Prime Lens for 6D

[Botts]

I have both the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.4.  I think the 50mm f/1.4 can do a lot more, but the 40mm is awesome in it's own way (really small, and really sharp).  Actually I find I'm using the 40mm more often than the 50mm on my 6D. 

Of course a lot of that comes down to your style of shooting.  I like the slightly wider 40mm for walking around with (possibly because I grew up with a 38mm film P&S), and the f/2.8 isn't all that limiting with the high ISO of the 6D.  However when I want to shoot people, the 50mm f/1.4 just gives way more options in terms of the DOF control that lens can give you on FF.

Agreed.  I also have the 50/1.4 and 40/2.8 for my 6D.  The 40STM lives on my 6D, the 50/1.4 comes out for special occasions, i.e. darker available light shots, or where I need razor thin DOF.

If I'm using my 430EX at an event or party, I'll keep the 40STM on the 6D without a doubt.  Shoot at f/4 with the strobe, and you're golden.

[bholliman]

I have both the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.4.  I think the 50mm f/1.4 can do a lot more, but the 40mm is awesome in it's own way (really small, and really sharp).  Actually I find I'm using the 40mm more often than the 50mm on my 6D. 

Of course a lot of that comes down to your style of shooting.  I like the slightly wider 40mm for walking around with (possibly because I grew up with a 38mm film P&S), and the f/2.8 isn't all that limiting with the high ISO of the 6D.  However when I want to shoot people, the 50mm f/1.4 just gives way more options in terms of the DOF control that lens can give you on FF.

Agreed.  I also have the 50/1.4 and 40/2.8 for my 6D.  The 40STM lives on my 6D, the 50/1.4 comes out for special occasions, i.e. darker available light shots, or where I need razor thin DOF.

If I'm using my 430EX at an event or party, I'll keep the 40STM on the 6D without a doubt.  Shoot at f/4 with the strobe, and you're golden.

Several responders here stated they have both a 50mm prime and also the 40 2.8.  I was just wondering if having two primes so close in focal length has advantages.

I just ordered a 50mm 1.4 and already have a 35L, so probably no need for a Shorty McForty now.  But, I'm considering selling the 35L to come up for money for a 135L.  To me the 50 1.4 should fill the bill of a small, light, low light lens.  The 40 is smaller and lighter, but not as low light capable.

[Standard]

I don't have the 40mm since I already have the 50L...so I can't speak to the advantages of having two similarly focal ranges. However I can say that already having the 50mm covered, I can easily do what the 40mm does with the 50L.

My personal recommendation when building up your lens collection is to simply look at your own shooting style and see what fits. For me, I'd build my lenses based on several things, one of which is the "half/double" factor, ie. I started out with the 50mm; I needed something longer so added twice the reach with the 100L (and later the 135mm for other reasons); I needed something wider than the 50mm, so went down half the focal length and added the 24mm; I then later found that I needed something even longer than the 100mm to take care of sporting events, wildlife, candid street shots, etc. and the 200mm 2.8L fits the bill. My last additional was the much, underated and affordable Samyang 14mm which is about half the focal length of the 24mm.

I suspect if I were to acquire the 35mm first, then I would likely have added the 85mm and 135mm next, respectively. And if I were into zooms (which at some time later, I suspect I may), then the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm would likely be on the list.

Hope this helps.

[SJTstudios]

40mm, nice standard, small prime, iso should handle shutter speed.

The thing is, if a 24-70 is on the agenda, then an L prime may not be a good idea. You could get a 24-70 #1 for the $35mm 1.4.

[bholliman]

I don't have the 40mm since I already have the 50L...so I can't speak to the advantages of having two similarly focal ranges. However I can say that already having the 50mm covered, I can easily do what the 40mm does with the 50L.

My personal recommendation when building up your lens collection is to simply look at your own shooting style and see what fits. For me, I'd build my lenses based on several things, one of which is the "half/double" factor, ie. I started out with the 50mm; I needed something longer so added twice the reach with the 100L (and later the 135mm for other reasons); I needed something wider than the 50mm, so went down half the focal length and added the 24mm; I then later found that I needed something even longer than the 100mm to take care of sporting events, wildlife, candid street shots, etc. and the 200mm 2.8L fits the bill. My last additional was the much, underated and affordable Samyang 14mm which is about half the focal length of the 24mm.

I suspect if I were to acquire the 35mm first, then I would likely have added the 85mm and 135mm next, respectively. And if I were into zooms (which at some time later, I suspect I may), then the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm would likely be on the list.

Hope this helps.

Good suggestion.  I really prefer the 50mm focal length over 35mm on a full format camera, so a 24mm and 100mm prime would be good compliments and a nice core group of primes.  At this point, I see more value to a longer focal length prime so I'm seriously looking at 100mm options (also tempted by the awesome 135L).

[Ew]

I've both the 40 and the 50 1.4.

I find that for me, they are different animals.

I'm not sure if its the size or the optics, but with the 50 1.4 I tend to be very hands on, opening wide, adding NDs to stay open in full light, turning the manual focus, lots of futzing, lots of joy.

 With the 40 its more of a photo journalistic.  I'll set it and go - 5d3 in M, ss=100, ap=3.2, auto iso 100~12800 and forget about it. Feeling free to hand the camera to almost anyone to take a shot once I've set the AF to a simpler mode. The 40 fly by wire mf is kida sloppy, so I'm never there.

I enjoy both, and as previously stated in this forum (multiple times) - you can't go wrong with the 40's price point.

[TrumpetPower!]

Take the grip off the 5DIII, put on the Shorty McForty, and add a wrist strap, and you've got the ultimate point & shoot camera. You can even put it in green square mode, turn on live view, and pass it 'round the table. People are likely to mistrake it for a high-end P&S and unlikely to think that it's the reigning IQ / low light monster that it is.

Use the 50 f/1.4 or the 35 f/1.4 (or whatever) for when you're being a photographer. Use the Shorty McForty when you'd otherwise reach for your iPhone but want a bit more image quality.

Oh -- and the Shorty McForty makes an awesome body cap....

I recently had an opportunity to buy a mint-condition 50 f/1.0L for $4k. I love the thought...but, realistically, that lone extra stop just doesn't give enough over the already-superlative 50 f/1.4, especially with the high ISO capability of the 5DIII. The 50 f/1.4 is at least as good from f/1.4 on, so the only reason to get the f/1.0 is for faster than f/1.4...and, frankly, it's not all that great from f/1.0 through f/1.4. It's pretty mushy wide open, even at the plane of focus. I might consider the f/1.0 for a small premium over the f/1.2L, but I already think the f/1.2L is overpriced....

b&

[Rmafive]

I borrowed a 50 f/1.4 from a friend when I went on vacation over the weekend, and I think I probably used it about 50% of the time along with my 24-105.  Whenever I knew I was going to be indoors or in a more low-light area I took the 50, and it made a huge difference.  Though, I feel the 24-105 is the best lens for walking around, especially when you don't know what you'll be shooting.  Given that I used the 50 so much, I am now leaning towards getting a 50L.  If this is going to be one of my primary lenses, I would most definitely want the best quality.  All of the advice has been extremely helpful!