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

[drjlo]

Im sorta ruling out the 35mm (L, im undecided on the non-L) and the 50's (canon and sigma) since I cant decide which brand is better.

which one out of 85L and 135L on a 7d? So 136mm v.s 216mm. Too tight? I think so.

I have 35L, 85L, and 135L.  135L, as great as it is, for crop body, it is too tight for most things especially indoors; however, you go outside and shoot a portrait against a nice far background, and it's magic.  85mm can be made to sort of work, but you would have to stand back quite a bit if you want whole body shots or group photos.  This is why 35L gets the most use on my cropped body, and it's beautiful, but it is no 85L when it comes to f/1.2 bokeh. 

Still, picking up a clean 35L on the used market is a fantastic idea. 

[wickidwombat]

another great choice might be the 30mm f1.4 siggy for your 7d
and snag a 5D classic as a second body and the 135 f2
that would be a sweet little paring for what you want

all of that would be cheaper than the 85mm f1.2L on its own

[scottsdaleriots]

The 135 f/2 is a great lens - but on a crop it becomes a short telephoto - a great sports combo

ive already got my sports photography covered with my 70-200 and i guess with my 18-200 kit. i am detered from buying sigma lenses coz of the infamous quality control issues and coz many (equivalent) canon lens are that much better..? especially with saturation, CA, sharpness, distortion, etc. again my lens knowledge is limited

[briansquibb]

The 135 f/2 is a great lens - but on a crop it becomes a short telephoto - a great sports combo

ive already got my sports photography covered with my 70-200 and i guess with my 18-200 kit. i am detered from buying sigma lenses coz of the infamous quality control issues and coz many (equivalent) canon lens are that much better..? especially with saturation, CA, sharpness, distortion, etc. again my lens knowledge is limited

I do agree with what you say - I used to use the 135 f/2 a lot, but since I got the 70-200 f/2.8 II it has not had much use because the IQ is not that much better (I now only really use it for street photos - it is MUCH lighter though)

[scottsdaleriots]

i love street photography and would want to buy a dedicated street lens (maybe a prime over a L zoom). hoping to get a lens that i can use for street and music/concert photography. everyone just stares at you when you have a massive, white lens attached to a camera. i always feel awkward when that happens, doesnt help that the lens isnt a lightweight!

[briansquibb]

i love street photography and would want to buy a dedicated street lens (maybe a prime over a L zoom). hoping to get a lens that i can use for street and music/concert photography. everyone just stares at you when you have a massive, white lens attached to a camera. i always feel awkward when that happens, doesnt help that the lens isnt a lightweight!

For the street pictures (I take people not scenes) I would use a 50f/1.4 or 85f/1.8 on the crop as you will look less intimidating from 20yds away

[wickidwombat]

i love street photography and would want to buy a dedicated street lens (maybe a prime over a L zoom). hoping to get a lens that i can use for street and music/concert photography. everyone just stares at you when you have a massive, white lens attached to a camera. i always feel awkward when that happens, doesnt help that the lens isnt a lightweight!

For the street pictures (I take people not scenes) I would use a 50f/1.4 or 85f/1.8 on the crop as you will look less intimidating from 20yds away

lol says the guy that actually uses a 400 f2.8!

[briansquibb]

i love street photography and would want to buy a dedicated street lens (maybe a prime over a L zoom). hoping to get a lens that i can use for street and music/concert photography. everyone just stares at you when you have a massive, white lens attached to a camera. i always feel awkward when that happens, doesnt help that the lens isnt a lightweight!

For the street pictures (I take people not scenes) I would use a 50f/1.4 or 85f/1.8 on the crop as you will look less intimidating from 20yds away

lol says the guy that actually uses a 400 f2.8!

Recently I used the 600 f/4 - that was truly wickid 

[scottsdaleriots]

For the street pictures (I take people not scenes) I would use a 50f/1.4 or 85f/1.8 on the crop as you will look less intimidating from 20yds away

My main desire for a prime is to take concert photos. With street photography Im not in a dire need of a lens ATM since Ive just been using my kit lens and sometimes my 70-200.

But i would love to have the 35, 50, 85 and 135 lenses in my bag 

[Bosman]

The 135 f/2 is a great lens - but on a crop it becomes a short telephoto - a great sports combo

ive already got my sports photography covered with my 70-200 and i guess with my 18-200 kit. i am detered from buying sigma lenses coz of the infamous quality control issues and coz many (equivalent) canon lens are that much better..? especially with saturation, CA, sharpness, distortion, etc. again my lens knowledge is limited

I do agree with what you say - I used to use the 135 f/2 a lot, but since I got the 70-200 f/2.8 II it has not had much use because the IQ is not that much better (I now only really use it for street photos - it is MUCH lighter though)

First time i've seen this "70-200 f/2.8 II not that much better". Sure the old one was already very good but the resolution sharpness and flare control are quite a step up in my book. It's one reason i dont need the 85 or need the 135, not because of the range but because it is flat out stellar. But it is big to lug so i only use it when i need it at weddings, with sports i almost always use it unless i am working the finish line.

[kdsand]

The 135 f/2 is a great lens - but on a crop it becomes a short telephoto - a great sports combo

ive already got my sports photography covered with my 70-200 and i guess with my 18-200 kit. i am detered from buying sigma lenses coz of the infamous quality control issues and coz many (equivalent) canon lens are that much better..? especially with saturation, CA, sharpness, distortion, etc. again my lens knowledge is limited

If your budget is tight sigma lenses are quite good - certain models. The optics are right up there with Canon. I believe the key to buying sigma or being pleased with sigma is you have to go into it knowing that you may need to send it in for adjustment or actually just plan on sending it in when you get it.
It seems the vast majority of people are quite happy once they have had the focus adjusted.

 Another benefit for Sigma is the colors & saturation are quite different ( in a good way ) from Canon optics - nice having variation.

 Overall I still stick with Canon but with the prices skyrocketing the scales can begin to tip.  If you are budgeting for one lens the price is not as big of a deal. When you're trying to budget to build up a whole kit the premium prices of 5, 6 or even 7 lenses begins to add up and compromises have to be made at times.

[RLPhoto]

50mm's render the world with no expansion or compression like wider or longer lenses do. They see things how they are and some will see that as boring. While the 50mm to me was the only lens I grew up on, (Minolta Maxxium AF and a 50 1.8 ) so It grew on me for good time.

After a while, It changed the way I composed things because there was no perspective tricks. I composed according to balance, shadows, rhythm, negative space, color and the other more important things in a photo. Thats what the 50mm does, it shows you how you compose your images based on these more important things.

As for lenses, Any of canons offerings are good but the 1.2L is the best.