For a 50D camera that will be used for indoor and outdoor portrait and lifestyle photography, would you recommend the 24mm f2.8 or the 28mm f1.8?
190060
Both lenses perform well, so I will offer up an opinion based upon the focal length that will best accommodate your request: The wide effect of these lenses is highly marginalized by your 50D's cropped sensor. Both focal lengths offer similar results for full-bodied portraits. If you like to frame your subject off centered, or get really close and crop your subject within the frame, the 28mm is noticably less distorted-which you will likely find more flattering to the face. Despite having similar focal lengths, if you spend a day with both lenses you will develop an immediate preference. I prefer the 24mm as an all-around lens (particularly for landscapes with towering features or street photography). However, I would opt for a 28mm or 35mm if I were primarily photographing people.
190061
I use a full frame Canon camera so generally, I do not use a wide angle lens for portraits. I prefer a 50mm or 85mm. I'm not sure if you have a crop sensor and if this would work our better for you, though. I would get the fastest lens that I could afford, though. Good luck!
501124
I'm in the same boat. I have a 40d as well and I just bought the Canon 50mm 1.8 but found that I was always "stepping back" to take a lot of indoor shots. I am leaning towards either the Sigma 30 1.4 or Canon 24 f2.8. The 24 got a good review at the photozone.de site. Here's a direct link if Amazon will let it through: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/153-canon-ef-24mm-f28-test-report--review?start=2.They review just about every lens. Check it out. Again, it's photozone (dot) de
36983
I already had the 17mm f1.8 and the 45mm f1.8 which are great for low light. I decided to buy the 12-40mm f2.8 because it is weather sealed and a great workaround lens. If I had to decide I would choose the 12-40mm lens. Just be aware that you loose a little more than a stop of light when compared to the primes.
1346885
Yes, I have to agree with Henry. The 50mm f1.4 is more versatile in the long run. The single most useful point being that, depending on your camera model, you have in effect anything from a 65mm f1.4 to an 80mm f1.4. This falls ideally into the portrait lens range. It's a lens that I still use frequently, especially when using a film body. Both are first rate lenses with excellent sharpness & contrast, but I think that you'd find that the 50mm f1.4 would be used more often..
1345652
The 24-70 f2.8 is a better lens for sure, and much more expensive. But this lens is VERY good, and will do a fine job for weddings.
692357
I found the 35 f/2 IS to be a far sharper lens. This lens on a 70D will have roughly a 38mm FOV (35mm Equiv.) which might be a little too wide for single interview type stuff. Depending on how close you are, you might end up with some distortion. The 28mm f/2 IS would give less distortion and the 35 would give even less and is a far superior lens to the 24.Hope this helps!
861800
That's a tough one. My first thought is to go with the 24-70 since that rounds out your focal-length suite nicely. But as you know, the 70-200L IS (esp the f/2.8) would be a lot better for portraits, and the long shots you'll need during the wedding itself. It's close, but I think I'd go for the 70-200.
1939651
For one thing you don't have the full range as the 28/300... Which is an all around lens. I would say the 70/200 being 2.8 captures great shots that you are planning for in that range, Unlike the other where the shots might be wide angle to zoom changing frequently.
1130016
I have both. The f/4 has only two advantages: it's much more portable, and it's much cheaper. But if you can afford the f/2.8, and if you can bring it where you want to use it (it's big, and you will probably want at least a monopod)--well, it's an amazing lens. Haven't regretted buying mine for an instant.
357732
I think the 24-120 is considerably more usable, and the f2.8 is not really necessary for low light with the D750 sensor. The f2.8 offers shorter Depth of Field, if that's the important thing to you. I have a 24-85mm f2.8-4D (I don't like the G version) that I use for this range on my D800E, mostly. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 24-120 f4, with similar optical performance. It lacks the 24-120 VR.The 24-70 is by far the largest and heaviest of the lenses I've mentioned, a negative for me.
108096
Honestly unless you are making good money off of it go with the 28mm 1.8 it is fantastic. The 24mm is exceptional but 9 times out of ten you will have the same image for 3x the price and twice the weight/size.
756010
I have the Canon 7D. The Canon 28mm f/1.8 is not IS but I wanted it for low light. The Canon 28mm IS f/2.8 would be a good lens for your needs. (This is my opinion). But for portraits I use the Canon 85mm f/1.8. Hope this helps.
1551099
Sure is. I have the same camera. I also have a 50mm lens. I do switch between the 50 and 28. My two favorite lenses. The 28mm is an amazing lens. You won't be disappointed.
1827617
These are two wonderful lens. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Lets start with the f/4 IS. You have great IS capable of shooting sharp images up to to four stops without a tripod. However, you will not be able to stop the action in low light because of the F/4 aperture. IS fixes the shakes from your hands, it has no effect of freezing action in low or dim light. You could raise your ISO, but then you have to worry about noise. The weight of the F/4 will be much more comfortable around your neck than the f/2.8 because it weighs almost half as much. The price of the f/4 is another factor. Its around $500.00 bucks cheaper. The f/2.8 IS is a beast that will produce fantastic images but you are going to pay a price for it. It's heavy and you need to have deep pockets. On the other hand if sports is your thing and creating fantastic images with great bokeh than why not splurg and get what you really want. Are you shooting indoor sports? You should probably consider the f/2.8. Either way you are going to spend some money and you might as well get the one that is going to fit your needs. To sum up if you are shooting indoor sports i would go with the 2.8. If not the f/4 will not dissappoint you.
1901981
with the 50 mm 1.4 you're going to get the great shallow dof and lower light capability that comes with it. one thing to keep in mind, however, is that if you're using the 50mm on a aps-c camera, you're effectively buying an 80mm lens. this mean you may find yourself frequently having to back up to get your shot. whether or not this is a problem is something you'll have to decide for yourself. the 28-135 obviously gives you much more flexibility as far as the zoom is concerned, but the trade off is that you lose the dof/speed of f1.4.
282258
I guess it really depends, the 50mm is fantastic with a really nice shallow depth of field but the 50mm is worthless for a family portrait in a small room, heck, even in a large room its rough! I use the 50mm for individual portraits but for a group its focal range with the crop sensor just sucks. I use the 28mm for everything inside my house, crawling baby, family photo, etc.
735071
I'd have to say it comes down to what your purposes/needs are. As others have noted, the 50mm is more cheaply-built, but less expensive and will give you shallower depth of field if that's what you need. That said, if you can deal with a stop less of lens speed, the 40mm is better-built, half the size, focuses more closely, operates more quietly, is at least as sharp, and is overall more versatile.