To get a 50mm 1.8 lens, or not?

[doug_landrum]

If you have to ask the price (or whether or not it is useful) . . . you can't afford it.

[jason_galloway]

I use mine constantly... I have a 28-105mm and a 70-210mm, both f/3.5-4.5, also a 35mm f/2. Unless I'm just essentially taking snap shots of my kid or need some serious reach (210mm on a 40D has some reach), I'm always alternating between my 50mm and my 35mm. Honestly I think the primes are more convienient, once you learn to "think" at a certain focal length, you just aim and shoot instead of adding the extra step with getting the right FOV, which is probably the longest part of me taking a photograph with a zoom. Whether or not I use the 35mm or the 50mm just depends on what I'm doing, other than build quality (35mm is alot better, but it did cost more so it better) and focal length, they're essentially identical.

The 50mm is sharp enough to be unflattering to people. I have no issues with focusing, in fact, on a 40D when you hit 2.8 or faster you get the super duper ultimate extreme focus mode, within 2 or 3 seconds of getting it to my eye, it'll lock down and have banged off 6 or 7 shots. I dropped my old one a few weeks back and almost cried, it locked up the front element and when I tried to "unlock" it, it exploded in my hands. Within a week I had to have another one, from a photography standpoint that was one of the longest weeks of my life (of course, every time I picked up the camera, it seemed like the exact lens I needed would have been my 50).

I honestly never really used primes until fairly recently. Now that I started, I already know that I'm going to have to expand my arsenal, I honestly rarely use my zooms anymore (alot of the time if I'm carrying light I won't even take the 28-105).

[jason_galloway]

I forgot to mention, the DOF on a 1.8 is amazing, you can do some really nice things (not to mention focus in almost no light if you're aiming at something reasonable)... It's still very sharp (I'm no pro, but at 1.8 it's still very sharp IMO), plus the DOF can be measured in inches; for instance, my 3 y/o son has a mohawk. If I shoot a profile of him with his mohawk spiked up, at 1.8, focused on his ear, his hair will not be in focus.

[gphoto]

The difference between shooting f2.8 and f1.8 in low light is significant. If you're running out of stops on your zoom buy a brighter one.

[dd_toth]

I shoot with Nikon and I was the one who thought, Why not?! I bought it new for $150. And I loved how it works in low light situations. The difference from 2.8 to 1.8 is amazing, (I was actually going from 3.5-5.6 to the 1.8, the difference was huge). BUT....now that I have had it for about a year now, I don't really use it that often and I figured out why. I am struggling to find an easy way to explain this so I hope this makes sense.

 

Basically the general idea is that a 50mm lens is what our eyes see. So if you are standing with a group of people photographing the same subject, you are basically capturing what everyone else is seeing. But when you show clients your photos, the ones they like the most, tend to be the ones that give them a different angle or viewpoint, instead of "Ya I seen that too"

 

So in order to make your 50mm shots more appealing you have to try to achieve different angles and depth of field to make it more interesting then what they saw themselves. It definitely makes it a bit harder because it pushes you to be more creative and you have to be quick with it too. I find even with being more creative with it, I'm not as impressed with the shots that I get compared to what I can get with a zoom, or wide angle, and that is probably why I don't think to use it that often.

 

Recently I had the chance to shoot with the 85mm 1.4, and I now wish I had saved that $150 and put it towards that lens. Even going from 1.8 to 1.4 is significant. And it gives you a different view point then what everyone else sees, and puts out amazing photos. The price difference for the 85mm 1.4 is considerably large to the 50mm 1.8, but they do have a 85mm 1.8 that is a few hundred dollars more and I think is worth it in the end.

[fotograf]

I was at the Getty Museum last year and shot with this little 50mm lens. I think it takes sharp contrasty photos. I think the image attached, was taken at f/5.6 and I don't remember the shutter speed. Looking at the image- I think the lens does a great job. No complaints.

 

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6336235-lg.jpg

[bjscharp]

Whether you should buy it or not depends on your camera and what you use it for.

 

If you have a crop factor camera and do landscapes, it's pointless.

 

If you have a FF camera and want a fast, light and disposable standard lens, it's excellent.

 

 

I have it, and use it a lot (the Mk I version, but I have both, and optically they're identical). I use it on my crop body for short range sports photography.

 

See the attached image for an example. I'd rather do that with a 100 buck lens where I don't care if it gets soaked, than with a lens 5 times as expensive that'll be just as dead if it gets soaked, and I'll keep using that lens for this until Canon make an L-series (sealed) 50mm prime that's not as expensive as the f1.2<div></div>

[in the beginning]

Get it,it is the perfect bang for your hands down<div></div>