Canon 50mm 1.8 users please.

I understand that this lens is a real "bargin". A lens that's just "great for

the price". And many of you have/had one. Other than for the lower light

capabilities of the 50 1.8 lens, can you folks tell me why I should have one?

And what about the comments, though it does open up to 1.8, it really "doesn't

shine at that aperture, and should be stopped down once or twice to be any

good"? Maybe this lens is not for me, but I'd like you to try and convince me

that it is. This would be used on a 1.6X crop camera. Thank you.

It's a bargain. You can find it for less than $80. It's OK with 1.8 for available light and at 5.6 it competes with the expensive Canon L glass.

Rick, I know it's a bargin. But should I have one just because it cheap OR because I NEED it. I want to NEED it---and then--rejoice that it was such a good deal.

On a 1.6x body, my main use for this lens is portrait. I have used it for some indoor sport photography too (volleyball). Other than that, it's a bit long.

Do you find yourself constrained by aperture when using your 28-75 f/2.8 at 50mm or so? The constraint is more likely to arise from low light shooting at high ISO when you need a motion freezing shutter speed (e.g. indoor sport) and flash isn't a suitable solution.

Well, it depends on your subject. If you shoot <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><b>portraiture</a></b> on a crop-factor camera you don't want to miss this focal length. If you need a different perspective or working distance get different prime lens.

<p>

I find the lens very good at f/1.8 and don't stop down much unless I need the depth-of-field.

You make a good point. You shouldn't buy a lens that you don't need, just because it's a bargain. And if you did need it, you wouldn't need any convincing. You're probably getting decent portraits with the lens you have, and depending on the subject, sharper isn't necessarily better!

Robert, if you don't know if you need that fast of a lens I'd say don't buy it. Why and how should we convince you to get this lens if you have no application for it?

It's great for low light scenes. I use it to take photographs of paintings and other art works at musueums where flash is a no-no. It's very unobtrusive, you wouldn't want a bigger lens inside a Museum. On a 1.6X factor camera, it makes a great portrait lens. The contrast is simply amazing. On a FF camera it makes a good street lens. It's rather cheaply built, so take care not to drop it or it's all over.

I used an EF 50 1.8 for nearly 20 years: well made, fast aperture, small & light and natural

perspective. It cost about $70 new in 1988. I sold it for $225 at FM when I decided to buy an

EF 50 1.2L USM. Kinda miss it, especially after seeing how cheaply made the replacement is

(EF 50 1.8 MKII). The original has a metal mount, distance and DOF scales, real MF ring and

takes a clip-on ES-65 Hood (no adapter needed!).

I think you already want one Robert, considering you have a 'classified' out for it.... and I won't try to convince you with any arguments but to say this lens isn't called 'plastic fantastic', 'the nifty fifty', or for the unashamed like me ...'the thrifty fifty' for nothing. I love mine ...and I ain't selling! :=)

There are a few specific advantages that the 50/1.8 lens has, assuming you're interested in shooting at 50mm, compared to a zoom:

 

1. It's faster. (even if you shoot stopped down, this means better viewing and autofocus)

 

2. It's sharper.

 

3. It's smaller.

 

4. It's lighter.

 

5. It has less distortion.

 

6. It's generally less prone to flare.

 

7. It's cheaper.

 

Other than that, I can't think of very much.....

"Robert, if you don't know if you need that fast of a lens I'd say don't buy it. Why and how should we convince you to get this lens if you have no application for it?"

 

I was going to response the same.

About the only thing that I dont like about this lens is that its not a zoom. I like it top to bottom otherwise.

 

Have you ever had your current lens on your camera in Av mode, had the aperture wide open, and still wasnt shooting fast enough? Was it somewhere in the 50mm range give or take? If either one was a no, then you have your answer.

Hi Robert, As others have pointed out, on a 1.6x camera, a 50mm lens is ideal for portraits.

If you like to shoot available light, then an f/1.8 aperture is great to have. IMHO, those are

the two, primary reasons to "need" this lens.

I would get one, no thoughts necessary. Great portrait lens, esp for small sensor cameras. I use it in my studio. Here's me:<p>

 

<a href="http://www.willems.ca/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/MW_0222-M.jpg">Me using 50mm 1.8 on DRebel XTi</a>

<p>

Not even on my 5D, just on an XTi!

<p>

i was going to post this question, but since it's already being discussed then i'll post in here: i have a friend who will sell me his 50mm 1.4 for $250......and i can't decide on wether to buy this prime only or buy the 1.8 and maybe another prime along with it?

 

mark

Won't be particularly good for much beyond portraits of single subjects. If you plan on doing group shots, interior architecture, or other such shots that require a wider focal length, you'll end up with a great value in a lens, but will never use it.

MOst portraits are of one person surely. For that, it is a perfect lens, as in my example above.

I cheap lens you don't need is just a cheap lens.

 

On a crop body it can be useful as, for example, a portrait lens - though its general use for

most photographers will be quite limited.

Yeah, if you can't figure out what to do with a nice fast, short telephoto portrait lens that has great IQ (and particularly compared to most zooms even today), then don't buy one.

I have the MKI lens with metal mount, distance scale and proper focus wheel which I use on my 30D. Frankly, it's a bit too tight to be widely useful to me but I own one because it's the cheapest way to get good low light performance. Ultimately it is just about money for me. If I could afford the 35mm f/1.4L I'd happily unload my 50mm.

Has anyone tried the 50mm 1.8 with a 25mm extension tube?

I recently purchased one with my new 5D/105 combo. Took it out of the box and declared it the cheapest built lens I have ever seen. Put it on the 5D and the mirror hung up. Checked the lens and the cheap plastic mount was warped and popped into place with some persuation by my thumb. Worked ok after that but I can't get over how *%$#% cheap it is.

Yes - but it takes portraits like no other. Here, this was tonight:<p>

 

<a href="http://www.willems.ca/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/Lamoire_0233-medium.jpg">Mr Alexander</a>

<p>

And that is just on a little Digital Rebel XTi.