What's the best 50mm lens for a Rebel

<p>If price was no object, what is the absolute best straight 50mm lens for an XTi? It doesn't have to be by Canon. Ev

en a lens that requires an adapter is acceptable. Thanks for all input.</p>

<

<p>Depends.</p>

<p>If you mostly produce small prints and perhaps share on the web and shoot "typical" subjects with this short telephoto focal length, the EF 50mm f/1.8 will be just as good as any of the others.</p>

<p>If you want a lens with slightly better build quality and the ability to go a half stop larger with some loss in contrast and sharpness, but get a lens that produces very fine image quality at f/2 or so an smaller apertures, it is hard to imagine why you would not regard the EF 50mm f/1.4 as the best option. Lot's of "serious" photographers rely on it.</p>

<p>If you are a macro shooter you might consider the 50mm f/2.5 macro, though you might also then be looking at the EFS 60mm macro instead.</p>

<p>There is an extremely expensive, large, and somewhat finicky EF 50mm f/1.2 lens - but this is very much a specialty lens and it is unlikely that you would gain anything from using it.</p>

<p>Why do you want a 50mm prime?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Well, it depends on what aspect of the lens's performance you're after. Do you want it to auto-focus? If you don't mind manual focus (which isn't much fun with a smaller viewfinder), then look to Zeiss, perhaps.<br /><br />Are you particularly interested in the bokeh (the out-of-focus area rendering) when isolating a subject against a background you want to nicely blur? Consider Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM - also very good in terms of distortion, CA, and focusing speed. <br /><br />Canon's 50/1.2 seems pretty swell, too, at well over twice that lens's price.<br /><br />But "best" is highly subjective, because it really does depend on what you're shooting, and on your style and priorities. Is it important to keep it very small and light? Then you won't like the Sigma or that super-fast Canon, and will trade off size and weight by looking at a 50/1.8... but pay a different price in terms of robustness of build, and bokeh and flare behavior. So, do tell more about how you intend to use it. That <em>will</em> make a difference - even ignoring the price issue.</p>

<p>I should have added: "Absent some specific information about what you are trying to accomplish with the lens, there is no meaningful answer to the 'which is best' question."</p>

<p>I guess I should have been more specific. I'm looking to get better resolution primarily on close-in shots (but not macros). I've been shooting the skeletons of dead Saguaro cactuses. I want to crop those images from 20 to 40% and then enlarge the final image to approximately a 24" to 28" width for printing. I'm not getting the resolution I need with the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L USM or Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II.

<table border="0">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>

 

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

 

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</p>

<p>60mm f/2.8. It's sharp as hell.</p>

<p>Even the 60mm f/2.8 isn't doing it for me once I enlarge the TIFF file.</p>

<p>I don't understand your reasoning. The 60mm f/2.8 macro is about as high-res as you are going to get out of this system. If you need more resolution, the problem isn't the lens, its:</p>

<p>1. Camera system / format - larger sensor, more MP, or something completely outside of 35mm format (MF or LF).</p>

<p>2. User error - tripod, mirror lockup, cable release, proper f/stop, etc.</p>

<p>Talking about cropping a 1.6X body image from 20-40% and then printing at 28" wide, I can tell you right away that you are doing way more than the system itself can support. That will get you usable results from a far enough viewing distance, but if you need tack-sharp 300dpi printing at 28" wide, then you are going about it in completely the wrong way, period. Besides which, why crop in the first place? Why not pick a more appropriate perspective and focal length to begin with and use as much of the frame as possible? That will make a much greater difference than switching lenses (and as I said, you're already using one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes, definitely sharper than any of the 50mm lenses).</p>

<p>If you are dead set on using a Rebel and printing as high detail at 28" as possible, I can make one suggestion. Make it a pano. I assume this subject is long and skinny - shoot multiple exposures with the longest axis of your frame oriented along your subject's shortest axis (maximum resolution), and combine the images in post-production. Then you can print a super-high detail image at sizes even greater than 28" long axis.</p>

<p>If you could avoid having to crop the image by 20% to 40% before making the enlargement that would probably give you more of a boost in quality than any amount of money you can sink into a better lens that the 60/2.8 macro or 50/1.8.</p>

<p>Gabriel,<br>

You are undoubtedly right. I can say that user error isn't the issue here (though it usually is in most other aspects of my life). Part of the problem is that I've been shooting the saguaros from too far away because they are behind barbed wire fences. But I know I've got to get in closer (so I'll be buying work boots, gloves, and heavy-duty fence-climbing pants) so I can get exactly what I want in the original image and thus won't have to crop. But my expert advisor also thinks a prime lens may help as well.</p>

<p>You may want a Canon 1DS MK3 with a Sigma 70mm macro (ie: . You can crop that about 45%, and still left with about the same number of pixel as the XTi.</p>

<p>Hi again Mark,</p>

<p>The 60mm macro <em>is</em> a prime lens :-) (and as I already said, sharper than any of the 50mm lenses).</p>

<p>Best of luck,<br /> -Gabriel L.</p>

<p>Gabriel,<br>

You're right again. I don't know what I was thinking except that a macro lens probably wasn't what I wanted since the subject-matter area was broader than what a macro conventionally is. Does that make sense? I am old and losing brain cells at a frightening pace. I did get the best results with that lens but there wasn't enough of what i wanted in the image.</p>

<p>In my view, you are pushing the boundaries of cropped sensor resolution at those print sizes. I know that "maximum print size" is a subjective and relative thing, but if you are <em>regularly</em> making prints that large I think that full-frame would make sense.</p>

<p>Of course, it is also critical to maximize the quality of every step of the process from capture to print if you hope to push cropped sensor (or even FF) to such sizes on a regular basis:</p>

<ul>

<li>Use a tripod.</li>

<li>Use mirror lockup</li>

<li>Use a remote release</li>

<li>Focus very carefully and perhaps double-check the accuracy of your AF system</li>

<li>Consider carefully your aperture choice. On crop you do not want to stop down beyond f/8 if you are printing this large since diffraction blur will decrease resolution. A slightly larger aperture may be better depending upon the lens and your need to get sufficient DOF.</li>

<li>Shoot RAW</li>

<li>Learn how to do fairly sophisticated sharpening in post. There are a number of ways to do this. My system combines an initial smart sharpen layer and an unsharp mask layer. Then I do a final output sharpening process on the flattened file for printing to compensate for the fact that ink spreads on the paper. (And it doesn't spread the same amount for all types of paper...)</li>

</ul>

<p>If you do plan to print this large from crop, your technique for shooting, post, and printing must be very, very good. You'll have a bit more leeway with FF.</p>

<p>There is no reason that I can think of to get a 1DsM3 for what you are shooting. A 5DII should be as good or better for this. But don't go spending money on that - or lenses - until you are certain that you have optimized the rest of the process.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Gabriel,<br>

You continue to be right. I do everything you outline (tripod, remote release, raw, etc.) and have been for awhile now. I use a number of sharpening tools and utilities, and of late I have been oversharpening to try and get what I want, knowing it won't work. My lens question was my last shot before confronting the possibility of a 5D, which I really can't afford.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Some Leica's or Zeiss' 50mm (Summicron 2.0 for example) are probably the best 50mm one can get. With an adaptor, many of them can be used on Canon, even with AF confirmation. However, the new Zeiss' 50mm ZE is on par with Canon's F1.4 base on some prelminary reviews.</p>

<p>For a given focal length and aperture, once the lens exceeds the Nyquist frequency of the sensor, it no longer becomes a limiting factor for the resulting sharpness of the image. In fact, one might say that the lens need only approach this limit before the sensor resolution becomes the predominant factor in sharpness.</p>

<p>Most primes will hit that limit easily at f/8 in the center of the image, even on a high-resolution APS-C sensor. The question then becomes this: if you cannot further increase the resolution of the lens + body, how do you get additional sharpness?</p>

<p>Three basic criteria are required for sharpness:</p>

<ol>

<li>Resolution of the imaging system at chosen settings </li>

<li>Subject and system must be still for the duration of the exposure</li>

<li>Proper illumination of a subject which possesses contrast.</li>

</ol>

<p>The only thing you can still change are the settings of the system. This means you need to get closer to your subject or increase the subject magnification. Ideally, you would want to use a long prime lens, maybe 100/2 or perhaps longer, stopped down to somewhere around f/5.6 to f/8, no further as diffraction starts to become significant. In fact, I would venture to say that for a high pixel density sensor, diffraction may become a problem as early as f/8, as the size of the Airy disk at a given aperture must be evaluated in the context of the size of an individual sensing element.</p>

<p>So my recommendation is to use a longer focal length to increase subject magnification, otherwise you are simply wasting available resolution as you crop down. The drawback is that you must be more judicious and disciplined in your composition. Almost always, if you can't get close enough to your subject to frame it to the desired size, the next best solution is to use a longer focal length, not try to get more sharpness at the focal length you are currently at, then attempt to crop.</p>

<p>Another possibility to gain even more sharpness in your situation is to use an extreme telephoto prime, say in the 200-400mm range, and take images of the subject in sections. Then stitch the images together using a panoramic application like hugin, which can also help restore a rectilinear perspective. The result can be quite impressive if you do it right. But I suspect that this option may be too expensive. Perhaps a few rentals might show you what is possible?</p>

<p><em>"Gabriel,</em><br>

<em>You continue to be right."</em></p>

<p>That last post was Dan's, not mine, but thanks anyway? ;-)</p>

<p>FWIW I would suggest trying the panorama idea before spending money on new equipment. You cannot use it all the time, but for the occasional large print of a long narrow subject it can work well.</p>

<p>My thanks to everyone.</p>

<p>To get a better image quality you need to:<br>

1) use a lens with a focal length that avoids you needing to crop by 20-40 per cent. This could be the EF 100 f2.8 macro or EF 180 f3.5 macro.<br>

2) Use a larger format with more megapixels. This could be a 5D mark II or medium format digital.<br>

This of course assumes you are already using a rock solid tripod, cable release and mirror lockup.</p>

<p>The answer entirely depends on your definition of "the best". Is that sharpness, AF-speed, build-quality, contrast and color reproduction, price to performance ratio, minimum focus distance, maximum aperture ...</p>

<p>For my definition of "the best", it is either the EF 50/1.2L or the EF 50/2.5CM.</p>

 

<p>can you provide an example of the photos you're making?<br>

might help us visualize the situation you face<br>

rather than cropping a 50mm, perhaps a long, sharp prime ( 85 / 135 etc) would fit the bill?<br>

you've mentioned budget, but haven't given an exact price range you're ok with - that would help too</p>

<p>Leica Summicron R 2/50mm would be the best, but not the cheapest. Zeiss also make great lenses but they have a different look. </p>

<p>28" is much for a 10 MP picture as soon as you look at the pciture at unusually short viewing distances. This is probably the case if you look at your TIFFs on your PC monitor. At "normal" viewing distance (the whole picture in your visual field) the image quality should be ok with your equipment as long as there is no error in upscaling the image.<br>

If you intend to produce an extremely detailed 28" picture for close view, the resolution of your camera is the problem. The cheapest way to improve resolution (I assume the cactusses will not move) is to shoot several smaller images (with a longer lens or closer distance) and stitch them together. This is done easily with the PhotoStitch software that came with your camera. A bit cumbersome to shoot and the final composition is not visible while shooting...</p>

<p>1st choose should be Canon 1.2L, excellent in every aspect.<br>

The other 50s got some problems (little or big) that i'll try to summarize:<br>

Canon 1.8 : 5 non rounded blades, the bokeh is not so nice. No usm and no full time focus. Colors are a bit washed and the response to flare is terrible. Pro: sharper than Nikkor 1.4 and 1.8(@90€), usable since f2.2-2.5~, excellent in the 3.5-8 range.<br>

Canon 1.4 : 8 non rounded blades, pleasing bokeh, still not perfect. Almost unusable full open (same as 1.8), similar to the 1.8 but with more accurate and saturated colors, better flare response.<br>

Sigma 1.4 : optically fantastic, usable even at 1.4, pleasing bokeh (maybe some "onion-ring" full open), low vignetting, low CA etc.... 1 big problem, focus accuracy. Even at "normal" focusing distances (meters) u'll notice front/back focus problems, in many reviews it's written that 60/70% of the photos were trashed due to this problem. <br>

I'll say Canon 1.2, Canon 1.4. The best at all and the best price/performance.<br>

Best regards, Luke :-)</p>