Canon 50mm f/1.4 & Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, Redundant?

Hi, this is my first post so be please kind..

I just ordered the Rebel XT body along with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and was looking for something to fill the shoes of the kit lens. The kit lens was too slow for my taste since I like shooting in available light. The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC EX looks like a good choice but now I'm wondering if I even need the 50mm f/1.4. According to this review, the 50mm f/1.4 is actually *less* sharp at f/2.8 than the Sigma but it is two f-stops faster.. (to be fair the reviewer said that it might be focusing issues with the prime)

So my question is this: Is it worth having both of these lens or should I ditch the 50mm f/1.4 for something else?

ps these forums are awesome and I''ve never spent so much money in my life, hooray for credit cards

As you stated, 50/1.4 is 2 stops faster than 18-50/2.8. Two stops will make a hugh difference in a lot of low light situations (4X faster). It is all depending on your use. I do not own the sigma 18-50 but I highly doubt that it performes that much better than the 50 prime, as shown in his publication.

What you may do, is rely on the 18-50 for 50mm, and buy another decent prime instead - e.g. the 85mm f/1.8 - that way you get a little more flexibility for around the same (if not slightly less) money.

whchan - I thought it was a little weird too that the 18-50 performs better than the 50/1.4 at the center. I'm going to look for some more reviews to verify this.

goatee - That's definitely an idea, I might go for something different though like the Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX. I just don't know if 18-50/2.8 is acceptable for low light.

noname wrote:
According to this review, the 50mm f/1.4 is actually *less* sharp at f/2.8 than the Sigma but it is two f-stops faster.. (to be far the reviewer said that it might be focusing issues with the prime)

It might be issues with the reviewer!

I'd stay away from the 18-50 f/2.8. It's not very good optically and IMO the canon kit is better.

What is this based on? I've seen several pretty good reviews of the 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC and talked to some people who own it and they seem to like it a lot. Did you have a bad one?

I hope Doc is talking about the 18-50 f3.5-4.
I have both and use both. the 18-50 won't open up to 1.4 and the 50 won't zoom to 18mm. They both have their uses. Actually I still have the 50 1.8 mk I, but that's another story...

Yes I did. I ended up returning it cause it's just too soft for the price.

It's actually not a bad lens. Fast and compact, but a bit too soft and it's not cheap. I decided to spend my money elsewhere.

The 50mm F1.4 is a great lens, soft at 1.4 as you'd expect, but I do really like the lens. Just get close to your subject so you get plenty of detail, especially at high ISO.

From the review I posted earlier it didn't look like the lens was too soft at 2.8 but i'll keep looking at more sample pictures.

Yeah right now I'm leaning towards buy/keeping both. Thanks for all the advice

Umm - ok, find me more than one objective review which says that the kit lens is better, and I'll eat my hat. The kit lens is a $100 lens - and is good within its limitations, but the Sigma EX 18-50 f/2.8 is a completely different beast - it's fast, it's sharp, and the build quality is worlds apart.

I almost bought the 18-50mm EX 2.8 as it had some excellent reviews at the time, plenty of images I saw looked good, and it was also recommended by fstopjojo who is someone who is about as objective in lens testing as I have encountered and he backs his views up with real world images. His test v's the 17-40 f4, another lens I very much recommend, was conclusive enough for me. I couldn't find one in stock anywhere tho' and I happily ended up with the 24-70 2.8 instead, which is a little cheaper and offers more on the long end while losing out on the wide. As a replacement for the kit lens sort of range I doubt you'll find better in a single lens than the 18-50mm 2.8 tho'. I also love the 50mm 1.4 (and 1.8!) but tend to agree with Mr Goatee and suggest you look at changing the 50mm for an 85mm, or even look at the Toki and Sigma set up I have. Works very well indeed.

Why would I want you to eat your hat?

I'm not saying it's a bad lens period. I'm saying that personally, subjectively it does not suit my requirements and style... and some other criteria.

DocFrankenstein wrote:
Why would I want you to eat your hat?

I'm not saying it's a bad lens period. I'm saying that personally, subjectively it does not suit my requirements and style... and some other criteria.

Hehe, ok, sorry - maybe that's an English saying?

Sorry if my response sounded a little strong - I just read it that you were saying that the quality of the EX 18-50 was about the same as the kit lens (if not worse), and because it's my baby, and seriously underrated, I let rip. It's funny, because I didn't think I'd need a wide angle end, when I first got my Rebel (without kit lens), but when using a cheapo 28-80 lens on it, I really missed the option of the wide angle, so went for the 18-50 rather than the 24 (or even 28) - 70 / 75 that many forumites prefer.

Okay, I just got here. I have the 85 f1.8 and it's not cheap, and you have to stand really far away from your subject if there are more than 3 people involved, but that lens is my favorite. It is as sharp as you would want it, the light is fantastic and most importantly, for portraits, it's the best value for the money. I just purchased the 50 f1.4 and it hasn't been delivered yet, but I heard it will solve my low light problem. The main problem with the 85 f1.8 is that you can't leave it on your camera. The Tamron for digital only is actually good, but I didn't find it exceptional. Try out the 85 f1.8. It might be what you are looking for.

SuzyView
10D, EOS 3, 550ex, 28-135 IS, 85 1.8 and lots of other stuff