# Best Value "Normal" Lens for 6d?



## Cory (Dec 2, 2012)

I think I'm gonna leap to the 6D (from a T1i). I already have a 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 so I'm good for indoor sports. I'll likely eventually get a 100-400 for outdoor sports. 
There's a good chance that the upcoming 35 1.4 II will be the "best" normal lens. Any recommendations on what to get in the mean-time (just for general all-around non-sports use)? Maybe something that would be a good value for now and/or something that'll coexist well with a 35 prime. 40 2.8, 17-40, 50 1.4 or 24-70 4.0 IS maybe? 
Thanks for any suggestions.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 2, 2012)

Latest sigma 35mm f1.4 received good feedbacks.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898831-REG/Sigma_340_101_35mm_f_1_4_DG_HSM.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Latest sigma 35mm f1.4 received good feedbacks.



But...on a 6D, that's a wide angle lens, not a normal lens.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 2, 2012)

Canon 50mm 1.4


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 2, 2012)

EF 50mm f1.4 is a decent normal for a midrange ff like 6D ... All things including price, build, ftm, and IQ considered. It is a good performer from f/2.0 on up.. Not bad for the price.


----------



## hawaiisunsetphoto (Dec 2, 2012)

For a general use, the best "value" would be the 50mm f/1.4 or the 24-70mm f/2.8L or f/4L. The zooms would give you some more versatility on the wide end and are not too far apart in price.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 2, 2012)

50 1.4, same as for the 5D3


----------



## sandymandy (Dec 2, 2012)

Best money/IQ value is 50mm 1.8 II.


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 2, 2012)

No votes for the 40mm f/2.8? Talk about "best value", that lens is awesome.


----------



## jointdoc (Dec 2, 2012)

I am a beginner but the BEST VALUE I think would be the 24-105 F4 L. It is cheaper as a kit lens on the 6D and if you don't like it you can probably sell it without losing any money.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 3, 2012)

jointdoc said:


> I am a beginner but the BEST VALUE I think would be the 24-105 F4 L. It is cheaper as a kit lens on the 6D and if you don't like it you can probably sell it without losing any money.



+1. Good value as a kit, but really lowly priced with the 6D in some instances. Primes would complement the 24-105 nicely.


----------



## TexPhoto (Dec 3, 2012)

I agree with eh 24-105. It is a great walk around lens. It's "kit" price is usually $800, and i sold my 3 year old well worn copy of this lens for $800 when I sold my 5DII and bought a III (as kit with a new 24-105)

Although "normal" in FF is considered 50mm only by some, that always seemed silly to me. Why would "telephoto" and "wide" cover a huge range, and "normal" is only a single focal length? I'd say 35 to 80mm is normal.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Dec 3, 2012)

+1 for 24-105 f4 and/or 50mm 1.8

With 'value' being the keyword... the 24-70 has marginally better IQ and larger aperture than the 24-105, but its also way more expensive and doesnt have IS. Especially considering you get it for a fraction of the price if you're buying the kit.

the 50 1.4 is also only marginally better than the 1.8, in my opinion. It does not warrant spending 3x as much if you're on any kind of budget. And if you are willing to spend that high, check out the slightly more expensive but more noticeably better Sigma 50mm 1.4. With that sigma available, and rumors of a new canon 1.4 coming soon, I wouldnt consider buying the current 1.4...


----------



## Ryan_W (Dec 3, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> No votes for the 40mm f/2.8? Talk about "best value", that lens is awesome.



Gets my vote - at $200 it was the easiest decision I've made. incredibly light, great focus, sharp images, and a metal mount.

The 50mm 1.4 is also great and about the same price, really. It's brighter, but the 40mm has a newer "STM" drive, which is supposedly nearly silent when paired with newer Canons. I'm assuming it will work for near silent focusing with the 6D as well.

Depends on your needs really - do you think you'll be taking a lot of videos? Is size and weight a consideration? Do you need silent focusing?


----------



## steliosk (Dec 3, 2012)

24-105 L
best all around lens

and 50 f/1.4 for the USM moter and build quality over the 1.8 which moter doesn't focus accurately in dark environments

the 85 1.8 USM or the 100mm f/2 are quite handy too!


----------



## ecka (Dec 3, 2012)

40/2.8STM is a good value lens for general all-around non-sports use and it seems like this lens will be one of the kit options for 6D.


----------



## EOBeav (Dec 3, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Canon 50mm 1.4



+1

It's your best bang for the buck regardless of the FF body you're putting it on.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 3, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon 50mm 1.4
> ...



+2

That and a 24-105 F4L.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 3, 2012)

I've had a 40 f/2.8 for a little over a month. I'm liking it a lot. Its on sale for $149. I've also got a 50 f/1.8. Although they both sell for a similar price, I'd lean towards the 40mm. It focuses more smoothly (in AI Servo mode, the 50mm seems to jump all over the place). Its also quieter and makes less of an annoying "ZZZZZZZ" sound. Although IQ wise, its hard to say if one is significantly better than the other, the 40mm is a nicer lens to use.

Oh, and it looks cooler too. Except they should have designed it to take a 58mm lens cap and filters - 52mm filters just don't look right. Luckily this issue doesn't affect image quality.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 4, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> I've had a 40 f/2.8 for a little over a month. I'm liking it a lot. Its on sale for $149. I've also got a 50 f/1.8. Although they both sell for a similar price, I'd lean towards the 40mm. It focuses more smoothly (in AI Servo mode, the 50mm seems to jump all over the place). Its also quieter and makes less of an annoying "ZZZZZZZ" sound. Although IQ wise, its hard to say if one is significantly better than the other, the 40mm is a nicer lens to use.
> 
> Oh, and it looks cooler too. Except they should have designed it to take a 58mm lens cap and filters - 52mm filters just don't look right. Luckily this issue doesn't affect image quality.


value for money nothing comes close to the shorty forty
I think with a 6D it will be a pretty nice light easy to handle combo that makes stunning images


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 9, 2012)

My choices, any will do but they are in my preferable order

-40mm 2.8
-canon 24-105
-canon 24/28 2.8 is


Any of these with a 50mm 1.8 would be great.

-zooms for travel/walk around depending on your shooting style, f4 with the 6d's iso is ok

-primes for fun... The BEST lenses to improve your photography.

But I think the sigma 35mm 14 would suit your needs. It is hard to invest in such an expensive lens such as the 35mm 1.4 ii and then have your ok 100 f2 and 200 2.8, because you always say... "oh I need to use my better lens. "

The sigma 35mm 1.4, along with the canon 40mm would be a good 1000 dollar buy, but any combo of the primes would be good.

But even just get one of the zooms I mentioned, and test what range is your favorite. Although primes make you think abou the image and make you better, sometimes you could actually do better with a different focal length. Be mindful of how wide you want to go for a prime. And also, canon made the 24mm is, 28mm is, and 35mm is specifically for the 6d really, there for the one handed enthusiast, who likes to shoot from the hip.


----------



## Botts (Dec 10, 2012)

If you shoot in good light, or use strobes, I'd strongly consider the 40mm!

It's a great deal, and impressively sharp. It is also a great size on the 6D. It's been on my 6D almost non-stop since I received the 6D.


----------



## Zlatko (Dec 10, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> No votes for the 40mm f/2.8? Talk about "best value", that lens is awesome.


One more vote for the 40/2.8 STM. It is the BEST value, currently $149.


----------



## mikezphoto (Dec 10, 2012)

Another vote for the 24-105L I don't actually own the lens because I haven't used a DSLR as a walk-around camera since getting my hands on a Fuji XPRO1. I have borrowed a friend's copy on a few occasions and it is generally a very versatile/sharp lens, a perfect street sweeper. If you like primes the current 35 1.4L is a beauty, but if you feel inclined to wait for the new version, check out the 40 2.8 pancake like some have suggested.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 11, 2012)

DB said:


> As regards 'normal', if you mean what the human eye sees (in terms of focal length) w/out moving then normal is about 43mm to 44mm (on a 35mm FF sensor DSLR), so the 40mm Pancake is optimal, plus the 6D can fully use this STM lens (check out website below) and it will be an extremely lightweight combo (and cheaper than the nifty-fifty 1.4 so better 'value')
> 
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htm



But less versatile than nifty-fifty. I had the 1.8 version and I can go to at least F2.2 without worrying about IQ. On second thoughts, 6D is such a low-light performer that you'd probably won't miss shooting that wide open.


----------



## kentnish (Dec 12, 2012)

50 1.8! can't go wrong with the thrify-fifty.

i used the 50 1.8 for a couple of years when i started my career. great lens...until i got it killed...


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 13, 2012)

kentnish said:


> 50 1.8! can't go wrong with the thrify-fifty.
> 
> i used the 50 1.8 for a couple of years when i started my career. great lens...until i got it killed...



This is one really, really good lens. If I'm to start all over again and I don't have lots of money to spend (even now, I'm still that way... ), I'd gladly start with a 5D + 50mm F1.8 II + some external flash.


----------



## Gjako (Dec 13, 2012)

After thinking about the 6d for a long time (jumping from a T1 with a 15-85, Pancake 40mm and 50 1.8 II), Yesterday I finally bought it here in Austria 

I really like to shoot wide so I didn't wanted the 24-105 so I just bought the Body plus the EF 17-40... What a change, specially the ISO perfomance!!

I would highly recommend the 40mm STM, if you want something lighter and smaller with good IQ (and cheap :

It seems that I don't like the nifty-fifty anymore, I'll wait or maybe i'll just get the 50mm 1.4

Greetings from a really happy guy with his new camera ;D !!


----------



## AprilForever (Dec 13, 2012)

24-105 f4. Or, an ancient 28-80 you can get on ebay for about 30 bucks...


----------



## Cory (Dec 13, 2012)

I got frightened and didn't get anything. I'm gonna hold off and then maybe go with a 6D/24-70 f4 IS kit one day (and maybe a 35 or 50 prime and long zoom of some sort). I'll likely do a 6D/7D II comparison when the time comes and see what happens.

 :-[ :-\ :'( :-*


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 16, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> jointdoc said:
> 
> 
> > I am a beginner but the BEST VALUE I think would be the 24-105 F4 L. It is cheaper as a kit lens on the 6D and if you don't like it you can probably sell it without losing any money.
> ...



Yep. +1 Ditto. Go for this. Much better value and highly useful.


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 17, 2012)

Cory said:


> I got frightened and didn't get anything. I'm gonna hold off and then maybe go with a 6D/24-70 f4 IS kit one day (and maybe a 35 or 50 prime and long zoom of some sort). I'll likely do a 6D/7D II comparison when the time comes and see what happens.
> 
> :-[ :-\ :'( :-*



That would be a good setup. And then you'll want wide, and then wide prime and then Macro and then TS and the,,,,,…….etc etc yadda yadda

BUT don't put off getting the 135 f/2 as long as I did.


----------



## EOBeav (Dec 17, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> BUT don't put off getting the 135 f/2 as long as I did.



Oh man, I just sent my 135mm f2 rental back last week. Worst day of my life. Well, not really, but I was pretty sad to see it go...


----------



## Cory (Dec 17, 2012)

I exchanged my 135 for a 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 - more useful for indoor volleyball. The 135 2.0 was sort of an "inbetween" focal length for my needs. I wonder if that'll change by going to FF. If so then it'll be clear that I'm a dick.


----------



## bigdogmn73 (Feb 27, 2013)

Best value is the kit lens 24-105...


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Feb 27, 2013)

On FF a fast 50 will be a very good normal lens. I started on my 5D MkII with only the 50mm 1.4 and i shot everything with it. Landscape, portraits, concerts etc. It's amazing how versatile a 50mm on fullframe is.


----------



## CanNotYet (Feb 27, 2013)

Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8?


----------



## Jim K (Feb 27, 2013)

Cory said:


> I exchanged my 135 for a 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 - more useful for indoor volleyball. The 135 2.0 was sort of an "inbetween" focal length for my needs. I wonder if that'll change by going to FF. If so then it'll be clear that I'm a dick.


Yes, the 200 2.8 will be like your 135 on a crop


----------



## robbymack (Feb 27, 2013)

"Best value"? Depends how you define value. For IQ per $ it's hard to argue against a 50 1.8. In these terms the value of the kit 24-105, when purchased in the kit, is also pretty high. I'd probably not get the 24-70f4 IS in the kit unless it was heavily discounted and even if the 24-105 was no longer available in the kit it can still be had in the used market for $700 or so.


----------



## marceloshak (Feb 27, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> Best money/IQ value is 50mm 1.8 II.


+1


----------



## dstppy (Feb 27, 2013)

bigdogmn73 said:


> Best value is the kit lens 24-105...



Since the OP is talking about having paid for a 6D, I agree 100%.

On that same lines, I don't think the 50mm 1.8 is really that good for 'best value' since the 1.4 is much better . . .

It's all how you define value. The 70-200mm 2.8 IS is a GREAT value, when talking about the 200mm L 2.0 IS


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 27, 2013)

If you're buying the lens along with the camera, the best value is going to be whatever standard zoom is in the official Canon kit.

If you already have the camera, the best value would have to be the Shorty McForty. It's still worth giving a shout-out to the Plastic Fantastic, but the Shorty McForty is a significantly better lens for not much more money, and therefore has a better price to value ratio.

If you really want a fast 50, then the f/1.4 wins the day. It's a better lens than the L in virtually every respect for a small fraction of the price.

b&


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Feb 27, 2013)

The 28-105 bundle with the 6d is a winner. If you have the 6d or are short of cash, look at the 
28-135IS that was bundled with a bunch of cameras. No, it doesn't have the red ring, but it is 
an excellent piece of glass and it's one third the price of the 24-105. I'd also suggest that for the
price of the 28-105 you could buy a nice pair of primes - my pick would be the 35mmf2.0 and the 85mmf1.8. With those two, the 6d and a good pair of shoes, there are very few spots that would be
safe from my photos.


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 27, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> If you really want a fast 50, then the f/1.4 wins the day. It's a better lens than the L in virtually every respect for a small fraction of the price.
> 
> b&



I'm thinking about moving up from my 50 1.8... Kind of stuck between the 1.4 now, or waiting a bit (not necessarily a bad thing, since I do have the 1.8 if I need it) and saving up for the 50L or seeing what sigma releases for a new fast 50, since their 35 has been such a big hit. I'm curious why you say the 1.4 is better than the L in virtually every respect... I know about the slightly curved focal plane the L has, but does the 1.4 do other things optically better? or is it just the smaller/cheaper/lighter that you're getting at?


----------



## paulc (Feb 27, 2013)

I'm putting in another vote for the 28-135 IS. You can generally score one second-hand for just a bit over $200 and it will serve most of your general purpose needs better than any other $200ish lens.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Feb 27, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



+1 for both of these lenses


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 27, 2013)

bseitz234 said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > If you really want a fast 50, then the f/1.4 wins the day. It's a better lens than the L in virtually every respect for a small fraction of the price.
> ...



The 1.4 is sharper at every aperture from f/1.4 on, especially in the corners (due to that curved focal plane).

Really, all you get with the L is an extra fraction of a stop of maximum aperture (with a depth of field so insanely narrow that it can only be considered a special effect) and "better build quality" that doesn't include weather sealing.

The 1.4 is a superlative lens. The L isn't a better lens; it's just a slightly poorer performing, heavier lens that opens up a marginal fraction wider. And it's got some red paint. And it costs three times as much That's all.

I wouldn't call the L a bad lens; indeed, it's almost as superlative a lens as the 1.4.

I _would,_ however, describe the L as far and away the absolute worst bang-for-the-buck in Canon's lineup.

If your reaction to learning that you'll be out-of-pocket $1500 for repairs on your car is annoyance with the hassle of dealing with the rental while your car is in the shop, then the L is for you. Otherwise, if you'll actually notice $1500 missing from your bank account, the L is the last lens you should buy.

Another 50 worth considering is the f/2.5 compact macro. It's the sharpest 50 Canon makes, one of the sharpest lenses you can get period, and has essentially no distortion or other flaws. Autofocus kinda sucks, but if that and the merely-moderate maximum aperture don't faze you, it's otherwise probably the best 50 on the market today as far as optics goes.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 27, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> The 1.4 is sharper at every aperture from f/1.4 on, especially in the corners (due to that curved focal plane).
> 
> Really, all you get with the L is an extra fraction of a stop of maximum aperture (with a depth of field so insanely narrow that it can only be considered a special effect) and "better build quality" that doesn't include weather sealing.
> 
> The 1.4 is a superlative lens. The L isn't a better lens; it's just a slightly poorer performing, heavier lens that opens up a marginal fraction wider. And it's got some red paint. And it costs three times as much That's all.



Not quite. The 50L is sharper than the 50/1.4 from f/1.4 - f/2, doesn't have the halation that affects the 50/1.4 wide open, has much less flare, and has smoother, better bokeh at comparable apertures. To state that the 50L is 'poorer performing' is misleading. Whether or not the 50L's slightly better optical performance at wide apertures justify it's 4-times higher price tag is a different issue.


----------



## rowlandw (Feb 27, 2013)

40mm f/2.8 "pancake". 40mm is wide-normal, close to how the eye takes in scenes. 
Since your post is about value, it can't be beat @ $149 with high praises for sharpness.
Unexpectedly, it has become my 6D's default lens, scaling it down to an unobtrusive large point-and-shoot.
Re: 50mm, I've been very happy with a Sigma f/2.8 macro ever since the autofocus on my Canon f/1.4 broke, a common failure mode.


----------



## Dick (Feb 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Latest sigma 35mm f1.4 received good feedbacks.
> ...



Then again, where do you draw the line and why? 35mm won't be distorting people much unless shot from very close. I personally consider a 35mm the all around normal lens. I don't really do landscapes, but if I did, I wouldn't consider 35mm wide enough either.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The 50L is sharper than the 50/1.4 from f/1.4 - f/2



...but only in the center. Mid-frame and certainly in the corners, the f/1.4 wins:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Bokeh is so often subjective. I find nothing to complain about with the bokeh of the f/1.4. But, of course, anybody for whom the particular "look" of the L is significantly preferable to the "look" of the f/1.4...well, discussion over, obviously.

Equally obviously, I'm not one of those people...and, I'd suggest, that very few clients or critics would even notice or be able to pick the one over the other. On the other hand, if your clients and / or critics are in that latter category, you'd damned well better be charging enough so as to fall into the "I lose $1500 when it falls out of my pockets at the theater and I don't even notice or care" category.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 27, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> bseitz234 said:
> 
> 
> > TrumpetPower! said:
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> TrumpetPower! said:
> 
> 
> > The 1.4 is sharper at every aperture from f/1.4 on, especially in the corners (due to that curved focal plane).
> ...



Very helpful, both of you. Thanks! Given that I'd have to save up for a while- and would notice when the price of a 50L was gone, I will probably go 50 1.4 sooner than later. (Given that my biggest complaint with the 1.8 II is the AF, and I have the 17-55 if I need to cover 50 @ f/2.8, I'm going to skip the compact macro. But that is intriguingly high praise...) 

Thanks again!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 27, 2013)

Dick said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



The textbook says that a normal lens is one whose focal length is equal to the diagonal of the imaging area. On 135 format, sqrt((24mm*24mm) + (36mm*36mm)) = 43mm, so the Shorty McForty is actually more normal than a 50.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Dick (Feb 27, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Textbooks can say what they please. I'd say that real life use determines things for most of us.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 27, 2013)

Dick said:


> Textbooks can say what they please. I'd say that real life use determines things for most of us.



You are, of course, free to make up whatever definitions you like for words and use them however you like.

Just don't be surprised when people haven't a clue what you're talking about.

40mm on 135 format may "feel" like a wide-angle lens to you, but it's most emphatically a normal lens as far as the rest of the world uses these terms.

But don't take my word for it. Have a look for yourself to see what category Canon places the Shorty McForty in the EF lens lineup:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

Cheers,

b&


----------



## TexasBadger (Feb 27, 2013)

I would go with the 50mm f/1.8 II. It can be had for $125 brand new and it is very sharp. You can use the money you save to get a great circlar polarizer (I recommend B+W). It is also a great lens if you want to merge photos for panoramic shots.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> sharper, realy



http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm and the TDP comparison that TrumpetPower linked.

But probably some copy variation issues. Roger Cicala (lensrentals.com) tested multiple copies, and it's basically a wash in terms of sharpness based on his results.

Regardless, the two key points are:


The 50L is an excellent (but expensive) portrait lens, optimized for better bokeh and sacrificing some other aspects of optical performance to achieve that creamy bokeh
Stating that the only differences between the f/1.4 and f/1.2L lenses are build quality and cost is an oversimplification


----------



## funkboy (Feb 28, 2013)

Best value? Certainly the 40mm pancake. It lives on my 6D now.

Unfortunately, the 50mm f/1.8 II "nifty fifty" is pretty rough when shooting video. Contrast-detect AF with that lens is horribly slow & rarely gets a lock in indoor or evening environments, & forget about using it at night. Just switch the lens to MF when you switch to video mode & leave it there until you're done.

Still a fine lens for stills though. But the 40mm pancake is certainly more satisfying.


----------



## Dick (Feb 28, 2013)

TrumpetPower! said:


> Dick said:
> 
> 
> > Textbooks can say what they please. I'd say that real life use determines things for most of us.
> ...



I think you are missing my point. We all know the definitions commonly used. What I was trying to say is that I can't imagine many photographers using a 35mm as a wide lens. Instead it's quite common as the main "normal" lens at weddings and such. 

Surely 35mm is officially defined as wide angle, but that is just something people have agreed on. People agree on all kind of things. 1+1=2... If you have an apple & a banana you may have 2 fruits, but the units aren't exactly the same.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> then lens tip must also have been unlucky and got a bad copy of the 50/1.2 compared to 50/1.4 and sharpness.



Well, silly me...I thought that overall IQ was about more than just sharpness. I guess since that's easy to measure (relatively), we pay more attention to it. And yes, the edges of the 50L aren't sharp. You want the center soft, too, try the 50/1.0L. But an f/1.8 portrait with a busy background is going to look better with the 50/1.2L than with the 50/1.4 (and possibly even better with the 50/1.0L). No question that the 50/1.4 is a better value. But heck, if sharpness per $/£/€/¥ is your most important criterion in choosing a 50mm prime, the 50/1.8 II is much better than the 50/1.4.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Feb 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> You want the center soft, too, try the 50/1.0L.



You ain't kiddin'.

Last time I was at Tempe Camera (the local pro camera shop), they had a mint-condition 50 f/1.0L on consignment. Just for giggles, I mounted it to my 5DIII. Wide open, it's a coke bottle.

I don't remember what they were asking for it, but it was pretty reasonable -- in line with the going rate. I keep thinking that, if they still have it the next time I'm there, I'll offer them an insultingly low amount for it...and then I remember that it's probably not even worth as much as the 50 f/1.2L lens to me. Realistically, the lens has no use beyond the giggle factor of seeing the meter read 1.0.

Cheers,

b&


----------

