What 50D Lenses Do People Use

[Cadnium]

Hi,

I am in the market for a new lens leading into Christmas as it looks certain I will have to work long hours so I am getting myself a present. I am chasing any advice Canon users might be able to give me about my choices:

Current Setup:
----------------------
* Canon 50D
* 50mm 1.8II
* 70-200mm F/4L IS
* 15-85mm F/3.5-5.6 IS
* 580EX-II
----------------------

For awhile I have been saying that my next purchase would be the 100mm F/2.8L Macro, but now that I am looking to pull the trigger I do realise that the vast majority of my photography at the moment, and certainly for the next few years, is general portraiture around houses and events just due to the nature that we have a young kid and another on the way.

Due to this I am beginning to think that I should look at upgrading my main indoor lens - the 15-85mm. The lens gets quite a good rep but I do find it a bit slow (and as a result always have the 580EX-II ready) and that is bokeh is underwhelming. Due to this I find myself reaching for the 70-200mm F/4L wherever I can get the people into the frame (even indoors), as the quality of the photos just seems that much better.

Looking at the metadata from all my photos taken with this lens and found that I have very little photos that I have taken in the 15mm-24mm range, with most being in one of three different focal lengths - 35mm / 50mm / 85mm. I would also like to think that in another year or two I will convince the wife to let me get a 5DmkIII.

One of the big advantages I see with the 24-105L is that it can easily become my travel/walkaround lens and remain as this if I upgrade to FF.

So what advice would people give knowing that I already have the 15-85mm but take the vast majority of my shots at the moment indoors or a close quarters outdoors?

The lenses I have been looking at are:
* 100mm F/2.8L Macro
* 24-105mm F/4L IS
* 24-70mm F/2.8L

[Old Skool]

What about EF 85mm F1.8? Great low light portrait lens and will fit FF later on??
Otherwise 24-105 would be my choice.

[Cadnium]

Hi Russell,

The 85mm Prime would be too tight on the crop body for what I use them for, so its sounds like a +1 to the 24-105.

[Bennymiata]

I use my 24-105 a lot, and find it very useful, and really good on my 60D.

As long as you do't want to get really close, it takes great shots of flowers too.

It's sharp and very quick focussing.
You'll love it.

[Katt]

I use my 24-105mm as my main lens, especially when travelling or not wanting to cart the whole kit around. It is fast, quiet & the image quality & fabulous. I would recommend it highly.
Katt.

[Cadnium]

Hey all,

Lots of love for the 105mm.
How do people find the 24-70mm in comparison? I assume the biggest problem with it is that it is much larger, more expensive and no IS.

Are people generally happy with the bokeh on the 24-105mm F/4L IS?

[tarwoona]

+1 for the 24-105mm on a 50D from me also.
Use it 95% of the time and 10-22mm the rest.

[fess67]

I will buck the trend and suggest the 24 - 70 f2.8

I have the 24-105 and it is a nice lens although suffers from vignetting on the FF body. My main reason for suggesting the 24-70 is the f2.8. You already identified that you need something a little quicker which can be used with less frequent need for flash.

[Roosta]

24-70mm, hardly ever off my 1D but it is a great lens on my 50D, the effective focal lenght changes on the 50D, you've got to x it by 1.6 to get the EFOV. Being f2.8, great in any light (Or not so light) conditions. The 100mm f2.8 Macro is also a stand out lens, so portraiture work is spot on, plus you get one of the best macro lenses going around to boot.

But at the end of the day, I'd recommend the 24-70mm or on the 50D 38.4-112mm EFOV

[William W]

You mention that the 15 to 85 is too slow (noted is an IS lens) and that's why you have Flash at the ready.
Your most used FL are 35, 50 and 85.
The speed gain of a 24 to 105 is minimal.
The speed gain of a 24 to 70 is reasonable but you lose IS, but if you have flash at their ready, for a slow IS lens then the lack of IS is mostly irrelevant.

So, therefore, the only answer (from your list) is the 24 to 70/2.8.

But I would buy the 35/1.4L and the 85/1.8 and really get some lens speed leverage.

WW

[KeeFy]

If you're going to be shooting indoors. I'd suggest the 35 1.4L ($1.4k) or the significantly cheaper Sigma 30 f1.4 ($400) + tamron 17-50 non vc f2.8 ($400) with some spare change. I recommend fast lenses for indoors where lighting will always be a problem. 85mm will be a bit tight on crop for indoors unless it's really a huge space.

[Cadnium]

Wow you have certainly given me some things to think about.

I have to agree with WilliamW... if I go zoom given my complaints the 2.8 is the one that most fits the bill. The problem I have experienced with the 15-85mm is not sharpness, it is simply that I have struggled to get in enough ambient light to be happy with it before I drag the shutter too far and get ghosting.

I think for then next week I will force myself to shoot with only my 50mm/F1.8 and see if that can lead me towards the 35/1.4L. I very much like the 50mm but have found on a 1.6x crop that it can be a bit tight indoors at times (perhaps I should just convince the wife to let me buy a 5dMk2..). I borrowed a friends 50/1.4L for an event a few months back and have to say it was niiice.

[William W]

I borrowed a friends 50/1.4L for an event a few months back and have to say it was niiice.

That's a typo, but I am not commenting to mention that fact, but rather to some other thoughts.

Firstly IF you meant the 50F/1.2L then I think you will find the 35/1.4L much nicer for low light work I think you will find is more responsive AF. (If you borrowed the 50/1.0L then you will notice a BIG diffenece when you use the 35/1.4L).

Secondly, IF you are bringing forward the purchase of a 5DMkII (or other 135 Format Body), then consider KEEPING your 50D . . .

Then apropos FoV coverage, the 24/1.4L MkII (and the 135F/2L) make more sense as a Prime Pair than the 35/1.4L (and the 85/1.8)

WW

[LJG]

One lens that has not been mentioned is the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I brought one for chasing my grandson around and it is great. It delivers tack sharp images and is a lot better indoors than my 50mm f1.4, which is usually too long in close quarters. In fact even for the backyard it is better than the 50. Just a thought anyway.

[KeeFy]

One lens that has not been mentioned is the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I brought one for chasing my grandson around and it is great. It delivers tack sharp images and is a lot better indoors than my 50mm f1.4, which is usually too long in close quarters. In fact even for the backyard it is better than the 50. Just a thought anyway.

Actually i did mention the Sigma 30 1.4 combined with a tamron 17-50 f2.8. But it seems the red ring has taken another victim. LoL.

I highly recommend the sigma 30 1.4 if the user has no intention of going FF. Even if he/she has intentions to do so, selling it will result in a $100 loss at most if the purchase price matched with CR kennedys ($430 i think is the lowest kennedys is willing to go the last time i checked) and it's $30 more than grey for a peace of mind and local warranty for 2 years. I didn't purchase the 30 1.4 in the end as i decided to go FF. The sigma 30 1.4 is a smashing lens and the few guys i've recommended it to has only sung praises for it.

As much as people would like you to think that L lenses retain or increase in value, selling a L lens will still net you a loss unless you aquired the lenses much earlier EG: 35 1.4L was $1k when launched, $1.4k new, and $1.2K 2nd hand now, 50 1.0L which production was stopped due to manufacturing cost and method, etc. If a new version of the lens gets released then the prices do take a pretty huge hit on the 2nd hand market as well like the 28-70L, 85L, 24L, 70-200L IS. The 35L is also speculated to have a replacement soon... LOL so is the 5D mk2. But hey if you need it now why wait?

Some food for thought.

[William W]

As much as people would like you to think that L lenses retain or increase in value, selling a L lens will still net you a loss unless you aquired the lenses much earlier EG: 35 1.4L was $1k when launched, $1.4k new, and $1.2K 2nd hand now.

I would reckon it is still an aggregated loss.

In 1999 (I think) when the 35/1.4L was released in Aus, $1095.00 could buy a lot more than the $1200.00 (approx) which one might sell a 12 year old version in mint condition, now.

I don't view Canon L Lenses as "investments", I view them as tools.

WW

[Cadnium]

Thanks for all the advice. I am borrowing some kit and using my only prime (50mm/1.8) to get my head around the advice and where I should go with it. Much appreciated as you have certainly changed my thinking