I still dont know about the whole 35 vs 50 debate. With the crop factor the FOV (field of view) of the 35mm is equivalent to pretty much that of a 50mm on a film SLR (perfect) but still has the perspective of a 35mm (not great). The 50mm on the otherhand keeps the perspective I'm after (perfect) but the FOV increases to something approaching 80mm (not great) on a traditional SLR which might be a bit too 'zoomy'. Argghh. If only I could afford to buy both.

Given that most of the things I'd use a 50mm prime for are going to be close-up, zoomy is good. If I want wide I'd use a stock lens or invest in a 10-20mm or even a diagonal fish-eye. Plus the 50mm would be just right when I'm in a position to order a D700!

Or a full frame camera (8-p)

Got my 50mm prime...its awesome! I'm falling in love with my camera again!

Well, I'm in the market for a new (Canon) lens and was considering the 50. But I also fancy the 17-40mm F4 and I would ditch my 17-80 IS USM kit lens as the 28-135 IS USM would cover the range. I appreciate the IQ of prime lenses but I can't waddle far these days in search of the best vantage point

But first I need to check out my 100-400 lens. It's just not performing and I think it needs calibrating to bring the autofocus back within reasonable tolerances. Now where did I put that measuring tape and tripod???

Al

Al, the basic Canon 50mm ƒ/1.8 is a nice cheap thing. They come in around the £70 mark.

On crop factor sensors they give you about an 85mm prime with fabulous bokeh.

17mm at f/4 doesn't sound like too much of a bargain to me.

Mark

I've got that lens and love it! And Mr. Ark it is the cheapest L lens in the range. I know it's not exactly difficult to make faster wide glass, but the quality is really there.

<eddit>I'd still say get the 50 first</eddit>

The 17-40mm gets quite a good write-up on most of the photography forums (my mate has it and swears by it). It would give me an admittedly small range but it's particularly good across the whole range and it's an 'L' as Edd says No IS though

I suppose I could always get the 50 as well Heather - after all, £70 is hardly going to break the bank .

I'm also torn between a lens (17-40) and my mates 40D. I would like a second body but as he says "Go for the lens Al - the 40 will always be there when you need it". Such a nice chap

Al

And it's as good as the reviews state (or at least my one is). I don't miss the IS at all either for what I use it for (either on a full frame or cropped body).

Buy the 50 now whilst you're deciding what to do, and by the time you've reached a decision you'll have the money back! (8-p)


A second body would be nice, but I'd get a decent set of glass first. Especially if that body is waiting for you... (8-D)

The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 gets lots of good reviews

Yup - agreed, especially as it has VC. However, I've been bitten before with third party lenses and am too much of a coward to go anything other than Canon.

Blinkered or what?

Al

Do you want or need IS/VC on a wide-ish lens, though? I can sort of see the f/2.8 being an advantage, although if I had to have one slower lens it'd be my wide one. On a crop-sensor body though I guess it's more of an everyday lens?

50mm lens, worst most painful lens ive ever bought

Yeah, but you're not normal, so that stands to reason.