50mm 1.4 or 40mm 2.8?

[glowsplint]

I'm a amateur student photographer using a 1000D (which I bought a few years back). I currently have the kit lens 18-55, Canon 85/1.8 and a Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 VC. I love shooting anything from sports to school events. I really love the 85mm lens a lot but sometimes I feel that the focal length is too narrow on a crop body like mine.
Also, the minimum focusing distance of the 85 really annoys me sometimes.

I do not think I would buy both lenses since they have very similar focal lengths.
As the title suggests, I'm torn between choosing the 50/1.4 and the newly released 40/2.8. What should I do? 

[RLPhoto]

I'm a amateur student photographer using a 1000D (which I bought a few years back). I currently have the kit lens 18-55, Canon 85/1.8 and a Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 VC. I love shooting anything from sports to school events. I really love the 85mm lens a lot but sometimes I feel that the focal length is too narrow on a crop body like mine.
Also, the minimum focusing distance of the 85 really annoys me sometimes.

I do not think I would buy both lenses since they have very similar focal lengths.
As the title suggests, I'm torn between choosing the 50/1.4 and the newly released 40/2.8. What should I do? 

The 50mm is still pretty long on APS-C. Have you considered the sigma 30mm or the 35L?

[bdunbar79]

If I had a strict choice between the two, I'd get the 40mm lens.  Why?  First, it's cheap.  Second, it's sharp.  Third, it's 64mm on your camera which is pretty good.  However, as RLPhoto hinted at, what focal length do you need?  I would be happy with 64mm, but really the reason I shoot all FF is because when I buy a 40mm lens, I prefer not to deal with a crop factor for most shots.  I have a 1D4 because I don't mind the crop factor for sports.  So it really depends on what you need.  Picking between your two choices though, I would personally pick the 40mm.

[Random Orbits]

Sigma 30 f/1.4 or Canon 50 f/1.4, depending on your focal length preference.  You already have the range covered with the 18-55, so why get another lens within that range unless it can be used in much less light.  The 40mm pancake has a size/weight advantage compared to the 24-105 and 24-70, but it's adantage in weight and size is not as great compared ot the 18-55.

[wickidwombat]

agreed since you have the 85 have a good look at the sigma 30mm

[Wideopen]

agreed since you have the 85 have a good look at the sigma 30mm

1+

[Dylan777]

I prefer faster lens ...my 50mm f1.4 is very sharp at f2.

I heard 40mm is quite sharp at wide open.

[bdunbar79]

Sigma IQ is going to be less than the 40 or 50 Canon lenses in all likelihood.

[Random Orbits]

Sigma IQ is going to be less than the 40 or 50 Canon lenses in all likelihood.

Maybe, but it would still make sense for a crop sensor if one is trying to mimic the 50mm FOV.  The Canon 40 and 50 might be too long for the OP on his 1000D.  What is the best that Canon has around 30mm that is as fast and as affordable?

[EOBeav]

More than focal length, how much aperture do you need? If you can't answer that question, you might want to get a little more experience as a photog before you plunk down money for glass that you may or may not be happy with. Just another perspective and something to think about.

[bdunbar79]

Sigma IQ is going to be less than the 40 or 50 Canon lenses in all likelihood.

Maybe, but it would still make sense for a crop sensor if one is trying to mimic the 50mm FOV.  The Canon 40 and 50 might be too long for the OP on his 1000D.  What is the best that Canon has around 30mm that is as fast and as affordable?

That's true.  I guess he never said what focal length he NEEDED. 

[Ew]

Often overlooked but the 28 1.8 is great on crop. Fine on FF esp at 2.2+
Min focusing distance is a about 1 ft. I've had two (both given away as gifts to crop user friends)... Looking to buy 3rd soon.

[glowsplint]

If I had a strict choice between the two, I'd get the 40mm lens.  Why?  First, it's cheap.  Second, it's sharp.  Third, it's 64mm on your camera which is pretty good.  However, as RLPhoto hinted at, what focal length do you need?  I would be happy with 64mm, but really the reason I shoot all FF is because when I buy a 40mm lens, I prefer not to deal with a crop factor for most shots.  I have a 1D4 because I don't mind the crop factor for sports.  So it really depends on what you need.  Picking between your two choices though, I would personally pick the 40mm.

I realised I have missed out a lot of great lenses when looking for a lens to mimic the "normal" perspective on a crop body. Any other things that I should take note of?

[brianleighty]

If I had a strict choice between the two, I'd get the 40mm lens.  Why?  First, it's cheap.  Second, it's sharp.  Third, it's 64mm on your camera which is pretty good.  However, as RLPhoto hinted at, what focal length do you need?  I would be happy with 64mm, but really the reason I shoot all FF is because when I buy a 40mm lens, I prefer not to deal with a crop factor for most shots.  I have a 1D4 because I don't mind the crop factor for sports.  So it really depends on what you need.  Picking between your two choices though, I would personally pick the 40mm.

I realised I have missed out a lot of great lenses when looking for a lens to mimic the "normal" perspective on a crop body. Any other things that I should take note of?

This is just my personal experience but the three lenses I've liked a lot on a crop camera are:
Canon 35 2.0 - Nice sharpness on a crop camera, focus is loud and a bit erratic but since it's a fairly wide lens even if focus isn't perfect it's normally close enough. Right now our main setup is this on a crop camera and the 24-105 on the fullframe. Works pretty well and I think I bought it for around $270 refurb from Canon. Great for the price

Sigma 10-20 - Obviously we're talking about normal range lenses here but if you've never used an ultra wide angle then you might look into something like this as well. Instead of giving you something BETTER that you already have it will give you something NEW. The same could be said of any of the macro options as well

Tamron 17-50 non VC - This is a pretty good lens for the money. If you're looking for something better rather than something new then this is a good option. Usable at 2.8 and really sharpens well at 4.0.

I've used the Canon 50 1.8 and actually like it better for video because the focus ring is smoother than the 35 2.0 but for everything else I've liked the 35 2.0 better. Sharpness wide open can't compare and I think the 35 has better contrast too. The Canon 50 1.4 might be a little bit better but believe me I've researched it over and over again and I a have hard time wanting to upgrade. Being on full frame now I do miss the framing of the 35 2.0 on crop so I'm renting a Zeiss Makro 50 2.0 for a wedding in September. Looking at the charts, it looks to be much better than Canon's options. Of course it's manual focus only and not cheap but I'm using it in place of the Canon 100 2.8 IS macro I normally use so if it can meet both needs it might get rented again.

I've also researched the 40 2.8. Everything seems to be really nice about this lens. My main hesitation is I already have the 35 2.0 and I'm waiting a little while longer to make sure there aren't any issues with the new focusing system on the 40 2.8. Otherwise I think I'd recommend it over the 50 1.4 but that's based on the fact that I like my lenses to be sharp wide open mainly because of the fact that unless you have the camera in AV or M it's going to use the biggest aperture.

[mathino]

Some time ago I was questioning myself the choice between 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8. Ive chosen 85 f/1.8 mainly because 50 f/1.4 is not so sharp wide open and the AF (micro type USM). I think that 85 f/1.8 is a great lens in terms of IQ/price. Little bit CA wide open, but its managable. Great for portraits, candids, gigs (with enough space), street...

This year I bought 28 f/1.8 USM and I think its a good lens (on my 450D). You need to stop it down a bit (to 2.2) to achieve good contrast. But it is usable at 1.8 if you post process and tweak it a bit. I even like bokeh from this lens. Good lens for indoor shooting.

I also have 40 f/2.8 STM. Its really a bargain. Sharp wide open, very good contrast and colours. Bokeh is also really nice. I have not tried it as a portrait lens yet but Im sure it will perform very good. And when I have it mounted on a gripped body it looks really funny 

...so when Im going out Im always choosing which to bring: 28 f/1.8 USM or 85 f/1.8 USM. 40 f/2.8 STM stays always in my bag 

About 50s:
I had a chance to shoot with both 50 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4. For me, 50 f/1.4 is not that better to justify price premium over 50 f/1.8. I have also tested Sigma 50 f/1.4 and if I had to choose I would buy Sigma - it is sharp wide open (at least the tested copy was).

...and yes, I would prefer to choose Canon 50 f/1.4 if it performs just like Sigma even with a higer price.