Recommend me a lens that's better/more useful than a 50mm lens

[Harley]

Thanks for the suggestion, I will have to do some research on that particular lens. First time I've heard of it. Can I only get the lens and adapter from ebay? I dont use ebay coz of some dodgy 'sellers'.

Yes, as scrappydog indicated, Ed Mika is the only source for this adapter (which has no glass optics -- it's purely an engineered brass replacement for the FL 55mm's breach lock mount).  He is currently only selling on eBay.  Ed is an excellent seller and will do everything to make sure you get your adapter in a timely manner and provide all the support you'll ever need in getting it installed and functioning.  It's really quite fast and easy to adapt the lens and it is entirely reversible if you want to take the lens back to its original condition. 

Other adapters for old Canon glass usually involve optics which effectively slow the lens down.  Some adapters require you to permanently alter the lens making it thereafter unusable as originally intended.  All of Ed's adapters are non-permanent and non-altering, involve no optics, and have microchips providing autofocus confirmation and EXIF data back to the camera body.

I'm a big fan and now have several old lenses with Ed's converters.  The FL 55mm was my first.  Having a lens that can shoot at f/1.2 is a huge advantage -- it's letting in about 50% more light than f/1.4 and about six times more light than f/2.8 so you can do available light interiors and night shots.  Plus at that wide an aperture you can get super-shallow depth of field.  It's an 88mm equivalent on a crop body like the 7D so it's a great portrait lens, too. 

It's an awful lot of bang for not a lot of bucks.  And it's just a fun and versatile lens. 

[darrellrhodesmiller]

or just rent a big lens with 400+mm focal length when you need one.
far cheaper than buying.

[RobPan]

Before I went digital, I had two F-1 cameras, and the lens I most often used was a FD100 mm f 2.8. I think I used it in about 60 pct of my pictures. 100mm is ideal for portraits, and is also fine in the theatre (I had Ektachrome pushed to 800 ISO which went well).
You will also be able to take some outstanding landscapes and snapshots with it. In other words, a fine all-purpose lens. In my opinion it will give you much more pleasing results than wide-angles.
If you wish you may supplement it with a 28 mm or something similar. But you may well find yourself using the 100mm much more often.
Today, Canon has a EF100 mm lens at F2.0 for around US$506. You will probably be able to use it indoors without flash (much to be preferred!) as today's cameras will allow you to shoot at 1600 or 3200 ISO (or even at 25600 ISO if you are the happy owner of an EOS 5D mkIII). The rather shallow depth of field is ideal for portraits.

Kind regards,

Rob.

[scottsdaleriots]

Before I went digital, I had two F-1 cameras, and the lens I most often used was a FD100 mm f 2.8. I think I used it in about 60 pct of my pictures. 100mm is ideal for portraits, and is also fine in the theatre (I had Ektachrome pushed to 800 ISO which went well).
You will also be able to take some outstanding landscapes and snapshots with it. In other words, a fine all-purpose lens. In my opinion it will give you much more pleasing results than wide-angles.
If you wish you may supplement it with a 28 mm or something similar. But you may well find yourself using the 100mm much more often.
Today, Canon has a EF100 mm lens at F2.0 for around US$506. You will probably be able to use it indoors without flash (much to be preferred!) as today's cameras will allow you to shoot at 1600 or 3200 ISO (or even at 25600 ISO if you are the happy owner of an EOS 5D mkIII). The rather shallow depth of field is ideal for portraits.

Kind regards,

Rob.

You cant readily get those FL and FD lenses from like amazon or B&H? Only on ebay?
Thanks for suggesting the 100mm f/2. It's affordable and it's EF not EF-S, which is good. And it's fast. However isnt 100mm on a crop too long for in-your-face music/concert photography? But I like it.

[briansquibb]

Thanks for suggesting the 100mm f/2. It's affordable and it's EF not EF-S, which is good. And it's fast. However isnt 100mm on a crop too long for in-your-face music/concert photography? But I like it.

On a crop an 85 f/1.8 is about as long as you want - this is the equivalent of the 135 which we used with film. the 85 f/1.8 is a top lens at a budget price with fast AF

[scottsdaleriots]

On a crop an 85 f/1.8 is about as long as you want - this is the equivalent of the 135 which we used with film. the 85 f/1.8 is a top lens at a budget price with fast AF

The 85mm lens (L or non-L) is on mhy wishlist. I've heard it's like the perfect portrait lens, after the 135mmL of course

[nikkito]

I also find 50mm lenses boring. I prefer shooting and playing with a 16-35mm. I just love wide angle

[scottsdaleriots]

I also find 50mm lenses boring. I prefer shooting and playing with a 16-35mm. I just love wide angle

Im considering the 16-35mm lens but the price is high.

[briansquibb]

There is always a fisheye

[TexPhoto]

If you don't want to spend the cash for a 50mm f1.4, I'd say pick up a 50mm f1.8.  A fantastic little lens for the price.

[AnselA]

I love the amazing 135mm F 2.0. When I travel , I find it great for street photography as it gives portrait quality images yet allows me plenty of distance. It is tack sharp, fast and has a beautiful bokeh. It is the one lens I wish I had bought much sooner.

[JR]

Scott, in your price range definitively you should consider 135L as an alternate lens if that focal lenght suits you.  In terms of more versatile, I actually prefer 85mm on a full frame.  While the 1.2L may be out of your current budget, the non=L version is also very good and would make for a good alternative.  For your 1500$ you could get both the 50 and 85...

[NWPhil]

I would like to buy a nifty-fifty (most likely the 50mm 1.4). I'd like it for portraits but want it for music/concert photography (right between the stage and the crowd, where the security personnel stand...if I can figure out a way to get a media pass without paying extra to the tour organisers ).

But while some people say everyone should have a 50mm in their lens collections, one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens? I guess my (stretched) budget wpuld be up to $1500 including the B+W filter I would buy. What does everyone think of these 'kits' and which one is better? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Filter-Accessory-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002PX21JS/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1331887805&sr=1-7 or http://www.adorama.com/CA5014AFUA.html

I don't need this lens (canon branded or otherwise) but I would like it. I guess the alternatives would be a prime such as the 24mm/35mm or the 17-40mmL. Any suggestions/advice is appreciated.

what about a 24-70 I? or indeed the 17-40 as zoom, if you want to stay on WA
as primes, I would say that the least boring, would be the ef 1002.8 usm macro, and either the canon 15mm or a rokinon\samyang\bower 14mm
bonus: you don't need a CPL in neither one - just two good clear uv for protection
ps: my 50mm 1.8 has a reverse ring attached - always

now for your specific needs - I think the 35mm 1.4L would be a good choice, but not for portraits - you can add the 50 f1.8 for that and remain in budget.

[scottsdaleriots]

There is always a fisheye

That's a nice pic, what fisheye lens did you use? I want the 8-15mm fisheye even though i dont need it at all lol. it looks cool and it's nice to get a different perspective on life from a distorted angle.

what about a 24-70 I? or indeed the 17-40 as zoom, if you want to stay on WA
as primes, I would say that the least boring, would be the ef 1002.8 usm macro, and either the canon 15mm or a rokinon\samyang\bower 14mm
bonus: you don't need a CPL in neither one - just two good clear uv for protection
ps: my 50mm 1.8 has a reverse ring attached - always

now for your specific needs - I think the 35mm 1.4L would be a good choice, but not for portraits - you can add the 50 f1.8 for that and remain in budget.

Yeah I prefer to stay wide angle coz i really, really want to be right in front of the band to get those awesome shots those pro music photographers do. And I think a zoom would be way too close unless i was like 10metres away from the stage or something.

However I kind of am leaning a bit towards the 35mm (I would like the L but the non-L seems ok and it's a lot cheaper) over the 50mm lens. 35mm on a crop body is 56mm on FF. That's alright for me

[peederj]

One thing to be quite concerned over is; at 35mm on crop much less full-frame, you risk making the "talent" look old, fat and haggard (as they often are). At 50mm, boring though it may be, their features are more or less true-to-life.