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

[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.

 

[Bosman]

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?

Who cares what someone says what some people think? What matters is what you think.

Focal length is very personal. Don't let other people decide focal length for you. Pick it yourself.

I suggest going to a gig with a zoom lens. Crank up the iso and start shooting. Don't worry about a bit of noise or some blur. Afterwards, have a look at the exifs of the photos that you like, to see focal length. Buy a prime accordingly.

Id have to agree with this statement. I recently wondered if i could shoot weddings with just prime lenses. I checked the 177,000 images of weddings only and 15mm/24mm/ 50mm/ 70mm/135mm/ and 200 were used way more than any other focal length from 15mm-200mm. If you used a 24-70 and a 70-200 and did what he suggests, look at the focal lengths you most used and liked the look and decide. If i had to decide a lens to buy for concerts, if i had to pick a prime lens it would be an 85 1.8. If it was a zoom the 70-200.

 

[Bosman]

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.

Id def buy the 1.8 over the 1.4, a lot cheaper. I sold my 1.4 because i thought it was kinda crappy so i got hte 50 1.2 but if i was to do it without going hog wild i'd do the 1.8. I hear the 1.8 is sick sharp!

 

[scottsdaleriots]

I would consider a 135 F2.0L, which gives you a great distance lens so you don't have to be in their face when shooting, or like someone mentioned an 85mm. This depends on the camera you are shooting with. I don't recall if you mentioned that, but if you are shooting on a crop and not a FF camera, the 135 might be too long. I think the probably best option you have is the 24-70 F2.8L or version two of the same lens. I know you said, max 2.0 in aperture, but this lens gives you a lot of versatility and is often used for this specific purpose. If you were shooting below stage, I would opt for a 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM on a FF body. 50mm would limit me, but if on a crop body, it is a great focal lenght.

i would like to own that lens just to do portraits and stuff but i think for my purposes (concert photography in front of the stage) it'd be way too long especially on a 7d. i want the 24-70 2.8 mkII (im detered from the mki coz of the push-pull design. and coz the mkii is much better) but i cant justify the price especially even more so since it doesnt have IS, way too expensive. maybe if it was under $1800 (it wont fall in price under $2000 til at least 2014 IMO *sigh*). i've already got the 70-200 2.8 IS II but its on a crop body since i mainly bought it for sports photography

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.

what do you mean you think the 35mm lens makes the talent look old, fat and haggard? I dont know what "talent" you're thinking of/referring to but the band im going to see(when the tour my country) are young, 22-28yrs old. do you think the 35mm is catered more towards landscape photography (which i know it is) and will make the band look flat/fat/boring/old, etc?? Can you please elaborate. I've heard good and bad things with canon's 50mm's and with sigma's so im still trying to decide which is best if i do buy a nifty-fifty.

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?

Who cares what someone says what some people think? What matters is what you think.

Focal length is very personal. Don't let other people decide focal length for you. Pick it yourself.

I suggest going to a gig with a zoom lens. Crank up the iso and start shooting. Don't worry about a bit of noise or some blur. Afterwards, have a look at the exifs of the photos that you like, to see focal length. Buy a prime accordingly.

Id have to agree with this statement. I recently wondered if i could shoot weddings with just prime lenses. I checked the 177,000 images of weddings only and 15mm/24mm/ 50mm/ 70mm/135mm/ and 200 were used way more than any other focal length from 15mm-200mm. If you used a 24-70 and a 70-200 and did what he suggests, look at the focal lengths you most used and liked the look and decide. If i had to decide a lens to buy for concerts, if i had to pick a prime lens it would be an 85 1.8. If it was a zoom the 70-200.

i've already got the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens and that's way too long if im standing right in front of the band. i cant afford the mkii of 24-70 and i have hear dmany, many mixed feelings of the mkI and i dont like its push-pull design. so im considering a prime coz its reasonably afforadable and fast and contrasty and sharper than zoom lenses.

has no one tried the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens before?

 

[D.Sim]

i've already got the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens and that's way too long if im standing right in front of the band. i cant afford the mkii of 24-70 and i have hear dmany, many mixed feelings of the mkI and i dont like its push-pull design. so im considering a prime coz its reasonably afforadable and fast and contrasty and sharper than zoom lenses.

has no one tried the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens before?

Uh. Since when has the 24-70 been a push pull?

 

[scottsdaleriots]

i've already got the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens and that's way too long if im standing right in front of the band. i cant afford the mkii of 24-70 and i have hear dmany, many mixed feelings of the mkI and i dont like its push-pull design. so im considering a prime coz its reasonably afforadable and fast and contrasty and sharper than zoom lenses.

has no one tried the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens before?

Uh. Since when has the 24-70 been a push pull?

the front bit (element? i dunno i havent really paid much attention to that lens coz of the mixed reviews) extends. whatever you wanbna call it, its not internal, its external

 

[kdsand]

I would consider a 135 F2.0L, which gives you a great distance lens so you don't have to be in their face when shooting, or like someone mentioned an 85mm. This depends on the camera you are shooting with. I don't recall if you mentioned that, but if you are shooting on a crop and not a FF camera, the 135 might be too long. I think the probably best option you have is the 24-70 F2.8L or version two of the same lens. I know you said, max 2.0 in aperture, but this lens gives you a lot of versatility and is often used for this specific purpose. If you were shooting below stage, I would opt for a 70-200 F2.8L IS II USM on a FF body. 50mm would limit me, but if on a crop body, it is a great focal lenght.

i w lenses.

has no one tried the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens before?

I got the sigma 17 - 50 about a week ago. My other lenses are canon so I was a bit nervous. There seems to have Quality control issues in the past as in the first year or so that these came out. Many seemed to have dead on accurate auto focus yet others seemed to be slightly off needing calibration.
As far as I can tell the chances of receiving a good copy has improved overtime, at least it looks like that from the reviews that I've been reading.

My copy seems to have accurate auto focus, very nice build quality, quiet focusing mechanism and very good optic quality. I have actually used both lenses side by side. The Canon and the sigma versions have similar handeling.
In my opinion the sigma feels slightly more durable higher quality overall in your hands.
Canon has the nice full time manuel/autofocus though. Haven't decided for sure but I think canons image stablization is just a little better then the sigmas.

Canon provides optical in camera correction with many of OEM lenses including the 17-50, though the sigmas optics as far as I can tell are quite good. Thus far j pegs straight from the camera are very good not requiring any particularly crucial post processing.

Well that's my experience so far.

Oh right I'm using a 60D body.

 

[scottsdaleriots]

I got the sigma 17 - 50 about a week ago. My other lenses are canon so I was a bit nervous. There seems to have Quality control issues in the past as in the first year or so that these came out. Many seemed to have dead on accurate auto focus yet others seemed to be slightly off needing calibration.
As far as I can tell the chances of receiving a good copy has improved overtime, at least it looks like that from the reviews that I've been reading.

My copy seems to have accurate auto focus, very nice build quality, quiet focusing mechanism and very good optic quality. I have actually used both lenses side by side. The Canon and the sigma versions have similar handeling.
In my opinion the sigma feels slightly more durable higher quality overall in your hands.
Canon has the nice full time manuel/autofocus though. Haven't decided for sure but I think canons image stablization is just a little better then the sigmas.

Canon provides optical in camera correction with many of OEM lenses including the 17-50, though the sigmas optics as far as I can tell are quite good. Thus far j pegs straight from the camera are very good not requiring any particularly crucial post processing.

Well that's my experience so far.

Oh right I'm using a 60D body.

Thanks for your input on the sigma lens. How's your hood, is it loose? When attached to the lens, can you move/spin it? I know canon lens hoods fit the lens and dont move til you remove it. Ive read that sigma has issues with their lens hoods spinning(?) [not being 'locked' in place.

Do you use a UV filter for your lens? And what about the edge sharpness? I heard and have seen images where the sharpness falls out, this lens has no sharp edges, the center looks pretty sharp just the edge sharpness goes really soft. Do you miss not having a full time manual override? I saw this http://youtu.be/F14IXyqs8jw and it looks a little slow..? Maybe you can confirm/deny it for me.

Do you have any photos you can post or link me to a site where you've posted some pics? Appreciate your opinion. If you don't mind me asking, how much did you buy this lens for?

 

[D.Sim]

i've already got the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens and that's way too long if im standing right in front of the band. i cant afford the mkii of 24-70 and i have hear dmany, many mixed feelings of the mkI and i dont like its push-pull design. so im considering a prime coz its reasonably afforadable and fast and contrasty and sharper than zoom lenses.

has no one tried the sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens before?

Uh. Since when has the 24-70 been a push pull?

the front bit (element? i dunno i havent really paid much attention to that lens coz of the mixed reviews) extends. whatever you wanbna call it, its not internal, its external

There is a BIG difference between a Push/Pull lens and a lens that extends internally/externally...

Also, the 24-70 II does the same, so if you're not going to be considering one lens for that fact, you might as well skip considering the mkii as well

 

[Jettatore]

I'd get the 17-40 L that you mentioned yourself (although I don't know what you already have, but without knowing that would be my pick). Unless you require the low-light of a f/1.4 or faster prime, get the zoom, it's a high quality lens, takes amazing shots and will be quite a bit more versatile. It's obviously not covering the 50mm range but it'd be my choice, otherwise if covering the 50mm range proves essential but the f/1.4 or better of a prime is not, then I'd get a 24-70 or the 24-105 IS

 

[scottsdaleriots]

I'd get the 17-40 L that you mentioned yourself (although I don't know what you already have, but without knowing that would be my pick). Unless you require the low-light of a f/1.4 or faster prime, get the zoom, it's a high quality lens, takes amazing shots and will be quite a bit more versatile. It's obviously not covering the 50mm range but it'd be my choice, otherwise if covering the 50mm range proves essential but the f/1.4 or better of a prime is not, then I'd get a 24-70 or the 24-105 IS

Appreciate your suugestion. But yeah I do need a fast lens, max of 2.8. But Im thinking 1.4 would be ideal but i would settle for 2.8 if it meet my needs. I have a 7d, kit lens (18-200) and my 70-200 2.8 IS II. I wouldnt mind a prime since they're usually sharper, faster and a bit more contrasty than a zoom.

There is a BIG difference between a Push/Pull lens and a lens that extends internally/externally...

Also, the 24-70 II does the same, so if you're not going to be considering one lens for that fact, you might as well skip considering the mkii as well

Just coz i make a mistake with the design of a lens you say i shouldnt buy that lens or any other similart lenses? You're helpful

 

[Jettatore]

In that case (need speed) + your mentioned budget a 50 f/1.4 (never a bad idea) but becomes an 80mm prime on a 7D, so probably not exactly what your photography teachers meant when they were talking about 50mm lenses (which on a full frame give or take represent the perspective / FOV of the human eye (again give or take, it's debatable) ).

To get closer to what your teacher was talking about you'll need either the 28mm (44.8 ) or 35mm (56) on a crop body. For speed in a zoom and considering your budget, your options are the better EF-S lenses, 24-70 L, an older, discontinued (like the 28-70 L?, if you can find used in good shape for cheap), possibly 16-35 Mark I - used, or an off-brand lens or just stick with primes.

 

[briansquibb]

Or even a 17-40 which will cost a lot less.

In that case (need speed) + your mentioned budget a 50 f/1.4 (never a bad idea) but becomes an 80mm prime on a 7D, so probably not exactly what your photography teachers meant when they were talking about 50mm lenses (which on a full frame give or take represent the perspective / FOV of the human eye (again give or take, it's debatable) ).

To get closer to what your teacher was talking about you'll need either the 28mm (44.8 ) or 35mm (56) on a crop body. For speed in a zoom and considering your budget, your options are the better EF-S lenses, 24-70 L, an older, discontinued (like the 28-70 L?, if you can find used in good shape for cheap), possibly 16-35 Mark I - used, or an off-brand lens or just stick with primes.

 

[solarpos]

Once again, 35 f/2

 

[D.Sim]

I'd get the 17-40 L that you mentioned yourself (although I don't know what you already have, but without knowing that would be my pick). Unless you require the low-light of a f/1.4 or faster prime, get the zoom, it's a high quality lens, takes amazing shots and will be quite a bit more versatile. It's obviously not covering the 50mm range but it'd be my choice, otherwise if covering the 50mm range proves essential but the f/1.4 or better of a prime is not, then I'd get a 24-70 or the 24-105 IS

Appreciate your suugestion. But yeah I do need a fast lens, max of 2.8. But Im thinking 1.4 would be ideal but i would settle for 2.8 if it meet my needs. I have a 7d, kit lens (18-200) and my 70-200 2.8 IS II. I wouldnt mind a prime since they're usually sharper, faster and a bit more contrasty than a zoom.

There is a BIG difference between a Push/Pull lens and a lens that extends internally/externally...

Also, the 24-70 II does the same, so if you're not going to be considering one lens for that fact, you might as well skip considering the mkii as well

Just coz i make a mistake with the design of a lens you say i shouldnt buy that lens or any other similart lenses? You're helpful

No, you say you don't even want to consider the 24-70 because it extends, and with that logic you can just go straight to considering primes, as the 24-70 II and even the 24-105 all extend, even across to the third party lenses.

 

[EvilTed]

As others have mentioned, a 50mm on FF is roughly what your eye will see.

An old photographer I respect told me recently, that in his opinion, this is the last thing you want.
You want to change it up from default, so he recommended 35 or 85 or both, but not 50.

Your choice....

ET

 

[scottsdaleriots]

Or even a 17-40 which will cost a lot less.

yeah I do prefer that focal length over the 16-35 but I don't think it (17-40) is fast enough. I forgot to mention no flash allowed (at concerts) but that's pretty universal...isn't it?

Once again, 35 f/2

that's what I'm thinking but someone here in a different thread said it makes the "'talent' look old, fat and haggard", when I asked them to elaborate they never replied. I was thinking of getting a fast WA prime then a standard but fast zoom with my budget (give or take + extra for b+w filter) of $1500. And I can't decide which prime to get.

 

[briansquibb]

Or even a 17-40 which will cost a lot less.

yeah I do prefer that focal length over the 16-35 but I don't think it (17-40) is fast enough. I forgot to mention no flash allowed (at concerts) but that's pretty universal...isn't it?

Once again, 35 f/2

that's what I'm thinking but someone here in a different thread said it makes the "'talent' look old, fat and haggard", when I asked them to elaborate they never replied. I was thinking of getting a fast WA prime then a standard but fast zoom with my budget (give or take + extra for b+w filter) of $1500. And I can't decide which prime to get.

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.