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

[wickidwombat]

In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.

keeps growing! damn i am doomed... I wonder if they make eye piece extensions for people that are geometrically nasally challenged

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Cheap filters are magical - they can turn an amazing lens into a pretty good one.

LOL! Definitely avoid cheapo filters. If you are going to use one, use a good one. I have used B+W and Hoya, and both are fine.

As for the lens, the 50mm f/1.4 is the least expensive Canon f/1.4 lens you can buy, it is light, and it takes great shots. I consider a fast nifty-fifty a must have for any kit. If you want versatility, a zoom is great but at the cost of speed. If you shoot wider, the 35mm f/1.4L is fast, within your price range, and lots of people love it. If you prefer a telephoto, the 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens for the money. As previously mentioned, it depends on how you shoot. The suggestion about shooting with a zoom to determine the focal length you prefer is great because it will steer you in the right direction.

Being honest, UV lenses don't really protect the lens from very much it's a lovely add on for the salesman. They can actually cause more damage if the filter breaks and the shards go up against the element. Here's a video showing how resilient Canon lenses can be (the 50 1.8II no less). Look away if you fear cruelness to lenses

http://youtu.be/vzOLbMPe0u8

 

[scottsdaleriots]

^ really? That's the first time I've heard of that. Don't use filters coz it will/might shatter the front element? I've only heard that you shouldn't use filters coz it effects IQ. I've got a Hoya filter on my 70-200mm, I didn't want dust on it or it got scratched or something horrible to happen to it.

If you take a portrait with a wide angle lens you will find the nose appears bigger than it is. In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.

If you take a full length image of someone from low level the same perspective issue will apply in that the stomach will appear disproportional large.

In the Oscars the photographers were taking pictures of the stars from above (I assume because the photographer was taller than the stars. In one classic picture Demi More - who is petit anyway - was taken in this way and it looked as if she had a large head, short legs and tiny feet - she doesn't, she is normally proportioned.

In the days of film portrait photographers used 135mm lens which shortened the nose, which was/is considered more flattering.

I didn't post the original post you are referring to - and this was my interpretaion of the meaning of the comments you mention.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Hm, that's a bit of a pickle for me. How noise-y would my photos turn out if I bought the 17-40L and cranked the ISO right up (maybe even to 6400..?) on my 7d? I would love to own the 24-70mm 2.8 mkII but I can't justify the price and there are too many mixed reviews/opinions about the mki that deters me from getting it. I was thinking of the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 since its apparently sharper than the canon 18-55mm and/17-55mm 2.8 IS (I forget which one, but it's one of those).

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

^ really? That's the first time I've heard of that. Don't use filters coz it will/might shatter the front element? I've only heard that you shouldn't use filters coz it effects IQ. I've got a Hoya filter on my 70-200mm, I didn't want dust on it or it got scratched or something horrible to happen to it.

If you take a portrait with a wide angle lens you will find the nose appears bigger than it is. In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.

If you take a full length image of someone from low level the same perspective issue will apply in that the stomach will appear disproportional large.

In the Oscars the photographers were taking pictures of the stars from above (I assume because the photographer was taller than the stars. In one classic picture Demi More - who is petit anyway - was taken in this way and it looked as if she had a large head, short legs and tiny feet - she doesn't, she is normally proportioned.

In the days of film portrait photographers used 135mm lens which shortened the nose, which was/is considered more flattering.

I didn't post the original post you are referring to - and this was my interpretaion of the meaning of the comments you mention.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Hm, that's a bit of a pickle for me. How noise-y would my photos turn out if I bought the 17-40L and cranked the ISO right up (maybe even to 6400..?) on my 7d? I would love to own the 24-70mm 2.8 mkII but I can't justify the price and there are too many mixed reviews/opinions about the mki that deters me from getting it. I was thinking of the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 since its apparently sharper than the canon 18-55mm and/17-55mm 2.8 IS (I forget which one, but it's one of those).

IQ is the other issue, but I know people who have dropped the lens and the only damage to the lens was from the shattered UV filter, nice scratch across the element.

 

[briansquibb]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Hm, that's a bit of a pickle for me. How noise-y would my photos turn out if I bought the 17-40L and cranked the ISO right up (maybe even to 6400..?) on my 7d? I would love to own the 24-70mm 2.8 mkII but I can't justify the price and there are too many mixed reviews/opinions about the mki that deters me from getting it. I was thinking of the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 since its apparently sharper than the canon 18-55mm and/17-55mm 2.8 IS (I forget which one, but it's one of those).
[/quote]

Visible noise on the 5D starts at about iso 1600. By iso 6400 it is beginning to get very noticable

I am sure we will get a response shortly that with pp and techniques (as yet undisclosed) iso 6400 can be made clean. I consider iso 3200 the limit on the 7D.

The 85 1.8 might be a good alternative for you - cheap, fast and sharp

 

[scottsdaleriots]

Ive never really used anything higher than about 800 maybe even 1600 ISO when shooting at night without much light. I wish there was weather sealing on the 85mm 1.8. I've read that it can be difficult to use MF with that lens? Slow AF, not as fast as some other primes, or something like that..? I can't remember.

 

[briansquibb]

Ive never really used anything higher than about 800 maybe even 1600 ISO when shooting at night without much light. I wish there was weather sealing on the 85mm 1.8. I've read that it can be difficult to use MF with that lens? Slow AF, not as fast as some other primes, or something like that..? I can't remember.

85 f/1.2 is the slow one

Although I dont shoot in low light mine is fast to focus. If the light is so low that MF is needed then there wont be a picture for you

 

[agierke]

+2 for that video...LOL i love it! very amusing to wake up to on a sunday morning.

i feel compelled to dispel any negative reviews of the 24-70mm F2.8L v1....

its a fantastic lens. period. every pro i know has one and it is just about as essential as the 70-200mm F2.8L. i have seen some out there complain that they got bad copies of it and this does happen...but it can happen with any lens across the focal range. is v2 better? i'm sure it is, but it is downright silly to dismiss v1 as a student because v2 is "better" but claim you cant afford v2 atm while your gear list consists of the 7D, 18-200mm, and the 70-200mm.

as far as your original question...

i would have to agree with those that are suggesting a 35mm. since you are on a crop factor body anything longer than a 35mm and you are not in the realm of wide angle anymore. plus the 35mm will still retain a great deal of usefulness once you go to FF. i would suggest the F2.0 rather than the F1.4L simply for economic reasons. which brings me to my next point....

if you are currently a student you should not be holding back on acquiring lenses simply because you want the "best". forget L primes right now....buy the mid grade primes (they are still fantastic) save a pile of cash that you can put towards a full frame, and then invest in the top of the line lenses when YOU START GETTING PAID.

 

[scottsdaleriots]

85 f/1.2 is the slow one

Although I dont shoot in low light mine is fast to focus. If the light is so low that MF is needed then there wont be a picture for you

the 85L is slower than the non-L? why is that? That's interesting.



I was thinking of the 35mm 1.4L. It's fast and seems to have good colour rendition and is pretty sharp. But it's quite dear and i dont actually have a need for it since i dont shoot landscapes (sometimes i shoot cityscape but i use my kit lens for that).

 

[D.Sim]

the 85L is slower than the non-L? why is that? That's interesting.

There is a LOT of glass to move in the 85L... and glass is not light

 

[rpt]

In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.

keeps growing! damn i am doomed... I wonder if they make eye piece extensions for people that are geometrically nasally challenged

Ha Ha Ha!!! Not really. That is why they have live view and some cameras have the flip out lcd screen!

 

[D.Sim]

In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.

keeps growing! damn i am doomed... I wonder if they make eye piece extensions for people that are geometrically nasally challenged

Ha Ha Ha!!! Not really. That is why they have live view and some cameras have the flip out lcd screen!

turning your dSLR into an overpriced and glorified point and shoot

 

[unkbob]

I was thinking of the 35mm 1.4L. It's fast and seems to have good colour rendition and is pretty sharp. But it's quite dear and i dont actually have a need for it since i dont shoot landscapes (sometimes i shoot cityscape but i use my kit lens for that).

Since when was the 35L best for landscapes? It's biggest weakness is CA, most obvious when used outside, and it's biggest strength is its sharpness wide open. It's one of the best lenses for up close reportage photography.

 

[scottsdaleriots]

i assume WA lenses are meant for landscapes, well generally. never heard using a WA lens is better for close portraits rather than shooting lanscapes. i just realised that canon have discontinued making the 35L.

There is a LOT of glass to move in the 85L... and glass is not light

ah ok. but its obviously better than its non-L counterpart in everything right? besides weight, speed and price of course.

 

[mihazero]

If you want perfect portrait lens get EF 200 2.8 L II lens. If you own (and i saw that you do) 70-200 2.8 IS II then you already have most amazing concert and portrait lens.

I personaly dont like wide lenses so i wont recommend those. Just matter of personal preference.

 

[rpt]

In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.

keeps growing! damn i am doomed... I wonder if they make eye piece extensions for people that are geometrically nasally challenged

Ha Ha Ha!!! Not really. That is why they have live view and some cameras have the flip out lcd screen!

turning your dSLR into an overpriced and glorified point and shoot

I get your drift. But, (and it is a BIG but) {notice that that word ended with a single 't' and not two...} if a vital part of your anatomy interfered with the ability to shoot with an SLR in the way you would prefer to, would you not want to shoot at all? I would, even if I had to point...

Now that was all banter... However, my eyes are not as good as they used to be. So a larger screen and reading glasses help me. An angled LED screen helps frame a picture when there is a wall of photographers in front of me having "Press" passes. I don't have any such privileges. So the flip-out screen helps. Now if I were 8 foot something I probably would not care; but I am not, so that is where my preference comes from.

 

[kdsand]

In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.

keeps growing! damn i am doomed... I wonder if they make eye piece extensions for people that are geometrically nasally challenged

Ha Ha Ha!!! Not really. That is why they have live view and some cameras have the flip out lcd screen!

turning your dSLR into an overpriced and glorified point and shoot

I get your drift. But, (and it is a BIG but) {notice that that word ended with a single 't' and not two...} if a vital part of your anatomy interfered with the ability to shoot with an SLR in the way you would prefer to, would you not want to shoot at all? I would, even if I had to point...

Now that was all banter... However, my eyes are not as good as they used to be. So a larger screen and reading glasses help me. An angled LED screen helps frame a picture when there is a wall of photographers in front of me having "Press" passes. I don't have any such privileges. So the flip-out screen helps. Now if I were 8 foot something I probably would not care; but I am not, so that is where my preference comes from.

Now I could have sworn Canon did have some sort of extension. I think it may have also magnified the image a tad. I'll have try & remember where I saw it. I think it was OEM and an on their website.....

 

[BL]

I'd prefer a 40mm f/2 pancake lens to a 50. Just a bit wider than a standard lens, with a much smaller form factor.

 

[wickidwombat]

In humans the nose grows throughout your life so large noses are associated with older people.

keeps growing! damn i am doomed... I wonder if they make eye piece extensions for people that are geometrically nasally challenged

Ha Ha Ha!!! Not really. That is why they have live view and some cameras have the flip out lcd screen!

turning your dSLR into an overpriced and glorified point and shoot

I get your drift. But, (and it is a BIG but) {notice that that word ended with a single 't' and not two...} if a vital part of your anatomy interfered with the ability to shoot with an SLR in the way you would prefer to, would you not want to shoot at all? I would, even if I had to point...

Now that was all banter... However, my eyes are not as good as they used to be. So a larger screen and reading glasses help me. An angled LED screen helps frame a picture when there is a wall of photographers in front of me having "Press" passes. I don't have any such privileges. So the flip-out screen helps. Now if I were 8 foot something I probably would not care; but I am not, so that is where my preference comes from.

Now I could have sworn Canon did have some sort of extension. I think it may have also magnified the image a tad. I'll have try & remember where I saw it. I think it was OEM and an on their website.....

Really while I was joking i would totally buy that for my 5Dmk2, 1D bodys have it further out by default so they are more comfortable

 

[dougfrommar]

I own the Canon 50mmf1.2L, Canon 70-200f2.8L IS II and Canon 24-105L IS lenses..... each one has it's own advantages and depends on the type of shot you are trying to get at that time. For family/wedding/portrait or trying to get great depth of field I love the 50f1.2. For wildlife, hiking or wanting a tac sharp photo the 70-200 is my favourite. It probably has the best IS of any lens.
However for a great USEFUL zoom range as a walkabout lens - the 24-105 probably is the best. Mainly because it gives quite a wide angle right up to a decent telephoto for most needs. It also has IS and for me has been a very consistant lens - always giving sharp results.
So my recommendation would be the 24-105L IS lens as a "more useful" lens for you.