Is a 50mm f/1.4 redundant if I already have a 17-50mm f/2.8 zoom?
Asked 5/3/2011
2 views
2 answers
0
I’m getting a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and I’m also considering adding a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Since the zoom already covers 50mm at a constant f/2.8, I’m wondering whether the prime would actually add enough to justify carrying and buying it.
My main interests are low-light shooting, subject isolation, portraits, and some candid photos. I know a 50mm f/1.4 is about two stops faster than f/2.8, but I’m also aware that some very fast lenses are softer wide open and may be best stopped down a bit.
In practice, is a 50mm f/1.4 still useful alongside a 17-50mm f/2.8, or is it redundant? How much does that two-stop difference really matter, and when would you actually switch lenses? I’m also weighing this against putting the money toward a speedlight instead.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
15y ago
2 Answers
13
If you're only going to shoot your 50 f/1.4 at f/2.8 then yes it is redundant.
but as with all primes you have to stop it down to get sharp results
I'd replace "primes" with "f/1.4 lenses", plenty of primes are sharp wide open. Few ultra wide aperture lenses are really sharp. The Sigma 50 is actually pretty good. #Certainly sharp enough to consider using wide open, I have the Sigma 30 f/1.4 and was blown away by the sharpness wide open.
In short a 50 f/1.4 isn't redundant as it's two stops faster, which can mean shooting ISO400 instead of ISO1600, or 1/50s compared to 1/12s. You don't have to stop it down for sharpness, a little softness is really not that big a deal.
Originally by user1375. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1375
15y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
No—it's only redundant if you expect to use the 50mm prime at f/2.8 all the time.
A 50mm f/1.4 gives you about a two-stop advantage over f/2.8, which is significant: it can mean using ISO 400 instead of 1600, or a much faster shutter speed in low light. That matters for indoor portraits, low-light shooting, and situations where you want stronger background blur and subject isolation.
A fast prime also isn’t automatically unusable wide open. While some f/1.4 lenses improve when stopped down, they can still be sharp enough at or near wide open for real-world use.
The tradeoff is convenience. Your zoom is more flexible and better for fast-changing scenes or candid work where you don’t have time to swap lenses or “zoom with your feet.” The prime makes more sense when you can work deliberately at 50mm—such as portraits or other controlled shots.
So the 50mm f/1.4 complements the 17-50mm f/2.8 rather than duplicating it, especially if low light and isolation matter to you.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI15y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Which lens is better for Milky Way shots on a Nikon D7000: 50mm f/1.4 or 17-55mm f/2.8?
How do the Canon 55-250mm, 75-300mm, and 70-300mm differ, and which makes sense after the 18-55 kit lens?
Best fast zoom for family candids on a Nikon DX body: 17-55mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8, or alternatives?
What lenses work best for a DSLR 3D stereoscopic rig?
Are a Canon 50mm f/1.8 and 75-300mm good upgrades from the 18-55mm kit lens on a Rebel T1i?