Mt Spokane Photography said:Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field.
If you a new 5D MK III user, give it a while with the 24-105, you will get used to the weight. Good lenses are heavier due to the large amount of glass in them. The 24-105 is on the light side compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 or some of the other popular "L" lenses.
Some buy lenses to take photos, some buy the best one, even if its the wrong focal length.iso79 said:The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.
I took a 50mm f/1.4 with the 5DII on an international trip to see my parents (and my daughters grandparents) -- primary usage was family pics. I left at home the 35L, 135L and Sigma 85mm f/1.4. No regrets -- it worked out perfectly for that trip. The funny thing is, I don't otherwise use that lens very often on full frame (though it was my favourite on APS-C)bykes said:I doubt I'd use it on any paid gigs. Just something easy to shoot with in low light. For example at my sisters to shoot her kids indoors acting like maniacs.
iso79 said:The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.
infared said:I use a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on my 5D3. More to lug than the Canon...but results are excellent. I am a canon "L" man but I found this lens to be somewhere in between or closer to the Canon 50mm "L". Made a compromise on the 50mm, saved my money and went for the gusto for the ultimate low DOF and bought the Canon 85mm "L".
...but for the cost and the size and the quality the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens too!