none of those primes are fantastic optically, probably amongst canon's weakest primes tbh), the 17-40 is the best all-round lens here.

the primes, whilst ok, are a bit long in the tooth now and the only reason i would go for one is if you need a wide aperture and narrow dof. but there are better primes out there in any case for this purpose.
 
Last edited:
marc2004 said:
I've just got my hands on the 50mm 1.4 and build quality is way above the 1.8. saying that the 1.8 was a cracking lens I just couldn't resist the 1.4 in the Jessops bargain sale last weekend :thumbs:
Click to expand...


well done,I tried but got my order cancelled:thumbsdown:
 
The 17-40 is an L lens - and that does make a difference. I have one (though on a 5Dii) and love it.
 
I recommend the 50mm 1.4 if you can afford it.
Build quality is miles better than the 1.8 and it has USM AF.

Two of the main reasons I sold my 1.8 for 1.4 is, the 1.4 has better bokeh and is sharp at f1.8 where as the 50mm 1.8 is only sharp once you stop down to 2.8
 
I'd go for the 17-40 - superb lens and you'll notice the quality from your first shot - I did.
 
This is not on your list, but whilst you are unsure what you want, you could consider the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC. Not quite as fast as your primes, but still fast and a good range. Always seems to get good reviews for image quality.

It will leave you some spare cash and plenty of scope to try different types of photography out.

You could then invest in a faster lens, maybe an 85 1.8, or maybe get more range eg a 70-200 f4, an ultrawide or one of the lenses you mention. Only you will know what you want, but getting out with the Tamron (or any other lens) will give you an idea of what you are missing, and you can base future purchases on this.

Good luck

Al
 
akr said:
This is not on your list, but whilst you are unsure what you want, you could consider the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC. Not quite as fast as your primes, but still fast and a good range. Always seems to get good reviews for image quality.

It will leave you some spare cash and plenty of scope to try different types of photography out.

You could then invest in a faster lens, maybe an 85 1.8, or maybe get more range eg a 70-200 f4, an ultrawide or one of the lenses you mention. Only you will know what you want, but getting out with the Tamron (or any other lens) will give you an idea of what you are missing, and you can base future purchases on this.

Good luck


the Tamron,if I'm looking at the correct lens is £290 on amazon.is it up there quality wise as that seems a no brainer if it is?

Al
Click to expand...
 
If you want a 50mm then get the sigma 50mm f1.4. Its supposed to be leaps and bounds better than the canon.
 

It's meant to be good. The non VC (IS) is meant to be better than the VC. Try a search on here and Flickr for people who have used it. Primes are generally regarded as being sharper, but lots of people find the Tamron Sharp enough. I believe the autofocus is very loud at times,but people always seem happy with the image quality.
 
I've got the 17-40 and the 50mm f1.4, I have also used the 50mm f1.8 quite a bit.

Personally I wouldn't bother with the Canon 50mm f1.4 the f1.8 version is just as good, so I would advise getting that anyway as it is so cheap. Then you could justify getting the 17-40mm too as it is a cracking general lens, especially for landscapes. Just having a 50mm prime on a cropped sensor camera is too restricting.
 
If you are on a cropped body, don't get the 50mm - go for a 35mm which will give you a 50mm full frame equivalant.
 
another that might be of interest but not on your list is the Canon 17-55 2.8... Not an L lens but it gets a great write up
 
Craikeybaby said:
I've got the 17-40 and the 50mm f1.4, I have also used the 50mm f1.8 quite a bit.Personally I wouldn't bother with the Canon 50mm f1.4 the f1.8 version is just as good, so I would advise getting that anyway as it is so cheap.
Click to expand...

Not sure how you can say the 1.4 is just as good as the 1.8, it just isn't!
The 1.4 will give you 2/3rds of a stop more light gathering and if used at 1.8 will be much sharper than the 1.8 is at 1.8!

The build quality is also better, optically I find the 1.4 sharper than the 1.8 and I have had both.

I do agree that the 50mm is limited on the crop body and you need a wider option as a walk round lens. I have the 24 - 105 which I think is fantastic, I have also rented the 17-40 but found I hardly used it as it doesn't have IS so most of the time I preferred to keep the 24-105 on.
 
17-40 or a 24-105, simply because they are more versatile . Don't worry about it "only" being f4.
 
Craft said:
17-40 or a 24-105, simply because they are more versatile . Don't worry about it "only" being f4.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the IS gives you 3 stops on most lenses which have it so the F4 is less limiting :)
 
Another vote for the 17-40 here, I use it for landscape work, and have been impressed with it every time.

Not excessively wide on a crop body though but a landscape lens for you in future maybe - and a walkabout lens currently.

Rich
 
well I ordered my lens today,in the end I went with the canon 85mm f/1.8,I just couldn't get passed all the good reviews that lens gets,on looking at the style I prefer,it always seemed to be shots either of very wide or up close,and this lens would be good for the standard family shots too and some of the more stylish shots I hope to take,the wide lens would probably be best with a tripod,so this fits the budget at the min,thanks all for the advice.
 
It is not on your list but 17-55 2.8 IS would be my choice for that camera as your first decent lens.
 
I wouldnt get the 17-40, it's not long enough to be a general walkabout zoom on crop sensors. The tamron or sigma 17-50 2.8 will exceed it in usefulness (with room range and a larger aperture). They are also cheaper than the 17-40.
 
I would of got athe 17-40L aswell as the Nifty. They cost nothing, and they are perfectly sharp at 1.8(My copy is).

But all are good Len's :)
 
Why would people buy the 17-40 for a cropped sensor? You're paying for the ability to cover a full frame sensor, and unless there is a plan to move FF soon, there are far more versatile lenses for cropped sensors at that price point (15-85 or any of the 17-50/55's for example).
 
arad85 said:
Why would people buy the 17-40 for a cropped sensor? You're paying for the ability to cover a full frame sensor, and unless there is a plan to move FF soon, there are far more versatile lenses for cropped sensors at that price point (15-85 or any of the 17-50/55's for example).
Click to expand...

Because some people are bewitched by the magic red L on the bloody thing!
 
I'd personally avoid the canon 1.4 like the plague, the AF motor is well dodgy - even the slightest bump can knacker it. I have that particular Tshirt. The 1.8 version build quality is naff, but it can probably take more abuse than the 1.4 and continue functioning. And even if it does fall to bits, you've only lost 80 quid.
 
Flats said:
I'd personally avoid the canon 1.4 like the plague, the AF motor is well dodgy - even the slightest bump can knacker it. I have that particular Tshirt. The 1.8 version build quality is naff, but it can probably take more abuse than the 1.4 and continue functioning. And even if it does fall to bits, you've only lost 80 quid.
Click to expand...

I am thinking of the sigma 50mm 1.4 for this very reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top