I need a favour from some one...

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #15250160
Using my 17-40 and 50 1.4 on a crop, it's definitely noticeable to me at least. Though you're right in that it's rather slight.

I should have been more clear. Its there, but I dont know that I would dump one lens for another to gain that little bit of width.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …s/2904829800/al​bums/tests

If you are wanting to trade a 50 1.4 for the 28 1.8 PM me.....

gonzogolf wrote in post #15250211
I should have been more clear. Its there, but I dont know that I would dump one lens for another to gain that little bit of width.

Ah - fair enough, and I would definitely agree with that.

you can view the exif on flickr...they were at 50mm, and 35mm...

gonzogolf wrote in post #15250208
The 24-105 doesnt have a mark for exactly 40 so I took my best guess. My mac at work doesnt have an exif reader on it so I cant use that to tell either, but here is the results. Not artistic but the books should give you a reference point. I was about 3 paces away.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

_MG_0743 by gonzogolf_2000, on Flickr

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

_MG_0744 by gonzogolf_2000, on Flickr

Thanks alot.. yea, it doesent seem to be that big of a differance, maybe i should save up for the 28?
I do want the pancake because of it's look, but considering i got two USM.. anything below that will eventually make me want the 28 USM.

gonzogolf wrote in post #15250230
If you are wanting to trade a 50 1.4 for the 28 1.8 PM me.....

You guys got me wrong, i will NEVER get rid of the 50 or the 85, two of the best lenses on the market.

A bit of a tighter subject but, here's the difference between the two primes.

40mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/matt0404/818968​3594/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/matt0404/818968​3432/

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #15250158
Get the Sigma 30 1.4. It fits just about all of your requirements and is a good focal length (i.e. normal) on crop.

This. Have you considered this Sigma? I borrowed my friends to compare it to the Sigma 28 I have and the USM is quite nice. Build is good and IQ is nice.

MATT0404 wrote in post #15250483
A bit of a tighter subject but, here's the difference between the two primes.

40mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/matt0404/818968​3594/
Comparison by mkrepp, on Flickr

50mm

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/matt0404/818968​3432/
Comparison2 by mkrepp, on Flickr

Thanks.

No, i havent considered the sigma, it's $60 cheaper than the 28 f/1.8 USM here in Sweden. I've also read that there is alot of problems with the Sigma.

I want the Sigma next. lol.
please.
anyone.

Get the 28. I think the 40 is too close to the 50 for focal length. Neat travel lens though.

bent toe wrote in post #15251951
Thanks.

No, i havent considered the sigma, it's $60 cheaper than the 28 f/1.8 USM here in Sweden. I've also read that there is alot of problems with the Sigma.

Consider it, the sigma is a great lens and the problems are overblown.

bent toe wrote in post #15251951
No, i havent considered the sigma, it's $60 cheaper than the 28 f/1.8 USM here in Sweden. I've also read that there is alot of problems with the Sigma.

$60 is $60! Plus, you gain 2/3rds of a stop.

The problems are really overblown - no one whose lens is working correctly comes here to rave about it.

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #15252983
$60 is $60! Plus, you gain 2/3rds of a stop.

The problems are really overblown - no one whose lens is working correctly comes here to rave about it.

You've not read the 135L thread then.