Canon 50mm 1.4, is it worth it?

I just bought a tokina 11-16 and have paired it with my 70-200 on my 7d, when I bought the tokina I had a lengthy conversation with the guy who sold it to me and he said a 50mm 1.4 would be a great lens to fill the gap between 16 and 70 mm ill mainly be doing landscapes, mountain biking and work for my school yearbook, I was thinking of this lens or the 24-105 but I can't decide, can someone make any suggestions?

So would a 50mm 1.8 mark 1 if you can find one. The mark 1 has a metal mount, versus the mark 2 that is plastic. They both feel flimsy, but take great pictures.

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16218573
I just bought a tokina 11-16 and have paired it with my 70-200 on my 7d, when I bought the tokina I had a lengthy conversation with the guy who sold it to me and he said a 50mm 1.4 would be a great lens to fill the gap between 16 and 70 mm ill mainly be doing landscapes, mountain biking and work for my school yearbook, I was thinking of this lens or the 24-105 but I can't decide, can someone make any suggestions?

I dont like f/4, and thats also the reason why i made de decision to rather buy primes instead of long zooms. I went back from vacations in malaga spain, and i only tok the 16-35mm and the 50mm 1.2. The 16-35mm was used only 1 day at the beach for landscape. The other time all with my 50 and i felt much more creative etc. However, it all depends on our style and your preferences. I think the 50mm might be a little to near at your 70mm. If you like wider go with a 35mm prime instead, if not the 50mm 1.4 is great for the buck. Also consider the 40mm 2.8 which might suit you best.

If you are looking to fill the gap betweel the Tokina and the 70-200L, I'd go with something like a Tamron or Sigma 17-50, or a Sigma 17-70 C if you think the gap between 50 and 70 is significant.

50mm is probably not a very useful focal length to fill that large gap because it is really a short telephoto, which puts it in the same category as the 70mm end of your 70-200. You'd want something in the 24-35mm range imo, if you are going with a prime. But again, I think one of the zooms above will be more useful.

tkbslc wrote in post #16218786
If you are looking to fill the gap betweel the Tokina and the 70-200L, I'd go with something like a Tamron or Sigma 17-50, or a Sigma 17-70 C if you think the gap between 50 and 70 is significant.

50mm is probably not a very useful focal length to fill that large gap because it is really a short telephoto, which puts it in the same category as the 70mm end of your 70-200. You'd want something in the 24-35mm range imo, if you are going with a prime. But again, I think one of the zooms above will be more useful.

I was thinking the 24-105 since it gets just about everything inbetween that gap, and the L lenses make me drool with the quality they're built with. Ill look into the 17-50

24-105 would work, but you would be missing 16-24mm, which is a pretty commonly used range. You'll be swapping lenses quite often with a 24-105 because every time you want even a little wide, you need to change to the 11-16.

Since you don't seem concerned with having a fast aperture, something like the 15-85 or that Sigma 17-70 might be more useful to you.

I have the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and felt it's alway been worth it in comparison to the Canon 50mm f/1.2L.

Having said that, one has to learn how to shoot around its short-commings... I.E. Axial Chromatic Aberrations. Other than that, it's a great lens to have at your disposal.

There are tons of resources to read on the net about this lens, and one thing they all have in common, is how this lens is the best bang for the buck.

If you can hold off until next year, Canon is due to refresh some of its older fixed focal lenght lens line, like the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.2. It might be Canon's decision to put in I.S. and make other improvements.

As long as I can capture very fast moving motion in good focus I'm happy, mountain biking and land scapes is my main files of work right now, I haven't looked into other styles but will soon

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16218573
I just bought a tokina 11-16 and have paired it with my 70-200 on my 7d, when I bought the tokina I had a lengthy conversation with the guy who sold it to me and he said a 50mm 1.4 would be a great lens to fill the gap between 16 and 70 mm ill mainly be doing landscapes, mountain biking and work for my school yearbook, I was thinking of this lens or the 24-105 but I can't decide, can someone make any suggestions?

I'd go tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC or canon 17-55 IS for that. f/2.8 would help for PJ/yearbook stuff most likely and they are both sharp to edge stopped down for landscapes. If you need more speed at times, you could try adding a 50 1.8 (to save money over the 1.4 since you also got a zoom).

Personally I was never all that crazy about the 24-105. YOu might end up swapping back and forth with the tokina a lot and it was actually not quite as sharp as my tamron although there was nothing to complain about the IQ on APS-C either.

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16218873
As long as I can capture very fast moving motion in good focus I'm happy, mountain biking and land scapes is my main files of work right now, I haven't looked into other styles but will soon

both canon 50 1.4 and 1.8 have somewhat erratic and slow AF, especially on anything not 5D3 or 1 series.

canon 17-55 IS has fast AF and covers a nice range

sigma 35 1.4 might be worth a look, perhaps

I dislike the Canon 50/1.4, so I do not recommend it.

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16218873
As long as I can capture very fast moving motion in good focus I'm happy, mountain biking and land scapes is my main files of work right now, I haven't looked into other styles but will soon

Capturing fast moving motion with the 50mm f/1.4 is not its strong suit. There's going to be difficulty controlling the C.A. whilst trying to stop that kind of action whith a wide open apeture. Also be prepared for a lot of out of focus shots.

Landscapes can be done well with the 50mm, and stopping down to f/4 or more will help ensure maximum sharpness.

The 50 is sharper at f4, especially in the corners, but for landscapes at f8 there is not much difference. I'm not sure how this all relates on a crop (the 24-105 might be sharper at f8 because it is the far corners where it falls apart on FF).

50 is faster, but much slower and less accurate AF. Also much cheaper, less well built but much smaller/lighter, so if you don't use the intermediate FL much, it is not going to take up much weight in your bag.

I had the 1.8 ii and picked up the 1.4 like new for cheap and the difference was night and day comparing the two. It might not be the be all end all, but I can't see the $1000 price jump to the 1.2 for anything I would ever do.

I think the 40mm 2.8 is a good lens, it may not be as great in low light, but you get crazy sharpness with it, also perfect for walk around. I currently have the 10-22, 24-105 and picking up the 40mm just for that gap. It can even be used for full body portrait shots as well, the 1.8 is great as well though, bokeh and awesome in low light. Im not a fan of the Canon 1.4, I just dont think its night and day as some people say, guess it depends on what your shooting. For that money I'd rather buy a Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC II.