1st lens to buy?

[angelina_stahl]

So im a beginning photographer and want to buy a lens...i like to take portraits. which one would be good?

[michael_ziegler2]

What camera do you have? Gererally the 50mm 1.8 is a recommended first lens.

[m_barbu1]

Also, how many people do you photograph at one time, in your portraits, and how far away from them can you be?

[angelina_stahl]

i have the canon rebel xt...not the best, but good enough. well because im just starting off,

its usually whoever will pose for me, so not too many people. And im not too far away.

[gdanmitchell]

Your XT is fine for what you intend to do. It can produce excellent results.

 

If you are doing traditional portraits (e.g. - 85mm lens on full frame) you can probably use

the very inexpensive (but quite good) Canon 50mm f/1.8 as a starting lens. When you see

the price you won't believe it can be a good lens, but check around and you'll find out that

it is.

 

This will not be a very flexible lens for other purposes. If you intend to do other sorts of

not-portrait work you will likely need to supplement this lens with others - probably

including something wider.

 

Dan

[angelina_stahl]

thanks...so, i've been hearing good things about the 50 1.4 too. what would be the

difference? will the depth of field be better?

[michael_ziegler2]

The build quality on the 1.4 is significantly better than the plastic of the 1.8, but the price is much higher.

The depth of field from 1.8 and up will be the same. At i.4 it will be smaller.

[josh_ross1]

On your camera the 50mm is a better choice than the 85mm because of the crop factor, but don't get the 1.8. It's really not a very good lens. Now for the price it's excellent, but when you pay ~$75 for a lens you don't have to get much to make it worth it. http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/ and there is also a comparison out there where a shot was taken of some jif peanut butter with the 1.4 and the 1.8 and you can really tell how unsharp the 1.8 is. Sorry I can't find that comparison though.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have the 50/1.4, and like it a lot, though I'm not much of a portrait shooter; I got it when I had a film body, on which it's a standard lens. Yes, it's better than the 50/1.8 in a number of ways (see the standard photo.net reviews of each one, plus the comparison between them), but the differences aren't anywhere near as significant as the difference in cost is, so the question is whether it's worth the extra money for you.</p>

 

<p>No offense, but you're kinda new at this, and I think it makes more sense for you to get the 50/1.8 at this point. It's dirt cheap, small, light, and very sharp; it's the best value in Canon's lens lineup. If you find that 50 doesn't suit your portrait needs very well (it's at the wide end of the traditional portraiture range, which is great for some types of portraiture and not great for others), you can sell it. Even if you lose a big chunk of what you paid for it, it's not that much money; the thing only costs about USD75 brand new. Heck, if you use it as a paperweight, you haven't lost a lot of money. If you find that 50 really does it for you and you want to upgrade to the 50/1.4, go ahead; again, you won't lose a lot of money on the 50/1.8, whereas if you'd started with the 50/1.4 and maybe discovered it wasn't the right lens for you, you'd probably lose more when selling it than the entire cost of the 50/1.8.</p>

[ericreagan]

<i>So im a beginning photographer and want to buy a lens . . . </i>

<p>

How about a good book first?

<p>

Get <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FUnderstanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Updated%2Fdp%2F0817463003%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1180631788%26sr%3D8-1&tag=cyclingshots-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">Understanding Exposure</a> by Bryan Peterson. It'll be the best $15 you spend on photography.

<p>

Cheers!

[anson_ko]

I would say 28-135IS or the kit lens that comes with XTI/400D. This is the entry level camera+lens. Costco has some demos, check them out.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>It'll be the best $15 you spend on photography.</i></p><p>Better than a <a href="https://www.photo.net/pay.adp?item=subscription&qty=12&beneficiary=3672381">subscription</a>? I know it's actually $25, but you have to spend $15 to spend $25. ;-)

[robert lee]

"...i like to take portraits."

 

Get the 50mm f1.8. I use it often (along with the 85mm f1.8) on the XT for portraits.

[francois_gauthier]

For portrait , a fast 'short tele' lens is the best . Short tele because if you get too close , it won't be flattering (a mather of perspective than you will learn some day) .

 

Usually it is in the 85 to 135 area . Don't forget the 'cropping factor'. You multiply by roughly 1.5 , so a 50 on your camera sees like a 75 on 'full frame' model. If most shots are indoors, a 50 is better than a longer focal lens but if you go outside, you can be further from your subjects with a longer lens.

 

Fast = large aperture for having a small deepth of field (in focus zone). You want this to be able to make a soft background wich is better in most cases.

 

Eather the 50 F1.8 and the 50 F1.4 will do. The difference in aperture is not significant for your use but the 1.4 is better constructed and more silent because it is USM.

 

If you really want a better lens, the 85 F1.8 USM is it (better than both 50mm models) but it's 130mm equivalent for your camera makes it too often too long indoors.

 

If you get one of those 3, you will likely also need a wider lens like a 24mm for general use.

 

Most people get a zoom to cover an array of situations and many 'includes' 50 and 85. But unless you pick a big fast, heavy and expensive F2.8 constant pro lens, you will get the right focal lenght but not the large aperture to blur enough the background.

 

In this case, many pick the 50 F1.8 as secondary or specialise lens for low light or small dof situations. Because it is cheap , small and light, it is a nice complement to a zoom slower than F2.8 at the long end.

 

But when a main lens, they usually go for the 50 F1.4 USM or better 85 F1.8 USM.

 

If you are not sure, the 50 F1.8 ' small price is a plus if you move to something else lather.

[austin_williams2]

Everyone else has said it. There is no better bang for your buck than the 50 1.8. Go buy and shoot. You'll love it. Enjoy.

[vivek]

Since you asked about the 50/1.4 and someone mentioned better build quality, I will share my experience with you.

 

I have had both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8. I currently have the 50/1.4. The APPARENT build quality of the 50/1.4 is definitely better with the metal mount, FT manual focus etc. However, just recently, the AF mechanism conked for no apparent reason. The lens was not shaken, dropped or banged. I researched this on here and good old google and came up with many many people who have had this issue. Can be fixed for about 110 USD, but I would definitely disagree that the build quality is good. In my experience, the quality of the 60$ plastic fantastic (50/1,8) is very good and it never died on me.

 

-- V

[jon_austin]

I've read more accounts similar to Vivek Khanzode's than I care to recall. Which is why I bought the 50/2.5 compact macro 4 years ago, and why it will continue to serve as my only 50mm lens unless/until Canon updates the 50/1.4 with ring USM.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>i have the canon rebel xt...not the best, but good enough. well because im just starting off, its usually whoever will pose for me, so not too many people. And im not too far away.</i></p><p>Well, that's non-specific. 50mm is a good low-light option for portraits, but you may not have sufficient room to maneuver. You might want to spend a little time with a focal length calculator to determine if you'll have enough working distance for 50mm on your XT (equivalent of 80mm on a full 35mm sensor).</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Yup, the mechanical bits in the focusing hardware on the 50/1.4 are not robust. Problems here primarily happen to people who make extensive use of FT-M. It's best to regard FT-M on this lens as something to be used occasionally, as opposed to on lenses with ring USM, where FT-M has proven to be reliable. If you don't use FT-M on this lens, your likelihood of having the focusing hardware die on you seems to be greatly reduced.</p>

 

<p>The 50/1.8 II also has its Achilles heel in the area of build quality; lots of people have had the lens literally fall apart on them. Some of them prompted this by dropping it; others had it happen during normal use.</p>

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

I've had very good luck with a 50/1.4 for a number of years now. It's been dropped, kicked, punched, banged around and generally abused, first on film cameras and now on digital. No problems.

 

I have *not* used the 50/1.8 and cannot make head-to-head comparisons. When I was looking, all that I found were the later, all-plastic version II of the 1.8, with a plastic bayonet mount, and that put me off.

 

And, I also looked for USM and FT-M. In case you don't know, that's "full-time manual" focusing or overriding the AF by turning the focus of the lens manually, and is recommended by Canon only for USM lenses. This is because non-USM lenses will quickly be damaged if the AF switch isn't turned off before manually focusing. At the time I bought, I didn't know about the concerns with the 50/1.4 and must have just been lucky that the lens has survived well.

 

However, I gotta say with the viewfinders on the 1.6X D-SLRs today (with their smaller, non-interchangeable focus screens), FT-M or any other kind of manual focusing is pretty darned hard to do, especially if working in less than ideal lighting conditions. So personally I find I rely more on the AF system, and tend to do FT-M a lot less that I did with my EOS 3s.

 

In addition, on full-frame film cameras where it was a "normal" lens my 50/1.4 didn't simply get as heavy use as it does now as a "short, fast tele" on a 1.6X D-SLRs. That's only because I've never have been much of a "normal" lens user, usually opt for something slightly wider or longer.

 

I'd second the 85/1.8 as a superb portrait lens, too, even though my personal copy is ancient. It's very useful for tight shots, close up, or head & shoulders from a little further away.

 

28/1.8 or 35/2 can come in darned handy as a "group portrait" or full length portrait lens in tighter situations (I have the former, but not the latter since it lacks USM and FT-M). The 28/1.8, with or without lens hood is also one of the most compact and unobtrusive of Canon's reasonably fast, USM lenses.

[whwhitejr]

Angelina, did you get the kit lens with your XT? If so what focal length do you use it at for your portraits. (when you shoot what does it say 18mm,30mm, 55mm etc.) That will tell you where to start looking for a prime. I like the 85mm f1.8 on my 30D which would be the same equivalent focal length as your XT with about the same results. I had the auto focus problem with my 50mm f1.4 and never had a problem with the 50f1.8 that it replaced. I have had the 85mm for a couple of years and it has worked fine. Regards, Bill

[mwaks]

There seems to be lots of prime lens fans here. However for a beginner with an XT, I would suggest the 17-85 EF-S. I think its the most bang for the buck in one lens with IS. It can handle portraits and wide angle group shots.

[robert lee]

The problem with the 17-85 EF-S is that it's slow at f4-f5.6. Controlling depth of field is an important avenue of creative expression, especially in portraiture. You'd be giving up much of that flexibility here, especially if it's necessary to close down a stop to get adequate sharpness for the in-focus section of the image.

[axel-cordes]

Hello Angelina, you may have a walk through the 'learn' section of photo.net (http://www.photo.net/learn/making-photographs/lens) I really can recommend it as a starting step. I never bought a book - but read all this on photo.net. Photo.net is initially dedicated to be a help for beginners to learn. Hope it'll help you as much as it did for me. Looking forward to your uploads. Happy shooting. Regards Axel

[jon_austin]

Alan: it's encouraging to read your positive feedback regarding the durability of your 50/1.4, and it's an interesting point that this lens' survivability might be linked to the amount of FT-M focusing to which any given sample is subjected. (Still doesn't compel me to buy one, though.)

 

However, I would question your assertion in the following passage:

 

"... 'full-time manual' focusing or overriding the AF by turning the focus of the lens manually, and is recommended by Canon only for USM lenses. This is because non-USM lenses will quickly be damaged if the AF switch isn't turned off before manually focusing."

 

My understanding is that the only Canon lenses that support FT-M *are* the USM models. I have one non-USM lens, the Canon 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro, and when that lens' focussing switch is set to AF, the manual focussing ring rotates freely, with no impact on the focus setting. In other words, it appears to be disengaged completely, and has neither any impact on focussing, nor on the structural integrity of the lens' AF mechanism. Of course, when the focussing switch is set to MF, this ring engages to provide manual focussing, and AF is disabled.

 

If I've misunderstood, I would appreciation correction / clarification.