Answer me this!!

Curran

Which would you buy?......

Right, I'm in the market for a new lens!

For various reasons; which Im not going to go into in great detail because it would take me ages to explain; I'm considering the lenses below and cant feckin decide - so many pros and cons!

Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
Sigma 35mm f/1.4

Info needed for consideration:
Shooting with a Canon 450D (so crop factor of 1.6) - Nifty Fifty's have effective zoom of 80mm - lens needs to be versatile - will be??
Would like to be able to get nice shallow DoF shots!
Value for money is a consideration!
Lens is going to be needed to shoot in a church in the near future (ideally without a flash)

Ive read alot of reviews and Ive been left banging my head!

What would you have and why?

Thanks in advance!!

Fenster

50 1.4

Curran

Fenster wrote: »

50 1.4

OK and why?
Bearing in mind that value for money is a consideration! Obviously if money was no object it would be this everytime - however, is it "that" much better than the 1.8??

Fenster

Better bokeh, better build quality (metal versus plastic) and superior autofocus speeds.

AnimalRights

Yep as the fens said.

NakedDex

Fenster wrote: »

Better bokeh, better build quality (metal versus plastic) and superior autofocus speeds.

Also, excellent performance in low light and a reasonably versatile length makes it perfect for shooting without flash, which makes it ideal for your use in a church.

sineadw

1.4 all the way. I have it and the 1.8 and there's a big difference alright. I got mine second hand for 250 quid...

nilhg

It depends what you want, the Sigma 30 f1.4, with an effective focal length of 48mm is very close to the classic 50mm on a full frame or film slr. Not as good for portraits but maybe more of a general purpose lens.

If you have the moolah, maybe you could buy both......

FX Meister

jili wrote: »

why not Nikon's 18-105? This is cool.

---

Cause he has a Canon.

hoganpoly

heres one http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index.php?target=products&product_id=19943

KarmaGarda

If you really only want to spend under €100 on a lens, the 1.8 is a fantastic lens. It's the best "bang for buck" you're going to get lens wise. It also means you could throw the spare €200 towards another lens too. On saying that... if you can afford the 50mm 1.4 it's a far better lens.

DK32

I'd say go with the 1.8 if you have budget constraints, otherwise go for the 1.4
If nothing else the 1.4 looks to be a lot more sturdy and will last longer.
The plus side of the 1.8 is that it's very cheap, takes really nice pictures and if it breaks, it's not going to break you to replace it.

Quackles

I have a sigma 30mm f/1.4 and it's easily the most used lens I have. I love how it performs in crappy light, and I use it for portraits - I know the 50mm or even a 70 or 80mm would be better, but when you're setting up to shoot in your tiny living space and can't 'zoom with your feet', the extra space it gives me is invaluable. Hubby has the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, and they're great lenses, the f/1.4 obviously pipping it's counterpart in terms of quality, but the f/1.8 being an amazing piece of kit for what you pay for it.

pete4130

50mm 1.4 because its qualoty is amazing, the bokeh is fantastic and the DoF is mind blowing. I'm not sure if the Sigma is a crop sensor lens or not. The 50mm is just a stunning lens. End of story. You won't regret it in years to come when you upgrade.

rameire

Defo the 50mm 1.4. I had this quandry about 8 weeks ago and got the 1.4 - well worth the extra money!! It is great in low light situations and the quality of the lens build itself is amazing!!

CabanSail

Bang for Buck you cannot beat the Nifty Fifty, even though the C version is quite plasticy compared with it's N equivelent.

For versatility it would have the be the 35mm f1.4 as on a cropped body that is a "normal lens". Remember the 50mm lens is a normal lens on a 35mm body & that is where they became so popular.

Fionn

which would I buy? the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4, the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II very affordable ok but noisy (sound) and feels like it's going to fall apart any minute

Curran

Thanks for the replies guys!!

Getting pretty much the same feedback, as I had been thinking to myself! Was just asking incase I had missed something!

Glad to have some clairification though...
The f/1.4 is worth the extra notes over the f/1.8 - with better bokeh, DoF and performance in low light.
The f/1.8 is really good value for money though - I dont think the build quality will be to my liking and the noisy AF and the arkward MF ring will become annoying over time.

So Ive ruled out the f/1.8...
Just need to decide if I can live with the 50mm on a cropped sensor!
The 35mm would obviously be a more versatile lens!

Can someone clarify if the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is compatable with the Canon 450D - if it aint - its the Canon 50mm f/1.4; which I dont mind stretching myself a bit (wedding next year) to have it on my gear list Hence wanting a good lens - family member will have my camera for the day - couldnt convince her that I could shoot the wedding with a tripod and wireless remote!! :P

kumate_champ07

what about the sigma 50mm f1.4?
I chose that over the canon 1.4, Im very happy with it.

Curran

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

what about the sigma 50mm f1.4?
I chose that over the canon 1.4, Im very happy with it.

Thats a fair shout!
I read a review about it - See here!!
And I think I'd stick with the Canon - even if the Sigma is sharper and probably has better bokeh (9 blades) than the Canon; in the review above; 70% of shots were deemed not up to standard. It reports of poor AF in low light; which I need it to be good at!
It says that "Initiating AF causes the lens to reasonably quickly make a focus adjustment, but frequently a second adjustment is made - effectively doubling the autofocus time" - that it would drive me bananas!!

The Canon is cheaper, lighter, and will probably deliver better results where I need it, due to the Sigma's inconsistent focus accuarcy in low light!

from review above wrote:

unless you are primarily using manual focus or shooting at narrow apertures (f/4), I suggest buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens instead. While it may not be as nice of a lens as the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens, it will focus more accurately and therefore delivers much better image quality. It costs noticeably less as well

kumate_champ07

Curran wrote: »

Thats a fair shout!
I read a review about it - See here!!
And I think I'd stick with the Canon - even if the Sigma is sharper and probably has better bokeh (9 blades) than the Canon; in the review above; 70% of shots were deemed not up to standard. It reports of poor AF in low light; which I need it to be good at!
It says that "Initiating AF causes the lens to reasonably quickly make a focus adjustment, but frequently a second adjustment is made - effectively doubling the autofocus time" - that it would drive me bananas!!

The Canon is cheaper, lighter, and will probably deliver better results where I need it, due to the Sigma's inconsistent focus accuarcy in low light!

Ive read every review out there, I bought a refurbished copy and its performed great. I use it at concerts in low light and it does the job, just sold my ef 85mm f1.8 as the 50mm has replaced it.

there is so much glass in the sigma 50mm that its gonna take longer to move it to focus compared to the canon.