Is Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II worth buying for landscapes?

[chriss1]

Hi,<br>

I have started photography with Canon EOS 300d film camera and 35-80

mm Canon lens. After buying a 20-35 mm Canon wide-zoom I am still not

so happy of images quality. I would ask if Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II lens

could be a good choice for landscapes and getting sharper images? The

advantages are low price and filter diameter (the same as my older

35-80 lens), but I worry that 50 mm will not be enough to take

"space". What do you think?

[ben conover]

Hi, the 50mm prime is very sharp indeed, but it is not really wide enough for landscapes. I think you might need a wide prime. Otherwise just use your 20-35 mm Canon wide-zoom but definitely use a tripod, that will make all the difference. If the Canon EOS 300d film camera has mirror lock up, use it for landscales. You might even be able to use a shutter relase cable too. Also, you can use very slow film like Efke 25, for great detail and tonality.

 

Cheers.

[swenson]

Buy the 50mm and stitch a couple of frames together.

[christopher_bibbs]

Take your old 35-80, set it to 50mm, and be the judge yourself. I think it is too narrow, but your landscapes may be vastly different.

[dogbert]

IMO there are many factors that go to making landscape photography, the lens being a relatively minor consideration. First of all good light is essential. Second, choice of film. Third stop down and use a tripod. At f8-f11 there is not a huge difference between the best and worst lenses. If your shooting at f11 on a tripod in good light and still not happy with your images the problems are probably not lens related.

 

The 50 f.8 is a bargain lens and quite useful, but probably not the first lens one would think of when choosing a lens for lanscape photography.

[cfimages]

Not an essential landscape lens, but it's still a tack sharp f1.8 prime that has many other uses. And at only $70, there's no excuse not to buy one.

 

Also you say 300d film camera. AFAIK - the EOS300 is film, the 300D is digital. So which do you have?

[fernando lopez]

The 50 1.8 is not good for landscape photography IMO, when used on a digital body with a 1.3 or 1.6 multiplication factor. I'd rather use it for close range portraiture on a digital body. The bokeh is superb in portraits.

[chriss1]

right Craig, I did a mistake, my camera is >Canon 300<. I read in some articles for beginners that they should take first a 50 mm 1.4 or 1.8 lens (for landscapes!). I don't understand, why this one, maybe because of optical quality?

[pboden]

The 50mm 1.8 is a very sharp and light weight lens. While this lens may not be wide enough for some landscape work, it might help you focus more on the key elements of your composition due to the smaller field of view.

A common mistake that I've made when using wider angled lenses is to include too much in my composition, therefore losing focus on the elements that originally drew my eye to the scene.

Do what someone else recommended, and go into the field with your 35-80 set at 50mm. See how you like it.

[dogbert]

The 50 mm focal length on a film camera provides a "normal" field of view - one that approximates what our eyes see, so it is consdiered a tradtional lens for learning the basics of photogprahic compostion without getting caught up with vaiable focal lengths of zooms. Students often learn slr photogrpahy with such a lens. This is probably what the articles you have read are referring to. Personally I think you can learn on any lens, and judging by your portfolio you are already well beyond needing to learn the basics.

 

Actually after seeing your portfolio, I am suprised that you are asking this question.

[eos 10 fan]

I have zooms covering 17mm to 200mm and a 1.4x TC plus a 50/1.4 and I shoot film.

 

I shoot mostly landscapes... at anything from 17mm to 280mm (YES!, landscapes at 280mm)... It just depends on what my mood is and what the scene is... if I am close to 50mm I'll usually switch to the prime as I know it's a better lens than my mid zoom...

 

So I say: 'Buy the 50/1.8!'

 

--

[JeffOwen]

I used to use a lens of 50mm focal length and stich the images. Now I use the 10-22mm lens and have less hassle. The stiching method however can produce excellent results so long as you follow good practices.

1- Use a tripod to keep the lens horizontal.

2- Try to pivot about the lens not your body.

3- Put camera in portrait mode.

4- Have plenty of overlap between frames.

5- Finally and most importantly use the same exposure and focus settings for each frame otherwise you will have your work cut out in PS.

[ky2]

There is no "absolute" focal length range applicable for landscape photography. The 50 is a very effective lens, and a cheap one to. It's worth buying, period, for landscape and otherwise.

[lee_carruthers]

The 50mm is a moderate telephoto on your camera. I myself use telephoto lenses up to 400mm for my landscape work. It is a myth that wide angle lenses are the only solution for landscapes. You can use the 50 to pick out details and to compress perspective in your pictures.

 

If you can, compare the quality of your 35-80 to the 50 to see if it's worth it to you. Many cheap lenses make excellent photos at f8.

[awindsor]

On a 300 film camera the 50 is not a moderate telephoto it is normal lens. However I agree that you do not need wide angle lenses to compose landscape. In fact many of my favourite landscape images use the compression effect of telephotos to stack trees or mountains. Wide angles are hard to compose with. Too often you get too much empty foreground. Cropping the foreground can give you wide panoramas at the expense of film area. I think stitching images is a good approach and the lens I use for stitching was the 50/1.8.

[awindsor]

Sorry I editted my post and confused things. The lens I used for stitching on film was a 50/1.8. I often go with the 17-40/4L now for stitching since the crop factor means the 50/1.8 requires more shots on my 20D than on film to achieve the angle of coverage and I don't need that many megapixels.

[John Crowe]

Thank-you Yaron! Well said. I even use 200mm and 400mm lenses for landscape "portraits".

 

 

At $70 you cannot go wrong with a 50/1.8. The 20-35 should perform reasonably, perhaps try 100 ASA film, or even Velvia 50, with a tripod and with the aperture closed to f8 to f11. Use the self timer if you don't have mirror lock up or an electronic release. Good luck!

[dogbert]

"Thank-you Yaron! Well said. I even use 200mm and 400mm lenses for landscape "portraits"."

 

I don't think anyone ever meant to imply that you could not take a landscape shot with a 50 mm lens. Of course you can take a landscape picture with any lens including the $80000 1200 f5.6L, or even a pinhole through a body cap. (Canon actually use a landscape shot to demonstrate the virtues of the 1200L in the EF lensworks book (though I doubt that is its main use). I think the point is that if buying only one prime to do landscape work a 24, 28, or 35 would probably be more useful than a 50 or a 400L. If covering landscape with two primes I would still go for a 24mm or 28mm and 85mm or 100 mm, than a 50mm.

 

That is not to say that a 50mm f1.8 is not useful and also a good buy.

[johnb]

Chris<br>

Like others have said here, any lens will do. It's really up to the photographer. However the wider the better for landscape photos (for me). <br>

In my film days my 28mm prime was my landscape lens, a 50mm would not be wide enough for me. However the 50mm are some of the best lenses optically. Also the 50mm f/1.8 is one of Canon lowest cost lenses that are still sharp (to my eyes).<br><br>

If I were you and could afford it I would try to get a wider prime lens for landscape shots.<br>

<br>

Good Luck :+)

[chriss1]

Thank everyone for valuable opinions, my money is limited, and comparing to 50 mm 1.8: EF 28 mm 2.8 costs twice and EF 20 mm 2.8 thrice! When I paid away big amount on 20-35 mm I wouldn't pay the same price for 20 mm. Although I learned that having no-zoom lens means getting better images. I believed because I can complain of dark and unsharp photos from 35-80. And one of famous National Geographic photographer says that you don't have to shot landscapes with widest lens, he has done great shots with 50 mm (for ex.) and moving back. I use my zooms with strong tendency to choose radical focal lenght (ex. - using 35-80 I usually take with 35 or 80 mm, rarely with between them) so no-zoom could be quite good to combine more how to set the camera.

[dogbert]

Chris

 

Sure go out an buy the 50f1.8. It is a bargain and resticting yourself to one focal length could challenge you in a positive way. But that fact that you always use you zoom at either end kind of tells me something.

 

Unsharp photos may be a lens problem, but dark photos are most likely an exposure/light problem. Good light is important for landscape photograhhy and the best lens is useless if the light is crap.

[bens]

don't forget canon 35/2 and 24/2.8. both excellent lenses too. more than the 50 though, which will be the finest 80 dollars you ever spend in your photographic life, whatever you take pictures of with it. until you drop it.

[chriss1]

I would take this one - 24 mm 2.8, but too expensive - 859 PLN = 252 USD .

[digitmstr]

I echo the fact that wide angles are NOT the only lenses for landscapes. Infact, I'd day the opposite can be true.

 

Compressed landscapes for example, require telephotos. There is no rule to landscape photography, like there's no rule as to which lens to use in portraits photography.

[jim_simon3]

50mm is a good lens for a great number of landscape shots. You'll have to think more about where you are standing, and end up moving around more than a zoom. I think that is part of why the advice about learning with the 50mm, as it may make you think more critically about the relationship between where you are and what you are photographing. I'm looking at some 30 year old pictures I took with a Zuiko 50mm at Glacier National Park and I still love them. I did have to hike around for the framing I wanted, but they are likely better framed than many zoom landscapes I've taken since. I would still take the advice above and set the 35-80 to f8 or f11 put it on a tripod and see if the images aren't sharp. I assume you have a lens hood as it certainly helps my photos.