Canon 50mm/1.4 lens. This is a reposted question from yesterday to clear up confusion.?

I have the Tamron 17-50/2.8 lens now and want to sell it for the Canon 50mm/1.4.





The other lenses I own right now include:


a) Excellent Canon 10-22mm


b) Canon 28-135 IS


c) Canon 100mm/2.8





I want to get the best combination of lenses there is, without sacrificing much





1) Will I gain much in Image Quality from Tamron to Canon?


2) Will it be foolish to sell this great Tamron 2.8 for Prime?


3) On 40d body, what is most logical next lens? 35mm f2 looks good, also. I could buy 35mm and 50/1.8 for same price as 1.4......Canon 50mm/1.4 lens. This is a reposted question from yesterday to clear up confusion.?
I do not understand why you are going for all this lens overlapping! You have the 10-22mm wide angle, you had a 28-135mm with an already overlapping 17-50mm lens....why a 100mm and why are you getting a 50mm???? I don't understand your goals. IF you wanted a prime lens for your camera, you would have a 35mm lens. All the rest of the lenses should give you something you do not get form lenses you already have! Is sounds as if you are collecting lenses for no reason....set up a goal, aim only at lenses you will need for your photography, and stick to it. Otherwise, you are wasting a lot of money. No one else cares what lenses you have,...this is not a ';I've got more lenses than you.'; game here. IF you do not shoot telephoto, then forget about telephoto lenses. GoldwingCanon 50mm/1.4 lens. This is a reposted question from yesterday to clear up confusion.?
Which lenses are best, really depends on how you use your camera and your budget. That said, the 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens and generally gives very sharp results on my 40D. Everyone sets up their kit to meet their own needs so far be it from me to tell you what lens to buy.





I will say that because you have that focal length covered with other lenses, it wouldn't be unreasonable to sell the 17-50mm f2.8. Still, I probably wouldn't if it was my kit because I find having a 17-55mm f/2.8 to be a good general purpose lens for available light,especially when shooting indoors. Primes are still a good idea because the allow higher shutter speeds than possible with even an f/2.8 zoom indoors.





My current kit is as follows:


EF-s 10-22mm (Landscapes and architecture)


EF-s 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM (Used mostly indoors)


EF 24-105mm f4L (This lens stays on my camera most of the time)


EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (Indoor candids and portraits)


EF 85mm f/1.8 USM (Indoor performances/sports)


EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM (Anytime I need a long lens)


EF 300mm f4L IS USM (Anytime I need something even longer, especially with a 1.4x extender)


Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM (Indoor candids and portraits)
It really depends on your own shooting style, for what you would want next. If I were you, I would sell the 28-135 because it is more of a full-frame lens. It doesn't go wide enough to be a good walkaround general purpose lens, which is why if you notice, all digital SLRs come with a general lens that starts at 17-18mm.





Are you happy with the Tamron? Looking at some reviews, I think I would be impressed with the overall quality and would keep this lens. The rest of your lenses are special circumstance, and I would keep them (10-22 ultrawide and 100mm supersharp macro).





The lenses you are looking at are all prime and large aperture. Are you wanting these lenses because you are shooting in low light? If you are happy with the lowlight performance of your Tamron, then for me, switching to a prime as an everyday walkaround lens is not something I would consider. I have a 35mm and a 50mm for when I need lowlight performance, but in general I have a walkaround zoom, which for me offsets any image quality or aperture gains I would attain from a prime.





Since you have a 100mm which is suitable as a portrait lens, your next purchase should not be just to get a new lens, but to get a lens which fulfills a role. You need to tell us what you are wanting to shoot, and how your current lenses are falling short. A logical next step in my opinion would be a good sports lens, like one of Canon's 70-200's (whichever fulfills your needs/price range).





This is, of course, considering that you already have all of the essentials, like a good tripod, a decent flash, and a solid camera bag that carries what you like to take with you most of the time?