Trying to decide on a portrait and wide angle lens

[gblades]

I have a Canon 600D and the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens which suits me very well as a general carry about lens as I like to photograph wildlife. However I would like to get a portrait lens for shallow dof ***** and a wide angle.

I have read here that the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is very good and a bargain price. Would it be worthwhile going for the f/1.4 USM instead?

For the wide angle I am looking at either the Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The Tamron is a bit more versatile but I dont know if I would find myself wanting to use wider angles the Sigma offers.
I know the best way would be to try similar lenses but any feedback would be welcome.

 

[gblades]

I think that was supposed to be 'dof shots' but obviously I mistyped and the autocorrect changed it to something the profanity filter objected to!

 

[Dr_O]

I think that was supposed to be 'dof shots' but obviously I mistyped and the autocorrect changed it to something the profanity filter objected to!

I thought it would allow you to just edit your first post then?

Anyway, portrait length is totally subjective and to a large extent dependent on your own preference and potentially the amount of room you have.
For the shots I take I quite like 85mm on APS-C and 135mm on FF but I've taken portraits at 200mm and 11mm as well.

Plenty of people advocate new users to buy a 35mm/50mm lens but if you never shoot those lengths what's the point? I have a Nikon 50mm f1.4- I use it so much it's currently on my mates 7D- which brings me to the next point which is that my mate bought the canon 50mm f1.4 and promptly returned it and then promptly returned the next one. For £300 I wasn't impressed either. The Nikon is much better in this instance.

Given you have a 28-135 I would be inclined to frame a variety of portraits the way you want them and see which focal length is most used then buy accordingly.

As for wide angle- it's impossible to say what you would prefer- you need to try an UWA lens and see. I'd say the 17-50 is a more flexible lens and given your doubt probably the way forward- it's still relatively wide. You could always stitch a shot if needed as a last resort.
Why not hire a Sigma 10-20 or the Canon 10-22 or borrow a friends. Shooting in a shop will not be enough to really tell if UWA's are for you.

 

[woof woof]

Wide aperture 50mm primes are nice but would you be using such wide apertures for portrait shots? If you want to shoot portraits wider than f2.8 then a prime is the only way to go but if shooting from f2.8+ perhaps you could consider fulfilling both the portrait and wide angle duties with the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? I had the non IS version and it was very sharp. Mid range zooms like this tend to have a little (or a lot) of distortion at the wide end and my Tammy did but I doubt that will be too much of an issue, just something to watch out for. If you want a 50mm then you could have a look at the Siggy 50mm f1.4. I have one and it's a nice lens and I've yet to read a review which places the Canon f1.4 ahead of it.

If you want to go wider than 17mm zooms in the 10-20mm range can provide some dramatic results and they are perhaps the most challenging of lenses to use well, you have to think about what you're doing. They tend to be better corrected than mid range zooms too so despite having a wider field of view you'll probably see less distortion.

Buying a mid range zoom and stitching is an option I suppose but I don't think you will get the perspective that a true wide angle will give you by stitching.