50mm ( 1.4 or 1.8 )

I have read through many posts here for samples on opinions in order to make a decision on my next 1 or 2 lenses.
I have read that the 50mm 1.4 is a little soft wide open, so if I would never use this lens wide open, should I not get the 1.8, or are their other quality issues here that justify getting the 1.4. I realize there is a big price gap, but is that attributed only to the 1.4 vs the 1.8.

Also, I am considering the 85mm ( not sure which ) - You see, I only have the 28-105 3.5/4.5 that came with my older canon ( pre-digital ) so I want to get at least another lens, and I am not asking for opinions in this thread because there are so many posts for me to read through that have already covered it ( although feel free to speak your mind if you want - it will be appreciated ).

Due to the 1.6 crop factor, I think it would be a mistake for me not to get something like a 17-55 or 17-85 first - because even my 28 is to zoomed in once you apply the 1.6.

and then for the next lens either a 50mm or an 85mm,

although, I have to think to myself, once I have the 17-85 mounted, will I bother putting on the 85mm. I like the flexibility of having some range, so I do not know what I will choose for a second choice, but this has nothing to do with the question in my post now does it, sorry about the rambling

Your decision should be based on your shooting style... with your 28-105, do you find yourself shooting more at the wide end and wishing you could go wider? Or at the telephoto end wishing you could get zoom closer to the subject? It's really a decision that you need to base on what you like to shoot. Even though I've never shot with a 17-85, I'd say that it's a pretty useful focal length zoom, just based on the focal lengths it covers... now others who have shot with this lens will give you their opinion on the quality, build, etc. about this zoom... I've never owned one, so no opinion here.

With my 24-70 f/2.8L, I've got 50mm covered, but I still bought a EF 50 f/1.4. There are different uses for each lens, again... all up to you. In my opinion, go with a zoom 1st, to figure out what focal lengths suit your shooting style, then buy prime lenses if you desire. Just my thoughts.

I'd venture a guess and say that the 50mm 1.4 stopped down to 1.8 is sharper than the Nifty wide open. No?

Also, the 1.4 has better buid, better AF (Micro USM), full time MF, better bokeh (more aperture blades), just to name a few...

The 17-55IS would be the best choice for a cropper, period!

I have to tell you though, once you get the 17-55IS, you might not use the 50mm!

Also, the 17-55 is in a different league than the 17-85. It's got better lens elements ("L" level), is sharper, f2.8 throughout the range, etc...

The 85 is considered a VERY sharp lens. As such you might have the urge, should you get the 17-85, to swap it just for its sharpness.

The 17-55 is so sharp, that when I used to own it, I never had the urge to swap it with anything else in that range! (Not saying it's sharper than primes...not at all...just that it's sharp enough not to miss it a huge amount)

Of course the catch is that the 17-55 is about $1k...

AMG wrote in post #3068205
I have read through many posts here for samples on opinions in order to make a decision on my next 1 or 2 lenses.
I have read that the 50mm 1.4 is a little soft wide open, so if I would never use this lens wide open, should I not get the 1.8, or are their other quality issues here that justify getting the 1.4. I realize there is a big price gap, but is that attributed only to the 1.4 vs the 1.8.

Also, I am considering the 85mm ( not sure which ) - You see, I only have the 28-105 3.5/4.5 that came with my older canon ( pre-digital ) so I want to get at least another lens, and I am not asking for opinions in this thread because there are so many posts for me to read through that have already covered it ( although feel free to speak your mind if you want - it will be appreciated ).

Due to the 1.6 crop factor, I think it would be a mistake for me not to get something like a 17-55 or 17-85 first - because even my 28 is to zoomed in once you apply the 1.6.

and then for the next lens either a 50mm or an 85mm,

although, I have to think to myself, once I have the 17-85 mounted, will I bother putting on the 85mm. I like the flexibility of having some range, so I do not know what I will choose for a second choice, but this has nothing to do with the question in my post now does it, sorry about the rambling

ya, the price, I know, but I was getting ready for thiis expense. thanks guys, this helps, I think I will start with 17-55 simply because I need the 17 end of it. then I will decide on whether to get the 85 or simpy stick with my 28-105. If I choose that route, then the next lens would be a bigger zoom for those hard to reach shots ( zoo animals, spying on people, etc... ) - just kidding about the spying by the way

50mm f/1.8
PROS: nice starter prime lens, great value for the aperture
CONS: plastic, tiny focus ring, slow AF

50mm f/1.4
PROS: same as f/1.8, USM AF, sturdier metal build, better bokeh quality
CONS: costs $200 more than f/1.8

I'd go with the f/1.4 if I have the money. But the f/1.8 will get you off the ground and WELL. It's Canon's best "value" lens.

Want a bad-ass zoom for your XT and you don't think you'll be going FF any time soon? Definitely get the EF 17-55 IS. It's under $1000 now and if it weren't for the plastic build it would have been an L.

I personally decided on the 17-40 f/4L because it became a 24-70 equivalent on my 20D. Plus I knew I'd be using it for bright outdoor walkaround purposes so I didn't need a wider aperture. The 17-40 also costs around $700. To complement, the 70-200 f/4L IS USM would be great for me except I shoot low-light sports so I'd rather get the 70-200 f/2.8 USM (non-IS) though it would also see a lot of work as a studio-lit portrait lens.

And as far as the 85mm goes, the 50mm would basically become an 85mm. However, the 85mm would be an excellent portrait lens as it would extend out to, what? 110mm? Plus it's a f/1.8 so...

My recommendation would be get the Canon EF 17-55 IS USM and complement it with the 85mm f/1.8. Boo-yah!

I'd get the 50 1.8 and try it. It is readily available used in the for sale threads for $60. If it doesn't meet your needs, you can probably sell it for almost the cost invested. If it does a great job for your demands, problem solved and you saved some $$$.
Just my opinion.
Tom

thx JRJphoto, good post, and I tend to agree for all the reasons I knew and for the ones I didn't know that you brought up. I have a 5 year old and 3 year old, so almost all my pics will be of them, it'll be a few years before I need the big zoom for sports, but I know that day will come and I will prepare for it so it will be painless as well.

thx tomd - due to the price, when and if I go 50mm, I will likely try that one, and I won't really have to budget at all. I can just say hey, I feel like it so I'll go buy it. BUt I think the 17-55 is the best place to start.

If it was me, I'd get the 50 F/1.4

The 50 f/1.8 is an excellent lens, especially given the price. Still, I upgraded a month or so ago to the f/1.4, and I'm glad I did. While the lens is not tack sharp at f/1.4, it's pretty sharp. It does have a dreamy quality at f/1.4, but it's still sharp. It's just that it is VERY shallow DOF, and if you aren't ready for it, it's extremely difficult to nail focus. The build is much better on the f/1.4, but it's still not the best built lens in the world (my 28 f/1.8 is noticably better built). The bokeh is VERY nice on the f/1.4. All in all, if you need (or want) an extra 2/3 stop, it's outstanding. Both lenses are extremely sharp at f/2.8 and beyond, and the f/1.4 sharpens up a bit earlier than th f/1.8, but if you'll be shooting at f/4 or smaller, there's little to differentiate the image quality.

Here's one of the first shots I took with my 50 f/1.4...just a quick shot of my cat (he was handy)....not too bad....taken at f/1.4:

AMG wrote in post #3070679
thx JRJphoto, good post, and I tend to agree for all the reasons I knew and for the ones I didn't know that you brought up. I have a 5 year old and 3 year old, so almost all my pics will be of them, it'll be a few years before I need the big zoom for sports, but I know that day will come and I will prepare for it so it will be painless as well.

thx tomd - due to the price, when and if I go 50mm, I will likely try that one, and I won't really have to budget at all. I can just say hey, I feel like it so I'll go buy it. BUt I think the 17-55 is the best place to start.

I have two little girls, and most of pictures are of them. Thats the main reason I got the 50 1.4, its great for low light (i.e. house lighting, club lighting etc). I found that for taking pictures around the house the 50 is great, with an aperture of 1.4 it allows me to get good shutter speeds without using a flash.

I can't compare the 1.4 to 1.8 as I have only had a 1.4, and I chose it for the reasons already posted above in this thread as well as the fact that the lighting in my house sucks. As far as the 1.4 not being sharp wide open, mine is

I still havent decided on a wide lens yet so I bought a 18-55 kit lens to get use to this focal range. To my surprise Im happy with the results from this lens. Sure its really no good in dim lighting(around the house for moving kids) but on a tripod or in good light this lens is damn good lens. I bought this lens from a member here, the II version for $50

Hope your search goes well

You can get some very beautiful portrait shots with the 50mm f/1.4. On a 1.6x crop, the 50mm becomes an ideal portrait-style 80mm.

And don't be afraid to use the 50mm wide open at f/1.4! That's what makes the 50mm special even if it is a bit softer, especially in poor lighting.

Both are a little soft wide-open, however I'm not afraid to use any of them wide-open. Images quality wide-open is acceptable to me with both lenses.
The 1.4 starts to really shine from F/2.0, the 1.8 from F/2.5. At hese and smaller apertures, it's very very hard if not impossible to tell the images apart sharpness-wise. Yes, I've used them both extensively.

The 1.4 has faster (though not much) and silent AF, better build quality, and slightly nicer bokeh, because it's aperture has more diaphragm blades and is more like a circle, while the 1.8's aperture is pentagon-shaped, except wide-open, when it's of course perfectly round.

Both are way better than the 28-105.

I'd get the 1.8 and never look back. The 1.4 is hardly worth the money. Hell yes, It's a great lens, but the 1.8 is very very good too, and costs way less.

At this price (1.8 ) i don't care about build quality, since mine has never broken down in quite some years and live through a lot of abuse, and I could waste three for the price of one 1.4!