17-50mm vs 50mm?

[mastertrinity]

i want to get a nice lens and i thought about doing portraits i then realise that i can get a tamron 17-50mm for £300 or a sony 50mm F1.4 for £270 or the sony 50mm f1.8. is it worth spending extra and getting the wider angle or keeping with a nice wide aperture?

 

[p1tse]

prime and non 3rd party lenses is usually prefered from what i have read

would be interested to hear of the difference

i have a tamron f2.8 28-75 for the A300, but would like a 50mm

 

[fallen_mathi]

if its just for portraits, a 50mm 1.4 on a crop body is a great choice nice focal length, very sharp, and has great brokeh... & the shallow depth of field is just wow...

 

[CSB]

At f1.4 the DoF is going to be very shallow, too shallow for portraits unless you are going for a midshot or longer IMO.

 

[edumad]

If only portraits are of interest the 50mm F1.8 will suit you best. You really dont need the F1.4 (vs F1.8) I'm sure it'll be cheaper too.