Holly primes

The reason I chose the 24L was because it was the widest angle 1.4 to use on my crop camera. The 35L would have been 55 mm FOV on my crop camera, that was not wide enough for me. I was used to using my 17-55 zoom at 2.8
I found the 50 mm 1.4 to be too tight on my crop camera. It makes a nice portrait lens of one or two people waist up. And it is a great lens for the price. But many times I found myself indoors not able to back up and get the shot I wanted the 24 else solve that entirely.
Yes the 24L is expensive, but once I used it on my crop I fell in love with it. And now I'm full frame it is even wider, I will never sell it.
I justify the cost by using it so often. My 50 mm gets the least use if you are wondering. It's just so close to my 40 mm STM and the 40 weighs nothing.
The 35mm IS 2.0 is another great lens but it can't do 1.4 when you need to keep a fast shutter and capture light in those concerts.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16648771
The 35mm IS 2.0 is another great lens but it can't do 1.4 when you need to keep a fast shutter and capture light in those concerts.

Why do you say that?

No, it doesn't do F1.4, but that's a single stop, and it has a 4 stop image stabilization.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16648794
Why do you say that?

No, it doesn't do F1.4, but that's a single stop, and it has a 4 stop image stabilization.

Very best,

I did not mean the IS don't come into play, not at all. It can be very valuable. It would reduce blur but may not allow for faster shutter speeds.
If the OP was able to keep the same shutter speed at 1.4 and with 2.0 and the IS then that would be a benefit.
Unless the OP is wanting the thinner DOF at a wider aperture, that may be a benefit as well to the 1.4 lens.
The OP stated they are looking at the 50 1.4 and 28mm 1.8 Not sure if they want to buy both or just one of them.
They may want a FOV wider than 55mm on their 60D for their concert shoots.
I would recommend the 35mm IS and 24L in place of their suggestions. The 35 IS is great all around,
and the 24mm is the widest angle of the three lens options on crop.

brainiac.mg wrote in post #16647183
In my previous thread I was looking for one prime, but now, I'm looking to completely ditch both my zooms, and go full time prime I already have 100mm on a crop, it's simply too tight, and I want 50 1.4, and 28 1.8. I know that depends on my shooting style, but I want your experiences, do you consider 28 to tight for everyday shooting? I do concerts most of the time, and some portrait work. Do you recommend any other lens? I need it to be good in low light.

28 on aps-c is roughly equivalent to 35mm on FF.

While the FOV might not always be ideal, its a very versatile focal length that can realistically provide the same utility as a 24-70 zoom, provided you're willing to zoom with your feet.

I keep my 24-70 around to shoot weddings and events, but 35mm primes are my go to lenses for everyday shooting.

mystik610 wrote in post #16648830
28 on aps-c is roughly equivalent to 35mm on FF.

While the FOV might not always be ideal, its a very versatile focal length that can realistically provide the same utility as a 24-70 zoom, provided you're willing to zoom with your feet.

I keep my 24-70 around to shoot weddings and events, but 35mm primes are my go to lenses for everyday shooting.

I agree 35mm is a great focal length, but on an APS-C camera.
A 22mm would be a 35mm length FOV as on the 10-22mm lens.
Perhaps the Canon 10-22mm lens would be a good choice, although the aperture varies.
24mm would be a 38mm FOV and the 35mm IS would be a 55mm FOV
I find my 40mm stm on my 6D to be the closest FOV to my 24mm on crop at 38mm.
Which is why I go to it so much after using the 24L on crop.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16648641
I vote 24L A picture is worth 1,000 words.
Yokote Castle

I still have not quite understood this lens and how I would use something like this. I do use the 24mm focal length a lot for landscapes, but usually stopped down.

lens pirate wrote in post #16648737
I got my first manual focus Zeiss in the Canon mount today. the 135mm.. Lets just say that if I was just starting to buy glass and this was my first lens that my collection would look really different.

OPTICAL PERFECTION

that's because you havent tried the 135L

I think it's the focal length combined with fast aperture that really makes the 135L unique. It's a combination of perfect portrait perspective combined with a relatively wide aperture. ZE has better contrast and sharpness, but both are really close optically from what I've seen.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16648794
Why do you say that?

No, it doesn't do F1.4, but that's a single stop, and it has a 4 stop image stabilization.

Very best,

a stop costs a lot and the difference is there. You can always stabilized via tripod, but when two lenses are equal, I'de choose the faster lens almost always except for mega zooms/primes

Charlie wrote in post #16648857
I
a stop costs a lot and the difference is there. You can always stabilized via tripod, but when two lenses are equal, I'de choose the faster lens almost always except for mega zooms/primes

The context of the thread is at a concert, in low light, most of the time; and portraits, on a 60D's ISO handling.

Very best,

[QUOTE=Charlie;1664885​7]I still have not quite understood this lens and how I would use something like this. I do use the 24mm focal length a lot for landscapes, but usually stopped down.

And I do as well the photo I posted of Yokote was shutter speed 1/ 1000 and f8 handheld, No flash. No cropping.
I don't find a NEED for IS in such a wide angle lens.
I suggest this lens because of its lowlight performance at 1.4 and it's great performance at 8.0 handheld as well.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16648866
The context of the thread is at a concert, in low light, most of the time; and portraits, on a 60D's ISO handling.

Very best,

As I stated in my first response there is no one perfect lens. OP should go to a store and try 24, 35 50 and 85mm They already have a 100mm
The 24 mm would take distorted head and shoulder portraits even on crop.
While and 85 mm would take much better portraits but that lens would be too tight for concerts on crop.

Heya,

You're comparing apples & oranges.

1/1000 shutter speed in low light at a concert? Come on.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16648891
Heya,

You're comparing apples & oranges.

1/1000 shutter speed in low light at a concert? Come on.

Very best,

Venues can be very dimly lit, yes. 1 /1000 would be terrible at f 1,4.
However with stage lighting and spotlights on performers it can get very bright on the stage itself.
I posted the photo to suggest that the lens performs well in low light and bright light. At 1.4 and at 8.0

I do not have any examples of concert photos, but I have some low light street shots handheld at 1.4

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/plain'

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/plain'

Holly Primes? I only know Holly Johnson
http://m.youtube.com …tP9ocPDsCfWoyKn​zdRM5rWSvZ

MalVeauX wrote in post #16648866
The context of the thread is at a concert, in low light, most of the time; and portraits, on a 60D's ISO handling.

Very best,

Thread confusion. If on crop, why would anyone exclude zooms? 18-35 F1.8 fills the void perfectly.

The other option is 24mm L

brainiac.mg wrote in post #16647346
Thanks for the replays, I'm quite satisfied with 50 1.4 form canon, because it's ok from 2.0, and there are loads of them on used market in Serbia... It could be bought for quite low price. Is there anyone with the same needs as mine? Maybe to take my 17 - 40, and then check metadata, to see what was the focal length most of the time...

I'd think that 28mm on a crop is a bit limiting; but livable. 28 x 1.6 = 44.8mm on a FF; almost exactly "normal" (what the eye sees). My first quality zoom was 28-75 and I was happy for 2 years. Now I find 24mm a more suitable lower limit on a crop - for people photography. For landscape or environmental people shots, 17mm is barely wide enough.

For portraits; 50mm seems about the shortest you'd want. Shorter than that can lead to temptations to be too close to the subject - causing distance perspective distortion. For environmental (individual and 2-person) portraits, 28mm seems a good lower limit for the same reason - unless we're really talking about including the environment.

So; it depends how much you isolate your subjects. If you like to fill the frame; then 28mm is a good choice. If you like including more of the environment, then 28mm seems short.