To get a 50mm 1.8 lens, or not?

Let's put aside the argument that "it's such a darn good bang for the buck, why not

get one" for a while. I need to know if the 1.8 is something that I need, or should

have, or not. I have a decent Tamron 28-75 2.8 that does a good job for me. Is

that extra stop of speed(of the 50mm lens)all that much of an advantage, if I find

that I do shoot the Tamron near wide open on occassion? I don't shoot in bars or

night clubs or anywhere even like those places. If the 50mm would give me a bit

better sharpness, maybe I could see it. I like that it's light in weight.

I've seen them for sale for as little as $60 or even less. But I really need to have a

need for it before actually buying one, even if I could get it for $10.

What would YOU do? But let's add, for the sake of comment, that it costs $250,

aninstead of $50. Thanks

I have one, I never use it. This lens can be quirky in the focus department - it is not consistent, at least mine isn't. I use it on a 20D. Others say that on the 40D or full-frame like the 5D the focus is much more consistent. Mine is very soft wide open so that stop advantage is not there for me. To me it is a cheap lens that is greatly over-rated and worth about what you would pay for it - $60. I have the Canon 35mm F2 and the Canon 85mm F1.8 and both are far superior (although more expensive of course). I had the Tamron 28-75mm too and I don't think the 50mm F1.8 is needed with it.

 

Good luck!

From a non-technical aspect, in what circumstances would you prefer to tote around an inexpensive $60-$90 lens as opposed to a $350-$400 lens? I have a Canon lens similar to your Tamron and it cost me a bit of $ at my budget so I take my 50mm/1.8 instead if I feel I may be at risk of damaging my more expensive lens. When at risk I prefer to keep my eggs in two baskets:-) Seems like I'm taking most pics around 50mm with my wide-zoom lens anyways so I'm not at much of a loss stylistically speaking.

I've got the Tamron you have, and on my 5D it is excellent, although it looks a bit stupid as it's so small - but so what. Very good value for money. I've also got the 50mm F1.8. Just to point out, there is more than a stop of difference between these lenses, F1.8 * sqrt(2) = F2.54

 

For low light photography, the 50mm has a huge advantage. It's a matter of, in some cases, being able to get the shot or not. I mostly use my 50mm when I am in really low light situations with no flash. If I never used it under these conditions I probably wouldn't need to own it. But since it has very little value, no point in ever selling it. Everyones requirements are a little bit different, but based on my reasoning above, if you don't think you need the extra speed (F1.8), then don't bother buying one. Absolutely no point in owning something just because it is cheap.

> Is that extra stop of speed(of the 50mm lens)all that much of an advantage, if I find that I do shoot the Tamron near wide open on [occasion]? <

 

The extra stop and a bit of this prime, is ONLY useful to you, if you would use that extra light, or very shallow DoF, at FL = 55mm.

 

What I mean is a bit useless if you find this actually applies to you:

 

`I find that I do shoot the Tamron near wide open on [occasion] at 24mm`

 

You are comparing a zoom to a prime: you need to think about, (and use) the zoom, as a 50mm prime, to realistically make any personal use judgements.

 

***

 

> What would YOU do? <

 

I did buy the EF50F1.4.

 

I do use this lens on both APS-C and 135 format cameras.

 

I knew that I would, before I bought the lens, because with my 135 film gear I used two very fast prime lens extensively: a 58mm and an 85mm, and both wide open (or very close to) on many occasions: and not just in low light situation, but for portraiture, in good natural light and in the studio, as well

 

WW

Aside being my #1 portrait lens, on a APS-C camera, i don't have many uses...

Like most things in photography, there are trade-offs.

 

First, let's get one issue out of the way. Presuming that you have a crop sensor camera body, the 50mm focal length is rarely

a good one for an "only lens." If it were, people would have outfitted their 35mm SLRs with 80mm lenses instead back in the

days of film, since that is the equivalent angle-of-view lens. While people found 50mm to be a decent standard lens on film

SLR cameras, the equivalent focal length on a crop body is about 31mm.

 

There are two main advantages to using a lens with a larger maximum aperture. One, you can gather more light and perhaps

shoot in darker conditions or shoot at a faster shutter speed than you would with a lens with a smaller maximum aperture.

Two, you can achieve a narrower depth of focus with the larger aperture if that is important to you.

 

The prime might also produce a somewhat better quality image, at least in certain situations - in particular at larger apertures.

 

How significant are these things in your photography? Really, you are the only one who can answer that for you. You might

be able to get some idea by looking at your previous work. How often do you find that you don't have a large enough

maximum aperture, either for DOF or for exposure? How much of an issue are you having with "image quality?"

 

There are also downsides to using primes. Obviously, they are much less versatile. One particular aspect of this is

interesting to think about. It is fair to say that, in general, a prime can produce a "better" image than a typical zoom at the

same focal length. But what if you don't have exactly the right focal length prime? You either can't get the shot (if you cannot

go wide enough) or you end up having to crop. If you have to crop you'll lose some or all of the IQ advantage that the prime

might provide.

 

In addition, if a shot comes up and you don't have the right focal length... with a zoom you can often get there - or at least get

closer - immediately by adjusting the focal length. With the prime you need to switch lenses.

 

Dan

It is sharp, fast, small, cheap - very useful for places where you don't want a huge zoom dangling off you camera. The only drawback to my way of thinking is that the Canon 1.8 II has the cheapest possible AF which ids not all that wonderful.

You already have a lens which does the same thing. There is a recession. Don't get

it.

I've had the Mark I version (the one with the metal mount) since 1990, and can count on one hand the number of times I have used it. In fact I forgot I even had it for about 10 years, until I discovered it in a closet. As others have pointed out, it's an inexpensive lens, so unless I need some gas money I won't sell it, but I don't think I would buy one unless I had a specific need for it. It's easy to say "It's small and won't take up much room in the bag", but I always find there is something else I'd rather carry in its place, like a teleconverter, extension tubes, spare batteries, etc.

<p>

You might try setting your Tamron on 50mm and shooting that way for a while to see if that's a useful focal length for you. If you find yourself thinking "This would be a great shot if only I had a little more light", then maybe the 50mm f/1.8 is for you.

I have both the 35mm f/2 and the 50mm f/1.8 and use them both when I need low light capability. I've never had any trouble with the autofocus on either, even in low light. I don't usually like flash, and these are invaluable for me. I also have a bunch of filters and other odds and ends from my Nikon days, so the 52mm screw-in lets me put those into play (such as my stereo adapter, color-flow filters, etc.).

 

Occasionally I buy something just because it's a bargain, but normally I insist on utility as well. I think the 50mm is a good lens for beginners precisely because it is optically really nice and gives them a little bit of additional reach both in optical quality and low-light photography over the normal kit lenses.

It's a sharp lens, even wide open. The Tamron is an excellent lens as well, and performs very nicely wide open, and has a very useful zoom range. The minimum focus distance of the 50mm is a little longer than I'd like, but it's great in low light and gives you a little more room to play than the Tamron. I'd recommend it if you don't have the f/1.4 version and have $70 to spend simply because it is useful for low light situations that are just out of reach of the Tamron. That said, if you don't shoot much at this focal length or you find the Tamron suits your needs well, don't bother as you are unlikely to unmount the zoom in favor of the prime lens often if at all.

How about flare? The 50mm 1.8 EF only has 6 elements, zooms can have more than double this number. I never did a comparative test, but if taking pictures with the sun shining on the lens I would rather use a prime lens.

I recently purchased the 50f1.4. It is amazingly sharp from 2.0 and down, 1.4 is great for soft portraits and for low light... as long as you have some contrast to focus on, this lens will light up a dark room without a flash!

 

I was skeptical at first about this focal legth at first on my XTi but it has been off the body in 2 weeks. I find it has opened up a whole new world of creativity between the FOV, DOV control, low light capabilities, dreamy boquet. And of coarse its just a dynamite portrait lens as well. Beinng my first prime, I am realizing that zooms are too much work. Trying to find what crop you want to use with a zoom can be a bit like playing with a yo-yo at times! With a fixed focal length you have great opportunity to really get to know that length and visualize the world in a differnet manner. Open your arms to experiancing photography thru a fast prime!

 

Now of coarse I have to say, get off your wallet and get the 1.4! You wont be disapointed, well if you were to be... it would be from the focus hunting in low light. Fortunetly you can flip the switch to MF,hold the trigger 1/2 way, twist the focus ring and your center focus "thing" in the viewfinder will light up when your in focus... problem solved!

 

Happy Shooting and good luck with your decision!

Does this ever happen to you? You are indoors, the light is low but not dark. You try to take a picture but your autofocus keeps seeking back and forth?

 

A 1.8 will do this less than a 2.8. A 1.4 will do it even less. The wider the aperture the better the autofocus will work.

 

If you don't do much indoor shooting, then probably don't need it.

 

In the other hand, even if you don't shoot indoors, the 50mm f1.4 will give you such an obviously better image that you won't regret it.

 

The 1.8 is a compromise. Not such an improvement image-wise but much better focus-wise.

For what I would use a 50mm lens, the 1.4 version is just way out of my price range. So it's the 50 1.8 or nothing right now. I'm still thinking about it and have not made up my mind as yet. Thanks to all, so far, for the comments.

Well my friend, for what its worth I would grap that 50! They dont call it the nifty fifty for nothing, it is probably the best bang for the buck you can get!

 

Happy Shooting!

Does anyone use thier 50mm lens a lot? I'm meaning for more than those specialized lower light situations, or portraiture. Is this a lens with the purpose of only certain circumstances? What about as one's general walk-around lens?

Robert,haven't you already owned the 50 1.8 before?I remember you posting about it a number of times.I actually remember you posting one for sale while you were asking if it would be a good lens to buy.You've owned this lens before so you should be able to answer your own questions about it.

I bought it, I like it.

 

That aside, it turns out that on one of the reviews I read, the lens reaches optimal sharpness at f/2.8, if you can compare this to your current lens, maybe that will help. The focusing on the 50 is loud, somewhat annoying, and as said before sometimes "quirky". Mine has a tendency to pop out a bit when it hits the ends. Not a very well built lens, but very useful.

 

I use my lens more for macro by reversing it onto another lens.

I bought one 2 weeks ago for my XSI and I think I am going to return it. Seems I frequently get out-of-focus shots with it whereas I haven't had focus issues with the 18-55 IS kit lens or a 28-105 USM I also have.

 

I think the 18-55 IS gives me better low-light capability because it seems like I need shutter speeds of 1/100 or higher with the non-stabilized 50mm.

This is why I don't find the 50mm f1.8 II very nifty. Just a quick test tonight with my XSI @ 1600 ISO. The far-right result is obvious (no IS, blurry shot). But the sharpest result is the 18-55mm IS kit lens with the slower shutter speed.

 

I am returning this piece-of-crap lens. The only value I might find in it is shallower DOF for portraits, but I won't risk the other AF misses I've seen with this lens.

No, you don't need one.

 

But if you are tempted then go for the 50 f/1.4 or scrub the concept.

There's not enough difference in aperture to make Anthony's advice good. If you can afford it, get the plastic fantastic and save your pennies for an f/1.2 if you want really, really low light. Yes I do use it a lot, although my main lens is the more controversial 17-85mm IS lens, but that is another story and argument.

 

I confess I also use my Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2, but the manual focusing on it becomes difficult on occasion so I sometimes have to bracket focus. That's what makes the EF f/1.8 lens attractive to me, since I'm not going to buy the EF 50mm or 85mm f/1.2 since I already have the Nikkor for those really low light occasions.

Buy it. You won't regret it. I use my 50mm 75% of the time.