[OC Guy]

Does anyone have experience with both of these? I was considering the 50mm f/1.4 but was thinking the 30mm might be better for portrait and party use due to its better FOV. How do the images compare?

This would be on a Canon XTI btw. Car shots can be taken with this also, my other lens is the Canon 17-55mm..

How are both at low light?

Discuss?

[TurboFan]

I'll comment, as the brand in insignificant in this case.

I agree the 30mm is better for party / upclose if you're trying to get a large FOV. I prefer an 80mm for portrait use. 30mm is far too short for a good portrait lens. If you have a 17-55, why do you want a 30mm or even 50mm? The wide aperature isn't as helpful in the wider angels, as even the XTi can shoot at high ISO's, and the DOF control of a 30-50mm lens is minimal.

I'd be looking for something in the 80-200 range. I know Nikon makes one in the f/2.8 range, I'm sure there's something similar for Canon.

[OC Guy]

Thanks for the info bro. I thought the 30mm would be a sharper lens for portraits. If I don't need it since I have the 17-55mm, that's fine.

[TurboFan]

Sharp is all relative. I'm not up on the Canon lens, but I thought I'd heard good things about the 17-55? The easiest lenses to make are in the 80-120 range, and therefore have the fewest moving parts, and fewest elements (pieces of glass) in the lens. Less is more in this case, so if you want a tack-sharp lens, do some digging here www.kenrockwell.com and see if he has any insight. In Nikon there's an old 105mm manual focus that I'd get for portrait work.

Look for manual focus, wide apperature, and a focal length around 80-105. Read the reviews, I'll bet there are some good lenses. For portrait work I much prefer manual focus.