Get a 24mm 1.4 or a 5DM2

If this is a EF-S lens, how will it work on the full frame?

Your answer completely disregards a major part of my advice: fast apertures and flash are not incompatible. The best flash results can often be had with fast apertures. Dan's advice often goes overboard-- from common-sense advice to scoffing at the benefits of primes and fast apertures.

Understand that at this point you are doomed to buying camera equipment forever. It won't get better with your next purchase and you won't get it right even if you do all the research in the world.
You will go FF.

There is no way out of this without spending alot of money. What seems expensive now wont seem so expensive in the future even if you cannot afford it, you will justify it.
You are craving bokeh.

My advice is to go FF now and not wait. Get a 5D I or stretch for the 5DII. Keep the 50mm and use it.

Learn about lighting, a well lit subject will give you as much percieved background seperation as a fast lens in poor light.
Good luck.

Mummel said:

I appreciate the feedback. Yes, I have the 18-55 and a Speedlite 430EXII. I dont know if I have a dud copy of the 18-55, but the photos I get with it are really bland, lack color/contrast, and look like I took a photo with my regular point and shoot. It never gets good bokeh, even when outdoors. I struggle to use it indoors in low light (even with the flash). When I use the 18-55 indoors, I mostly have to shoot on full auto which just looks lame. I have tried to love this lens. I really have, but always end up diverting back to the 50mm 1.8 because I feel that the quality of shots I get from it are mindblowing vs the 18-55. I use the nifty fifty both indoors and outdoors, because the IQ is amazing. Very sharp at 2.8, and has a lot of punch.

I'm looking for the same IQ that the 50mm 1.8 gives me, but just need a solution to get shots in doors of groups. I have made some cash doing corporate portraits on the side, so I can justify the cost (albeit a very long ROI). But I dont want to drop $1000 on the 17-55 2.8 unless it's truly a winner. DXO seems to be a valuable resource for people that dont have access to these lenses.

Click to expand...

Don't just use that resource, it's sometimes questionable.

I prefer http://www.photozone.de , or slrgear.com, or the digital picture. More real life stuff.

Mummel said:

It seems like the zooms dont even come close to the quality of the primes, and its that quality that Ive found in the 50mm 1.8 that I'm looking for.

Anyway, thanks for feedback.

Click to expand...

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

Mummel said:

I find that I really dont shoot below 2.8 on my 50mm. The DOF is just too narrow to get people in focus. 2.8 seems to be the sweet spot for me personally to get the sharpest pictures. 2.8 is also 2 stops down from max aperture on this lens, and from what I've read, thats where you find your lens' sharpest aperture. My 50 is sharpest at F2.8 & F4.

So I'm trying to find out if the 17-55 is tack sharp at 2.8, because most lenses need two stops to get their max sharpness, which would mean you would need to go to 5.6, which doesnt provide enough bokeh for me (back to the kit lens problem).

Click to expand...

If you're not going to shoot below 2.8, it seems silly to spend $1600 to get the f1.4 capability. It also is worth nearly twice your entire kit at the moment. If you knew that 24mm was the exactly focal length you were going to do most of your shooting at, this purchase might make sense. But you don't, and you've complained about the 50 being too tight. People generally make that complaint about the 24-105 on a crop body as well.

You've taken a general guideline (max sharpness is two slower than max) and treated it as gospel. It's not. If you go to photozone, you can see the sharpness levels in center, off, edges at multiple aperatures and see. The difference is often not very much. Much of the reason people sold their 70-200/2.8IS Is for the II model was that at 2.8 it was nearly as sharp as at smaller aperatures.

The 17-55 and the 15-85 both make more sense with the crop. If you're certain you're going FF (why?), then that would be a reason to go with the 5d instead, but that purchase will also require an additional lens purchase since the 50mm by itself won't cut it for your needs. Then you need to spend at least a grand on the 24-105 or the 24-70.

My take - spend just $700 on the 15-85 and take more pictures, figure out your real needs before spending 1000+ on lenses. Sure they tend to keep their value, but you might have better things to spend it on in the immediate future.

get an 18-55mm kit lens used for $100.

You'll get lots of stuff in your photos.

BAK

You are right when you worry about a 24.

Buying one is a dumb idea, regardless of what you may read in the forum written by non-experts.

AApparently you alread have an 18-55. Set it at 24mm and get close to a kid and take some pictures.

Do they look weird and distored, or just beautiful?

BAK

Did you look at the distorted head in the shot with the blue shirt?

no text

For family shots I can recommend a good compact camera for half the price of what you are contemplating spending. They're not going to be gallery prints anyway, and the point and shoot with IS and face recognition will get you shots you can only dream of while you are fiddling around with a DSLR.

Mummel said:

I find that I really dont shoot below 2.8 on my 50mm. The DOF is just too narrow to get people in focus. 2.8 seems to be the sweet spot for me personally to get the sharpest pictures.

Click to expand...

Depth of field is dependent on focal length and you will have to open the 24mm lens more to get the same shallow depth of field you are getting at f/2.8 on your 50. In other words, with 17-55 set to 24mm you won't be able to achieve the same narrow DOF as with 50 at f/2.8.

n/t

I have the lens in question as well as the 5D2 and kids is probably the last thing I'd use it for. Not a lens for spontaneous use around kids unless you want fun house mirror distortion. It is a really nice lens though. Very sharp and a kick to use on a full frame. Usable shutter speeds in interior lamp or daytime window light without flash. However, if cost is a factor in the decision process, I'd say skip the 24f/1.4. 24mm is a weird focal length for general use where distortion is a concern.

Schwany said:

I have the lens in question as well as the 5D2 and kids is probably the last thing I'd use it for. Not a lens for spontaneous use around kids unless you want fun house mirror distortion. It is a really nice lens though. Very sharp and a kick to use on a full frame. Usable shutter speeds in interior lamp or daytime window light without flash. However, if cost is a factor in the decision process, I'd say skip the 24f/1.4. 24mm is a weird focal length for general use where distortion is a concern.

Click to expand...

The OP said he has APS camera and needs wider angle of view than his 50mm so that he does not have to climb on sofas or shoot from another room. I would think distortion should not be a problem if it is used on APS and from reasonable distance. He has the 50 for tighter shots without distortion.

Indoors you could use external flash (bounce on ceiling) and a kit lense, or you could get the sigma 30mm 1.4 for a little wider view. Both are considerably cheaper options to those mentioned!

Mummel said:

Hi - I've been having a great 6 months with my first SLR. I have a T3i and nifty fifty 1.8. I use this combo 99% of the time and I love it. My only gripe is taking photos indoors. I've been managing by climbing on sofas or walking into the next room haha. It sucks, but I wanted to see if I really get into the hobby first before upgrading my setup, and I think it may be time.

My main goal will be to get in door photos of my newborn and the family together etc. Kids parties down the road etc. Right now, its just too tight. The shots are wonderful for headshots, but I cant get more of the room in with the subject or trying to grab 2-3 babies at once, and the 50mm doesnt cut it.

The way I see it, I should either get a 24mm 1.4 on my T3i to solve the problem, or get a 5DM2 and go full frame. Obviously both are huge cost outlays and I'm new to the game. I wont make the move lightly so I'm starting to gather intel. Ive been reading DXO, and the only real upgrade from the 50mm 1.8 in terms of optics/IQ, is the Canon 24mm 1.4 and the Sigma 85mm 1.4.

Other notes:
1) I use Lightroom 4
2) I plan on going full frame in the future regardless

Questions:

1) If I get the 24mm on the T3i, will I get bad distortion effects from photographing groups/people close up indoors?

2) If I get the 24mm and go full frame down the road, what would I be mostly using it for (street/landscapes etc)?
3) Would a 5DM2 have any distortion with the 50mm 1.8?

TIA!

Click to expand...

--
Regards,
Gravi

MirekE said:

Schwany said:

I have the lens in question as well as the 5D2 and kids is probably the last thing I'd use it for. Not a lens for spontaneous use around kids unless you want fun house mirror distortion. It is a really nice lens though. Very sharp and a kick to use on a full frame. Usable shutter speeds in interior lamp or daytime window light without flash. However, if cost is a factor in the decision process, I'd say skip the 24f/1.4. 24mm is a weird focal length for general use where distortion is a concern.

Click to expand...

The OP said he has APS camera and needs wider angle of view than his 50mm so that he does not have to climb on sofas or shoot from another room. I would think distortion should not be a problem if it is used on APS and from reasonable distance. He has the 50 for tighter shots without distortion.

Click to expand...

The image captured by a crop camera is a crop out of the same image that would be captured by a full frame camera. The inherent characteristics of the lens don't change because it is on a different camera body. The distortion will be there, however there won't be as much of it visible in the frame.

I can't remember how far back one has to get to obtain proper perspective on the human form, but it's pretty far back, and the person has to be standing perfectly straight up and down and parallel to the sensor plane to mitigate any distortion.

Try it. It's PITA to work around the way 24mm works. I use mine for weird effects, or landscapes where the distortion isn't an issue. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, it just might not be as easy as one thinks it ought to be.

..there are cheaper alternatives.

I have been in your situation (more or less).

While i am still pondering on full frame myself (if i can afford it the day my 30d breaks down)-- the downside on buying 5Di or ii is the slow and outdated focus.

Newer cameras do focus better in low light. I believe this is a key feature.

I have used the 5dii shooting indoor in conferences at work, and getting focus right is a challenge in dim light, it is not particularly better than my old 30D. Personally i will rather sit on the fence saving money for the 5diii than buying a 5dii cheap because of the difference in low light focus.

Personally i drooled on the 24mm 1.4 II, but instead of waiting years to have enough money for buying that one, i bought the 28mm 1.8.

The 28mm 1.8 have mixed reviews, but i have never looked back. Indoor, family situations on a crop body it is quite ideal. The lens handles better than the 50mm 1.8. It looks much the same as the 50mm 1.4, and the image quality is much the same. The usm is supposed to be slightly better than the 50mm1.4. Focusing with the 28mm 1.8 is supposed to be better than the sigma 30mm 1.4, while the sigma is supposed to be slightly better in IQ. However- when are you going to notice? Most of the difference between good and bad images is related to the lighting- a good or a superb lense wont change that.

If you should decide on going ff, the 28mm 1.8 did not cost you a fortune compared to the 24mm, and you get the "crop equivalent" of 17,5mm 1.8. It would probably serve you well until the day you have enough money to buy the 24mm 1.4.

The only thing i regret is not buying the 28mm 1.8 earlier. It stays on my camera for most of my indoor shooting. It gives more desirable results than my zoom lenses does, as long as the focal length is right.

Here are a couple of samples:









Good luck!
-Yngve

Mummel said:

Hi - I've been having a great 6 months with my first SLR. I have a T3i and nifty fifty 1.8. I use this combo 99% of the time and I love it. My only gripe is taking photos indoors. I've been managing by climbing on sofas or walking into the next room haha. It sucks, but I wanted to see if I really get into the hobby first before upgrading my setup, and I think it may be time.

My main goal will be to get in door photos of my newborn and the family together etc. Kids parties down the road etc. Right now, its just too tight. The shots are wonderful for headshots, but I cant get more of the room in with the subject or trying to grab 2-3 babies at once, and the 50mm doesnt cut it.

The way I see it, I should either get a 24mm 1.4 on my T3i to solve the problem, or get a 5DM2 and go full frame. Obviously both are huge cost outlays and I'm new to the game. I wont make the move lightly so I'm starting to gather intel. Ive been reading DXO, and the only real upgrade from the 50mm 1.8 in terms of optics/IQ, is the Canon 24mm 1.4 and the Sigma 85mm 1.4.

Other notes:
1) I use Lightroom 4
2) I plan on going full frame in the future regardless

Questions:

1) If I get the 24mm on the T3i, will I get bad distortion effects from photographing groups/people close up indoors?

2) If I get the 24mm and go full frame down the road, what would I be mostly using it for (street/landscapes etc)?
3) Would a 5DM2 have any distortion with the 50mm 1.8?

TIA!

Click to expand...

Y Hafting said:

..there are cheaper alternatives.

I have been in your situation (more or less).

While i am still pondering on full frame myself (if i can afford it the day my 30d breaks down)-- the downside on buying 5Di or ii is the slow and outdated focus.

Newer cameras do focus better in low light. I believe this is a key feature.

I have used the 5dii shooting indoor in conferences at work, and getting focus right is a challenge in dim light, it is not particularly better than my old 30D. Personally i will rather sit on the fence saving money for the 5diii than buying a 5dii cheap because of the difference in low light focus.

Personally i drooled on the 24mm 1.4 II, but instead of waiting years to have enough money for buying that one, i bought the 28mm 1.8.

The 28mm 1.8 have mixed reviews, but i have never looked back. Indoor, family situations on a crop body it is quite ideal. The lens handles better than the 50mm 1.8. It looks much the same as the 50mm 1.4, and the image quality is much the same. The usm is supposed to be slightly better than the 50mm1.4.

Click to expand...

The 28mm f1.8 has the proper ring USM, the whole usm motor goes around the lens elements - the real thing so to speak.

THe 50mm f1.4 has only micro USM. It's a small USM motor driving gears. So, it's quieter than a normal micromotor, but not much better speed wise, and normally does not allow full time manual focus (FTM). In the 50mm f1.4 that put in some kind of clutch to make it FTM. Anyway, because of this design, people seem to complain more often about the 50mm f1.4 failing.

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

Guys, a sincere thank you for all the feedback. This is proving very useful in my decision. I'm leaning more towards the 17-55 but havent ruled out anything at this point. Its a huge cost outlay to move to a 5DM2 and I want to make sure its the right choice for me. I'm not sure I'm happy with the idea of the 24mm on a crop. It may work for certain group shots, but probably wont be on my camera 24/7 in doors. The 17-55 may be a better choice for general in door photography in tight spots/low light on a crop. If I go full frame, then OP is right, I will need another lens. ALWAYS so many decisions with this stuff, haha. Will post back here when I figure it out. THANK YOU!