another lens comparison question (17-40L - 50 f1.4)

[petiot]

I know many of you have the 17-40 L, i know many of you have the 50 f1.4,, and this question of for those who have both (lucky guys)

irrespectively of the focal lens, maximum apperture, weight size, etc, how those two lenses compare in terms of contrast, sharpness, color saturation bokeh ,and any other optical qualities?? (optionaly, Any test photo??).

thanks.

[Aylwin]

Hmmm... I have both but I use them for different shots. And I've never really compared them closely. So, my totally unsubstantiated answer would be: the 50 1.4 is better in all the areas you've mentioned. Hopefully, someone else can provide a more reliable answer.

[Cadwell]

Apples and oranges. A comparison between an ultra wide angle zoom and a "standard" prime. I have to ask "Why?".

[petiot]

lol... why, that is a good question.

Actually i am planning to buy an additional lens and, although i know i will finally end up buying both, i need to deceide myself which one to buy right now.

anyway, i think alywin answers confirm my thought that prime (even non L) are better than the otherwise highly acclaimed17-40 L .

thanks for your interest.

Dan

[chris.bailey]

Very different lenses which I use for very different purposes. The 50 1.4 tends to be my first lense choice for studio work (my studio is quite cramped so the 85mm tends only to be used for heads and shoulders). The 17-40 tends to be my landscape walkaround lense so primarily for outdoor use. i.e.

http://www.pbase.com/image/24760446.jpg
for the 50mm 1.4

and

http://www.pbase.com/image/26524121.jpg
for the 17-40

so hard to make direct coomparisons. Needless to say they are both very nice and my favourites at the short end (I also have a 15-30 Sigma which the 17-40 beats by a wide margin). The bokeh on the 50mm 1.4 is very nice and probably better than the 17-40. I would say the 50 is also sharper at a wider range of apertures but it is pretty marginal.

In terms of colour saturation and contrast I would say there is little between them.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Regardless of what you intend to use either for, I think they both offer great honest-to-reality color and contrast, with the 50mm being sharper (naturally; it's a prime).
For all-around use, I would suggest the 17-40mm, since it's more versatile. For indoor use, go for the 50mm, although you'll need lots of space (since it's effectively 80mm on your 10D/DRebel).
I have both, but the 17-40mm is what I have on most of the time.

[daaaveman]

Since it seems that this information is being used for a purchasing decision, why not buy the 17-40 and the 50 f/1.8 right now and then upgrade to the f/1.4 later if you see the need. I'm all for immediate gratification!!

[petiot]

Thanks ALL for your help, great stuff.

you are right Daaaveman, that is a potential solition. .... that is a good solution ..... that is THE soluiton!! ;) Although in UK the 1.8 is not that cheap. still much cheaper that the 1.4.

thanks all