How often do you use 50mm 1.8?

[tridakfoto]

I am just about to make the biggest purchase of camera equipment this Friday and

I have to say that deciding between all the choices for lenses and needs is

overwhelming!

 

Here is the issue.

 

I am fairly new to the DSLR world and am in college for photography as well as

looking to start getting out there to gain some hands on experience mainly for

portrait shoots and plan to do weddings next spring 'pro bono' for awhile. Other

interests are landscapes and travel photography.

 

The body will be 1.6x crop.

 

issue -> How often do you use your 50mm 1.8 lens ( or 1.4 etc.) if you have say

the 70-200mm f/4L or a lens such as the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L or Tamron 28-75mm

f/2.8 lenses? They all seem to have great bokeh and do an excellent job with

portrait shots so would one really need to have the 50mm 1.8 or 1.4?

 

Just curious because for the price of the 50mm 1.8 it's a steal either way but I

wonder if I will actually use it or if it will become a paperweight?

 

Any comments would be helpful, thank you.

 

PS I have chosen the following lenses:

Canon 70-200mm f/4L

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

Sigma 10-20 4-5.6

 

and maybe the 50mm 1.8? The body is the XTi for now and I do plan to get a FF

eventually after more experience.

[aziel_epilepsia]

Hi Jay, I use a 5D, and I hardly use the 50mm . I prefer 85mm and 35mm perspectives on my camera. Since you are interested in portraits, 50mm would be good on a 1.6x crop body (at least in terms of field of view). The perspective of a 50mm on 1.6x is NOT the same as an 85mm on 1.0x, but similar field of view is a step in the right direction. f/4 and f/2.8 don't give the small depth of field the f/1.8 would give.

[tridakfoto]

Thanks Aziel

 

I knew that about the 85mm and seeing as I plan to buy a FF body within the next 6-12 months the 85mm was going to be one of my first purchases for portraits which is why i'm not sure I will end up using my 50mm too often.

[ronald_moravec1]

Buy a 24/70 instead. It will give you all the portrait lengths, 50/70, plus some wide angle.

 

I would rarely use it for portraits as it is to short for most of the ones I do.

[picpocket]

Not very often, but would still recommend it for what it's worth for its price. It's the cheapest high quality purchase that you can make

 

With 17-50 f/2.8, you may usually not need it, unless you are out to shoot portraits at that focal length (remember 50/1.8 is already stopped down at 2.8 and is very sharp as compared to 17-50 wide open)

 

But the biggest kill with this lens is when you dont have enough light. There is simply no substitute then in the list of lenses you propose to buy. As an example, this gallery of mine would not have been possible with any of my other lenses:

http://pictures.ashish-pragya.com/DragonAndPhoenix.html

 

Another note: I see both Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 in your list. I don't think thats a good plan, because the 28-75 doesnt seem to be optically far superior to the 17-50. So then would you be changing lenses just to shoot at 60mm? I think 17-50 and 70-200 are sufficient to cover up the whole range. You dont need to cover for every mm, specially since 60mm is just like 50mm cropped just a tiny bit (or even 70mm may do for that shot)

[lesroll]

I got an XTi last Christmas and until last week, the only two lenses I really ever used on it were my 50mm 1.8 (everything but macro) and my 100mm 2.8 macro (macro and tele). The 50 is a fabulous lens, and for the price... It's been my everything lens for 4 years now.

 

I would offer some advice, though. If you aren't sure yet what you need or want, I wouldn't buy more than 1 lens (maybe 2) right now. Buy the XTi and the 50mm 1.8, and shoot with that for the next week or month. Once you see what that does for you, then you can decide what else you might need or want. My guess is that you'll find yourself thinking "This would be great if I had such-and-such focal length / f-stop / lens." This will let you REALLY figure out where to put your money. (I bought most of my gear at one time, and have since lived to regret part of it. I could definitely have used my money more wisely; Alas, Hindsight is 20/20.)

 

The lenses you list have a great deal of overlap. I might suggest skipping the 10-20 unless you have a specific purpose in mind for it, and maybe looking at a Macro (the 100mm 2.8 is a great lens, and does well for portraits too) or the 85 1.8, which seems to get good press as a portrait lens. I just bought the EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS, which is working out nicely for what I wanted to do with it. (I've had it less than a week, though, so time will tell.)

 

IMO, the way to go is the 50mm 1.8 until you've figured out "in the field" what you need, and then look at some primes.

 

Good Luck. - les

[digitmstr]

The lens I can't live without si the 24-70L - if I only had to have ONE lens, that would be it...

[gdanmitchell]

A 50mm lens is a niche lens on a crop sensor camera, at least for the vast majority of

photographers. It is a good portrait length short telephoto on a crop body and you can't

beat the price for a lens of quite decent quality.

 

So, if your goal is to get a short tele inexpensive but quite decent portrait prime, the go

for it. If you need a more versatile lens - as I suspect you would for most of the uses you

described - don't regard this as a must have lens.

 

If you really want to try out a short tele like this, the 50mm f/1.8 is certainly a decent and

inexpensive way to do so.

 

Dan

 

(I shoot a 5D and I own a 50mm f/1.4, which would be roughly equivalent to putting a

31mm f/1.4 on your camera. I like the lens a lot - it is very sharp and so forth - but it is

probably one of my least used lenses.)

[fmueller]

With film I used my 50mm lens all the time. I'd say it was 80% of the time on the camera. With my Rebel XT I use it rarely, but I like the results I get when I use it - plenty enough to justify the price!

 

The truth it, only time can tell how often you use your 50mm if you have one. How much other people use it is really no indication for you, because everybody does different stuff. My hunch is that you would like the 50mm on a crop body a lot, because you do portrait work. 85mm is and was THE focal length for portraits on FF, and on you camera the 50mm will behave like an 80mm on FF, which for all intends and purposes is the same as 85mm.

 

If at some stage you went FF you would have to replace the 50mm by an 85mm if you wanted to keep a prime lens for portrait purposes, but the 50mm focal length on FF has been loved by many for decades, so it's not unlikely that you might like it as well ;-)

[uncle_ziba]

Buy the 50 mm and skip the bulky complex zooms... May be get 50/f1.4. Nobody needs that many lenses for learning... Did your college seriously tell you to buy all that glass?

[Matt Laur]

Just remember that the f/1.8 will get you a shot in roughly <i>half</i> the available light of a 2.8. There are times when that $100 can earn its keep in just one frame.

[jack_jordan]

Hi Jay,

 

I'll jump right in try to answer your questions and mabey give you a little advise.

 

How often to I use the 50mm F/1.8, not very often honestly. Although it does work well for night shots and that is where I have usually used it. I took some great shots in Las Vegas and in Shanghai, China at the Bund. Anyway, on the XTi, for for anykind of landscape it simply si wide enough, for actions I have found the focus is a little on the slow side lastly for portraits is does ok, but not stellar. With all fairness though even given its weeknesses it still is a steal at $80-$90 USD and would buy it again if I lost or damaged this one. On the other hand, if portraits or weddings is what you want it for (although a 35mm lens would be better suited for weddings in my opinion) I would steer you to the 50mm f/1.4 USM, al in all it is a much better lens.

 

No for the 70-200 f/4 L, This is one of my favorites lens I have. The focus is lightning fast, razor sharp focus and a wonderful bokeh in the right settings. Although for weddings the f/4 is proabaly a little slow for available light weddings unless the wedding hall/Church is very well lite. For this application the 70-200 f/2.8 L would be the better option. For portraits wither one would work well but the f/2.8 again would be of choice as the bokeh would be a little easier to obtain. I personal opted for the f/4 since many of my shots are in bright daylite or with a flash and I love it. Even if I purchased the f/2.8 I would have a hard time selling the f/4, its that good (sharper than the f/2.8 also)

 

Moving on, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, what are you planning on using it for? 17mm shots or 24mm and up shots? At 24mm plus this lens performs very very well but the same can not be said for wide angle especially when shooting wide open *f/2.8). At 17mm (at f/2.8)the chromatic aberrations (color shadows at harsh contrast transitions)are horrid. Unless you like spending a lot of time in PS steer clear of this lens for wide angle/wide open use. Now if the 24mm and up area is where you will shooting then this lens does very well. Personally I use the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS which out performs the Tamron in pretty much every area, except fot the price. The Canon lens is almost 3x more thant the Tamron.

 

Lastly the Sigma 10-20. The Sigma is a good lens, no reason not to buy it. I like the Canon EF-s 10-22mm better personaly for a number of reasons, better build (opinion), slightly better resolution, less CA's (although nit by much) and its a faster lens, F/3.5-4.5 vs. 4-5.6. The price is pretty close.

 

I dont have any experiance with the 24-70 L lens so I can not comment on it but everything I hear and see says its great.

 

I hope my input will help a little. I you havn't already take a look at www.photozone.de , his reviews are among the best out thier.

 

Best of luck!

 

Jack

[tridakfoto]

Very good advice!

 

Zibadun, my college never told me to buy all that glass, I just have the extra money to go out and buy it but after reading what everyone has stated here I think I need to once again go over the list and re-evaluate.

 

Everyone gave great advice and I think what I may do is look at my choices again and start off with maybe 2 lenses and go from there. Perhaps the 17-50mm Tamron and the Canon 70-200mm L lens.

 

My reason for the Sigma 10-20 was because I like the effect of the wide angle lenses for some landscape work BUt I honestly believe I may use it a few times and it will be in my bag after that the majority of the time.

 

As for the 50-70mm gap I guess I should take everyones advice and just feel out what I will need and how I plan to go forth with my photography and decide from there what I should do.

 

I know many will say get the 24-70L and 70-200 2.8L IS and I have considered it but I feel if I start out with L lenses I may never turn back and I'll be one broke photographer ;)

 

So maybe the 17-50 2.8 and the Canon 70-200 but i'm not sure if maybe I should just go for the 2.8 (non IS) instead of the f/4. Figure it may come in handy if I do use it in low light.

 

Thanks so much everyone! I really appreciate this site and the help everyone gives.

 

Jason

[tridakfoto]

Thanks alot Jack, very good advice and I am going to truly consider it!

[gdanmitchell]

Following up on an early post (whose suggestion that you just get the 50mm I strongly

disagree with) I also wondered about a "new" DSLR photographer running out and getting

all those lenses at once - especially since you are not at a point yet, it would seem, at

which you've quite figured out what lenses perform what tasks in your photography.

 

While I don't agree that the 50mm alone would be a good starting lens (and I also

disagree with the notion that starting with a prime is necessarily a Good Thing), getting a

full kit of lenses right off the bat doesn't actually make a lot of sense.

 

I think it is better start a bit slower, get the highest quality stuff that is appropriate for

what you do, acquire a lot of experience, determine what lenses actually make the best

sense for you, and then begin to acquire them over time.

 

Just because you "just have the extra money to go out and buy" lenses it doesn't follow

that you should necessarily spend it on them right away. Why not hang onto some of the

money for awhile, do some photography and carefully consider what will work best? When

you are really certain of the role each lens acquisition will play in your work you'll have the

funds available to make smart purchases.

 

I'm not going to tell you what lens to start with, because there are many factors I don't

know about that could affect your choice. However, most people would probably put a

premium on covering the "wide to short tele" range fairly early on - this is more or less the

16 or 17 or 18mm to 50 or 55mm range. Frankly, you could initially do most of what

you've describe with a good lens in this range.

 

Take care,

 

Dan

[tridakfoto]

Dan ( and others) I think many of you have made quite a bit of sense and looking at what I was about to spend (over $4000) for a first purchase was a little extreme.

 

I have narrowed my purchase down quite a bit right now and am sticking with the Xti for experience and believe it will be a decent back up eventually to a FF.

 

Going with the 580Ex flash and the battery grip as well as I have already used the Xti and didn't like how it felt small in my hands but I did enjoy the camera for what it offered. Other things like memory cards are a given ...

 

As for the lens choices now. I know for a fact I will start out with learning portrait photography in more detail and will continue with my landscapes (nature) shots. I do love macro but felt I would wait until after the new year to purchase a quality lens specifically for this.

 

I feel I will go for the 70-200mm 2.8L (non IS) though I have heard the f/4 is sharper it is a tough choice.

 

As for the wide - tele choice I haven't fully decided on this at the moment but I know for a fact I will not go for the kit lens as I have used it and disliked it. So back to B&H I go to think some more ...

 

Much appreciated!

[zigzag]

One last thing then - two years ago I was in your shoes and I compromised. Now, 2 years later I am looking to upgrade - could say I had a good run because I had all the common focal lengths and I got to play and learn with them. Now, I have a policy: 'buy the best or nothing' and 'be FF compatible'. That's a luxury position you can take when you have the basics. <br><br>

 

I have the 50mm f/1.8 for my 30D and in those cases in low light when I have needed it, it has paid for itself - I now keep it on my old film camera and use it all the time with that - because it's EF. At least you're not going to make the biggest mistake I made - not getting any f/2.8 or better capability.

[trothwell]

On a 1.6x crop camera, pretty often. I no longer have such a camera, but probably used the 50mm lens 1/3 of the time or so, maybe more. It was a little long, but had good image quality and was fast.

 

On a full-frame camera, a 50mm is definitely my most used lens. If I could only have one lens, there's no doubt in my mind it would be a 50mm.

 

Of course, your mileage may vary. :-)

[William Michael]

To answer the specific question: my 50mmF1.4 is my standard lens on my 20D, and as such is on it most of the time.

 

(N.B. I am NOT saying the 50mm is a `standard lens`).

 

This lens set up suits MY needs; not necessarily yours.

 

I think there is excellent advice suggesting you take a bit slower attack, on the purchase of your lenses.

 

Do not let your enthusiasm, which is fantastic, lead you to buy all this `stuff` only to find out you do not need (use) half of it.

 

Two other points mentioned I also agree with:

 

. 50mm FL on an APS-C body is a bit `niche` for most photographers

 

. the 50mm F1.8 is great value for money.

 

WW

[bluphoto]

I don't use my 50/1.8 that much now that I've got the 24-70. That said, if the 50/1.4 was updated to the same spec as the 85/1.8 then I might cnosider it (right now I don't think it has the same type of USM motor, menaing that Full-Time-Manual focus isn't as nice to use. I wouldn't buy the 1.4 as it is just now.

 

Don't get me wrong, the 50mm definitely has it's place in my bag, but "its place" tends to be more of an expensive dust-cap for my backup body.

 

I still fish it out once in a while though, when I need the 1.8 aperture. Depends on your type of photography how often you need that. I don't need it that much, with having the 50mm/2.8 focal length/aperture already covered, but you'll need it more if your other 50mm length only makes it down to, say, 3.5 or 4 or something like that.

 

cheers,

Guy

[richard_oleson]

the 50/1.8 is all I've had on my XTi lately.

[jim_larson1]

William and Dan are on the money.

 

The 50/1.8 is in my lens arsenal as a portrait lens. I don't take that many portraits.

 

If you are starting out, get a decent range normal zoom. A 24-70, or a 17-85, or something like that. With a normal zoom in hand, you will soon figure out if you want WIDE or TELEPHOTO, and what need you have for image stabilization.

 

The next biggest thing to get is a decent flash unit. If you are brand new to DSLR's. . .the 580EX is overkill. 430EX is VERY capable.

 

Buy a body, one zoom, and a flash. Then expand from there after three monthes.

[terry_smith2]

I have a 50/1.8 original version, 50/1.4, two different 28-70s, 50-200 L and 70-200/2.8 and the 85/1.2 plus a number of others. The two 50s get little use but I'm glad to know that they are around for the few times I need them. I have a D30, EOS 3 and 7n so I use both sensor sizes. I much prefer the 85 for portraits, it's stunning. The 85/1.8 is in second place in this department but I mostly use various zooms as I don't do that much people shooting.

 

If it's not too personal, where are you located? I'm related to some Landrys. The name comes from a small city in France if no one ever told you.

[bueh]

I like the angle-of-view of a short telephoto lens. It's not too tight but it still does a great job of separating the subject from the background or limit the frame to the important details. Regardless of format, this "one-hand-spread view" is my most used lens option. My main photography is portraiture and event.

 

On my 1.6x crop body the 50mm does this job for me. It is by far my most used lens, before the 20mm wide angle (which offers also a nice field-of-view) and various telephotos.

 

Besides the obvious excellent optical quality, it has other, even more important advantages: It is lightweight and easy to hand-hold (highly important!), fast (very important), small and inobstrusive (important). Zoom lenses, especially those big professional ones, are lacking in each of these categories.

[edwardsaltau]

i use it heaps! I do make an effort to use this lens though. I believe that using a 50mm as much as possible will make me a better photographer. It's just too easy to reach for the wide angle!

i have avoided getting a wide to short tele zoom for this reason.