Quick lens question

W

whoknows46

Member
I am going to buy the canon 17-55 in the next few weeks. Question is, is it still worth getting a 50mm 1.4 in addition to the zoom? How does the zoom compare to the prime at the same focal length (besides the prime obviously being faster)?
 
Primes generally have better optics with more clarity, but you won't notice it all that much in video. It depends on the build quality as well. A low cost prime isn't going to beat a high end zoom. The kit lens probably goes to 2.8 at the wide end, which is a lot darker than 1.4, and I think that's well worth it. Especially if you ever plan to do event work, like weddings.
 
Personally i would go canon 17-55 and tokina 11-16 before I started adding primes. Which primes all depends on your main use for the camera and how much you do stills (may want to add a 70-200 after that before you go primes if you do mostly stills).
 
thanks

thanks

I'm buying the camera primarily for narrative filmmaking, but also plan to do a bit of still photography on the side. As my main concern is video, I guess the difference between the given zoom and prime wouldn't be all that significant. How is the bokeh of the canon 50mm 1.4 compared to the 17-55 at the same length?
 
The DOF at 1.4 and 2.8 are different worlds. I would call shooting at 1.4 an "effect" and not really something that I would use in a standard narrative (which are typically shot between 2.8 and 4).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top