I owned 17-40 F4 L, Should I get 35mm or 50mm?

i have Canon 6D, and i love wide picture, with a nice bokeh for sure, but 17-40 with aperture maximum at F4, i will never have a creamy bokeh, i owned 50mm 1.8 before this, but i sold it due to hazy and very ugly bokeh, also the sound that it makes while focusing is quite disturbing, now im thinking to get a 50mm 1.4 or 35mm f2. i cant sleep for a week. i hope this will end. 

...to get a life, not another lens. 

In generally, the wider the lens, the more difficult it is to get a "creamy" background. However, that's not to say it's impossible.

I know what you mean about the 17-40. It's so wide, and only f4, that a blurred background simply isn't what it's good at.

If you like wide angle and still want opportunities to get a smooth, blurred background, you might consider the EF 28mm f1.8. A beautiful lens with the two characteristics you want most. And a good match for the 6D's larger sensor. It's affordable, too: about $400.

The 50 f.14 had a nice bokeh, but there's no wide angle quality to it, naturally.

For really creamy bokeh at a great price, Canon's EF 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2 are hard to beat. Again, though, we're going the opposite direction in focal length from what you asked about.

It doesn't matter if you already have the 17-40. Zooms are there for CONVENIENCE. The 28 f1.8 can sit along side it quite nicely. After all, there's a BIG difference between f1.8 and f4, and optical quality is almost always going to be superior with a prime.

PaanJr wrote:

i have Canon 6D, and i love wide picture, with a nice bokeh for sure, but 17-40 with aperture maximum at F4, i will never have a creamy bokeh, i owned 50mm 1.8 before this, but i sold it due to hazy and very ugly bokeh, also the sound that it makes while focusing is quite disturbing, now im thinking to get a 50mm 1.4 or 35mm f2. i cant sleep for a week. i hope this will end. 

I own both 35/2 and 50/1.4.  If bokeh and not focal length is what you're looking for, I think the 50/1.4 bokeh is a little nicer.

If you are talking about focal length, I use the 35/2 a lot more than the 50/1.4.  It's nice taking shots of my subject very close which in turn can throw the background out of focus faster for environmental shots.

If you are talking about build quality, go for the 50/1.4.  The 35/2's AF mechanism reminds me of the 50/1.8, although the 35/2's focus has performed quickly and flawlessly for me.  But, the 35/2's AF sound is really loud.

I'll second the vote for the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art. I shoot APS-C, so it's a different beast, but the lens is beautiful, focuses fast, is sharp, and considerably less money than the Canon L version. I would be wary of vignetting. I notice it fairly heavily on my APS-C 60D at 1.4. It clears up for me by f/2, but on FF, it may be heavier.

allow me to add more confusion to your choice

why not consider the brilliant canon 24/1.4L II? i own it and absolutely love its bokeh along with wide focal length.

alternatively, canon 28/1.8 could be a budget solution but it's not in the league of canon 24/1.4L or canon 35/1.4L or even the new sigma 35/1.4 art.

i owned 17-40L and now own the 16-35L II but 24/1.4L is much much better than both of them in terms of bokeh with wide focal length.

best of luck for your next lens though

PaanJr wrote:

wow, now you got me thinking about 28mm F1.8... but it dont have the IS, does it makes a big different?

Remember, the 17-40 does not have image stabilization. In fact, IS is a bit more rare and a lot less necessary on wide angle lenses in general. If you follow the often-observed advise that, in order to avoid camera operator motion blur,  your minimum shutter speed should be 1/focal_length, then you can easily see why stabilization is more effective for longer lenses and less so for wide. For example, following this rule, a 200mm lens would require a minimum shutter speed of 1/200, while the 28mm would require only 1/30. In practical terms, just about any focal length under 50mm really doesn't benefit too greatly from stabilization. After all, stabilization is designed to counter the magnification of operator movement that comes with the magnification of the telephoto image.

In addition, the 28mm f1.8 is already about 2 1/2 stops or so brighter that your 17-40 f4. so you already have LOTS more light coming in. If you needed, for example, 1/30 second to shoot something at your zoom's maximum f4 aperture, the 28mm f1.8 would allow you to shoot the same thing at 1/180 or so. That's a pretty big difference!

I enjoy using the 85mm f1.8 sometimes. Beautiful bokeh, and wow, what a small, compact, lightweight, but solid-feeling lens! Although spoiled by image stabilization on my telephoto zooms, the much brighter aperture of the prime makes it a virtually a non-issue by comparison. And it's even LESS of an issue with 28mm.

Best of luck

soumya_b5 wrote:

allow me to add more confusion to your choice

why not consider the brilliant canon 24/1.4L II? i own it and absolutely love its bokeh along with wide focal length.

alternatively, canon 28/1.8 could be a budget solution but it's not in the league of canon 24/1.4L or canon 35/1.4L or even the new sigma 35/1.4 art.

i owned 17-40L and now own the 16-35L II but 24/1.4L is much much better than both of them in terms of bokeh with wide focal length.

best of luck for your next lens though

Compared to $1600 24 1.4 L, the $400 28mm f1.8 is a "budget" solution?

I guess it depends on whose "budget" we're talking about!

Michael Thomas Mitchell wrote:

soumya_b5 wrote:

allow me to add more confusion to your choice

why not consider the brilliant canon 24/1.4L II? i own it and absolutely love its bokeh along with wide focal length.

alternatively, canon 28/1.8 could be a budget solution but it's not in the league of canon 24/1.4L or canon 35/1.4L or even the new sigma 35/1.4 art.

i owned 17-40L and now own the 16-35L II but 24/1.4L is much much better than both of them in terms of bokeh with wide focal length.

best of luck for your next lens though

Compared to $1600 24 1.4 L, the $400 28mm f1.8 is a "budget" solution?

I guess it depends on whose "budget" we're talking about!

for most of the people a $400 lens is a "budget" solution compared to a $1600 lens. do you think the other way around?