Canon 50mm 1.8 users please.

[winn]

I own it and it was great for what I originally purchased it for: portraits and Prom pictures. It is good for indoor family shots (although it is sometimes too long on my 1.6 crop factor camera). The one shortcoming I have encountered with it was indoor sports (basketball)- the aperture was fast enough, but it did not focus fast enough.

[digitmstr]

>>can you folks tell me why I should have one? <<

 

I can't. You either need a 50 or you don't. If you do need a 50mm this lens is a very good one which also happens to be a super-deal at current US prices.

[alanrusso]

Sometimes, you can over think these things. I had a range of zoom lenses with my Rebel, and all my friends told me I'd never regret having a 50mm prime. I didn't get it at first, but for the $80 for the f/1.8, I figured I'd heed their advice and try it. Without infusing the tale with too much drama, I think it was from that point forward that I started to become anything more than a hobbyist with enough of a photographic vocabulary to impress non-photographers. There is something about having to zoom with your feet that lets you experiment with camera angles, where with a zoom lens you'd just frame and shoot. <p><p\> I've since upgraded to a 5D and the f/1.4, and despite now having several thousands of dollars invested in 3 other L lenses - I find I have the 50mm on the camera the most often. Experimenting with DOF at these open apertures makes everyday shooting creative and fun. <p><p\> If photography isn't your profession - isn't that the point? <p><p\> Some of the 50mm shots I like the best are here: <p><p\> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy/sets/72157604142186448/

[g dan mitchell]

BTW, two notes about my earlier comment:

 

First, I wrote: "I cheap lens you don't need..." This seems to be the Day of the Typo (or maybe the Month of the Typo) for me...

 

I meant to write: "A cheap lens you don't need..."

 

Second, don't misinterpret my comment to imply that a 50mm prime is a worthless lens. I own one (the f/1.4 version) and find important uses for it on my

FF body. My point was directed to the OP, who did not articulate any of the typical reasons one might actually need such a lens on a crop body beyond that it

is "great for the price."

 

If you don't need that sort of lens, spending any money on it is not a good choice.

 

Dan

[chrisjb]

`though it does open up to 1.8, it really "doesn't shine at that aperture`

 

If you mean a lil soft, same with 1.4,1.2 and most other lenses, I`ve used a 1.8 for a few studio portraits in the last week and not one miss, mostly f4, But unless you are going to take single potraits or very short fast tele which will give you a stop more speed than the ramron and you want a lens for general purpose the 35mmf2 would more likely be a better option.:)

[chrisjb]

Whats a `ramron` should be Tamron, Cut it out Dan, its catching:0)

[William Michael]

I bought the 50mmF1.4 version, mainly because of the FTMF, and the extra little light is a bit handy. I used it on my 20D for 2 years, mainly for portraits, but also a bit of close range sport.

 

It is a very nice portrait length for half to full shots if you have the space, but you can get in tight with it too.

 

A (equiv. 80mm FoV) fast 50mm prime on an APS-C body, is suited to portraiture and some indoor (and outdoor sport) typically, but not limited to: BBall; Gymnastics; Swimming; Diving; Boxing; Judo; Karate, and outdoor (night) sports like School Hockey or Soccer, especially if one is consolidated at or near the goal mouth.

 

Also stage Plays, Concerts and Jazz Clubs and the like.

 

Naturally the relative short Telephoto FL decrees that the subject(s) is / are reasonably close and or the photographer has the ability to roam in the above examples.

 

For Portraits on a APS-C body, 50mm make a nice mate with a fast 85mm prime lens: but I like tight portraiture, and I shoot a lot of available light.

 

For concerts and plays etc I think it (mostly) mates better with a fast 135mm prime.

 

Having stated all that I see value for a 50mm Prime on an APS-C body: I will restate what I have said many times before . . .

 

On a budget and for a fast prime (specifically) for ALL TYPES of PORTRAITURE the EF35mmF2 is a better first choice.

 

It will allow full length, half shot and H&S portrait capture in available light at shorter working distances.

 

This last point is key, whilst MOST portraiture is a single subject, not all portraiture is so . . . and if you intend to work inside, with a single subject or a couple at full length: or manage a family in their living room for portraiture, the 50mm will often be too long: rendering the shot impossible.

 

WW

[m_barbu1]

I agree that the EF 35mm f/2 would be a more flexible choice than the EF 50mm f/1.8 II

[robert_thommes]

A big THANKS to all who responded. You folks did a good job convincing me into seriously considering the purchase of another 50mm lens. Though portraiture frequently came up as this lens's main strength, I hardly ever shoot that sort of thing other than candidly. But other applications mentioned did hit home a bit more. When I had this lens before, I really never gave it much of a chance. You folks have excited me a bit more into wanting to use it more to it's potential. The main characteristics of importance to me would include: sharp, good low light, light, small. And...it's bargin. Thanks

[ben_quinn1]

I often use my 85mm f/1.8 for portraits and I get better results than with my 50mm f/1.8 (on a 40d). I like nifty fifty but the autofocus is a little slow especially when the subject moves around a bit like my daughter. One could consider changing for the 50mm f/1.4 which has faster autofocus by all accountts and is still relatively inexpensive.

[William Michael]

It is interesting the (many) accounts about the (faster) auto focus on the F1.4 compared to the F1.8.

 

It is very important to test them side by side and although only a `rough as guts` test, I did so in a camera store, both looking outside to the bright area and inside about 10EV darker.

 

The F1.8 SOUNDS slower, I would be really pushed to say the F1.8 is actually slower, or hunts more often, (which they both do, on occasion). I was using 2 x 20D`s, and I played for about 15 to 20 minutes with both lenses.

 

Hence, my previous mentioning the main reasons for my F1.4 purchase.

 

WW

[delphis1]

Having just got a Canon 40D, I opted to get a 'nifty fifty' and I love it. I also opted for an 18-55 IS (not yet delivered) and a 55-250 IS (which I've only used briefly too). With the 50/1.8 I took some 'portrait' style quick shots of my little boy that seemed to come out very nicely with it. Great shallow depth of field in end-of-day light yesterday evening after unpacking the camera. Since it comes out to about 80mm given the crop factor I thought it went quite well. I didn't have any problems with autofocus, even with the relatively dim light. For filters, I got B+W multicoated, since I heard that there's a possibility of reflections if you're using a filter and photographing something like a christmas tree in relatively dim light (for example).