- This topic is empty.
Canon 40mm 2.8 or Sigma 50mm 1.4
-
Looking at these to lenses to add something faster than my 17-40 f4.
Had a 40mm pancake for a few days and wasn’t blown away by the sharpness but maybe it needed some micro adjustment. The Sigma gets great reviews too.
Purpose of use will be a little bit of travel shooting and shots of the kids, love the shallow DOF look. If I want any serious bokeh tho I can crack out the 70-200 2.8
Is the Sigma worth twice the price of the 40mm? I know the shots wont be twice as good :lol:
Any opinions?
Would you really notice the jump from 4 to 2.8 on the 40mm and have you tried the camon 50 1.8? Whole lot cheaper/faster and at least its a little more then the 40mm and a lot cheaper then the sigma.
I havent tried the sigma so I can comment on that one.
beasley wrote:
Would you really notice the jump from 4 to 2.8 on the 40mm and have you tried the camon 50 1.8? Whole lot cheaper/faster and at least its a little more then the 40mm and a lot cheaper then the sigma.
I havent tried the sigma so I can comment on that one.
You’re probably right about the 17-40 at the 40mm end, less a bit of background blur so I made my decision.
I went for a Samyang 8mm Fisheye :lol:
I love the 40mm but I prefer the 50mm. I replaced my fallen down stairs 50 1.8 a while back with the Sigma one and I wasnt disappointed. The Canon 50 1.4 is in and around the same price but the Sigma actually focuses faster in my experience. If you want a cheap handy lens go with the 40mm but if you want to invest in something more that you’ll probably get more use out of with better quality then pay the extra for the Sigma.
They are both great lenses and since you already have the 17-40 I’d say go 50.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
