Worth upgrading from Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 to Sigma 30/1.4?

[tony_gabriele]

My first child was born just one week ago and I already broke my EF 50mm f/1.8

when I dropped it yesterday after owning it for only 5 months. I was planning

on just getting another one, but was thinking maybe I should look into an

upgrade since the price of the EF rose from $60 to $90 since I first bought it.

I know the Sigma is $400 which seems like a lot compared with the Canon lens to

me, just an amateur photographer trying to get good pics of his kid, but is it

worth the price for my needs? I have a Rebel Xti, and simply want to take nice

indoor low light pictures of my child. However, while I really liked the photos

I was getting with the Canon 50mm EF f/1.8, I'm afraid that it is so fragile

that I'll just break it again. Any help you can offer me would greatly be

appreciated.

[phule]

How about picking the middle ground and going with the Canon 35mm f/2? It's less expensive than the Sigma and gives you a similar field of view.

[sheer]

I have the sigma 30/1.4 and its great for low-light pics but its an equiv of ~50mm on an xti so its more of a general purpose lens than a portrait lens. That said the large aperture still lets you get very narrow depth of field. Its also relatively heavy and seems solidly built but I've never owned the 50 f/1.8 so I can't compare.

 

I also have a canon 60 f/2.8 macro which is a great lens (and cheaper than the sigma) and a very non-scientific analysis suggests that the colors I get from the canon are much better (same shot, same camera just a few minutes after one another). Not sure why but the pictures from the 60mm really seem nicer to me. It might not be fast enough for very low light but you can also try to up your iso (though careful not to underexpose or else IQ degrades).

 

If you want samples from both lenses you can check out my flickr gallery (I'm only very slowly uploading pics to to photo.net):

 

 

There are quite a few low-light shots in there with the sigma at f/1.4.

[robert_zimmardi]

I think it's worth upgrading, I have the 50 1.4 and the Sigma 30 1.4 and I rarely, if ever, take the 30 off my 40D. I think the 30mm is a perferct match for a 1.6 crop factor DSLR.

[tony_gabriele]

Any thoughts on the Canon EF 50mm F/2.5 Macro Lens? Or am I way off here thinking this might be for me?

[tony_gabriele]

"How about picking the middle ground and going with the Canon 35mm f/2? It's less expensive than the Sigma and gives you a similar field of view."

 

Could you point me in the right direction? I'm not sure which one you mean.

[tim_klimowicz]

Ditto about the Sigma 30 1.4.

 

I also have the 60mm Macro that Sheer mentioned, and he's right: the 60mm macro has some REALLY

beautiful results, both as macro and as a medium portrait-length lens on 1.6 bodies. But there's just nothing

else out there that could do what the Sigma 30mm 1.4 does, except, maybe the Canon 24mm 1.4L, which

would be a bit wider and a lot more expensive.

 

If this helps with anything, I also have the EF-S 17-55m 2.8 IS that everyone raves about, and despite how

great both that and the 60mm macro is, I still keep the Sigma 30mm on the body at least 90% of the time. For

indoors/low light, it's really fantastic.

[bjscharp]

Another vote for the Sigma 30mm here. As a leave-on-your-camera lens it's ideal for APS-C sensor camera's, just like 50mm is for film and FF.

 

If you want a portrait lens, the 50mm might be better (and certainly cheaper), but it's a lot less `all purpose'.

[aappelphotography]

Dear Tony,<br/>

<br/>

gratulations to the first child! <br/>

I own the Canon 50mm and the Sigma 30mm. As your kid is still small, I would prefer the 50mm, giving you a FOV of ~80mm .. You can then shoot from "some" distance, e.g. while the little one is asleep without waking him/her up.<br/> Furthermore, the Sigma is four times the price, and imho you can break any lens by dropping it just from enough height. So do not worry that you dropped a lens, but you should ask, what else you could buy for the kid for 300 dollars saved, if you buy the 50 1.8 again .. you could even start saving for the Sigma 30 1.4, but if you are on a budget at the moment, get the 50 and something nice for the kid ...<br/>

Regards,<br/>

André

[ken munn]

Drop any lens, and it's likely to break, whatever manufacturer and focal length. Just buy another 50mm, insure it, and get on with shooting your child.

[tony_gabriele]

Thanks for the advice Andre Appel and Ken Munn. Perhaps one day I'll look into the Sigma lens, but I think I'll hold off for now and just go with the Canon 50mm f/1.8 again.

[joseph_gledhill]

What about the Tokina 35mm f/2.8 macro?

[nathan_meador]

I've had the same 50mm 1.8 for 3 years with no problems. I upgraded from film in November and do miss the true 50mm field of view that I had. I too am looking at the 30mm that Sigma offers, and would not mind the extra low light ability that it offers.

 

For your purposes, I'd go with another 50mm 1.8 for now. If you decide later that you want the extra wide angle, keep the 50mm as a portrait lens and go for the Sigma or comparable.

[phule]

[[Could you point me in the right direction? I'm not sure which one you mean.]]

 

Here's the link to the lens on B&H.

 

http://lnk.nu/bhphotovideo.com/kq5.html

 

Also, I should note that, for the first 6 months or so, I photographed my son with a Canon XT and the 50mm f/1.8 almost exclusively. It's a good combination. Adding the 35mm f/2 helped a bit after he started crawling.

[thomas_brabant1]

"simply want to take nice indoor low light pictures of my child"---this is what you said your primary purpose is.

 

So, another vote for the 50mm 1.8. In the 1960s 1970s, 85% of my pictures of my two sons were made with a Leica Summicron 90mm. That focal length was perfect for photos of them for years. And that is what the 50mm is to you on your Rebel, an 80 mm equivalant. For the fast few years, I have used the canon 50mm 1.8 with my grandchildren, with the same results.

 

Conversely, I used my 50mm rarely with the children, and that's the equivalent of the 30mm. Or have your cake and eat it to---buy the 50mm, and later the 35mm, as someone suggested, and have broad range for less $ than the 30mm

 

Happy shooting with that child. Take lots of them; they grow fast.

 

Tom

[tony_gabriele]

Much appreciated Thomas Brabant, Rob Bernhard, and Nathan Meador. If anyone else has anymore tips on taking good pictures of children throughout the years, I'm willing to listen.

[elliot1]

You didn't break your lens, you dropped it. Most lenses would likely break under the same 'fall'.

 

You state that you were very happy with the results. That says it all!

 

Tips for taking good pictures of children? Takes lots of them especially when they are smiling and/or doing a fun activity or sport.

[geoffcauble]

Why don't you look at a used 50mm 1.8 with a metal mount instead of the newer 50mm 1.8 II? I bought the older, metal mount version of the 50mm 1.8 used for about $175 and I know that KEH.com has a couple of used examples right now. Having shot with both, the metal mount seems significantly sturdier.

<p>

I have two children, a two year old and a newborn and this is the lens that stays on our Rebel around the house. Terrific for capturing childhood.

[thomas_brabant1]

I can't resist this advice on taking pictures of children, even though it may be old hat. Get low. Don't just stand up and take pictures of them downward either in crib or floor. Get on child's level, and your pictures will improve 100%. Bend those knees! And that's somewhat easier to do with a slightly longer focal length (like the 50mm on your Rebel), since the angle from photographer to subject can be a little less. Again, happy shooting. I envy you!

 

Tom

[richard_oleson]

I have some pretty good lenses, but I don't think I have any that bounce when you drop them. If you want a wider lens, get the 30mm, but not because you expect it to survive dropping.

[JDMvW]

I'm with Rob (way back at the start). An in between lens is the EF 35mm f/2, although I'd hate to be without my plastic fantastic, myself.

 

The attached photo is my snap shot of Luxor at night- where do they all come from?--

 

Would you believe? Almost all the photographers in the center were shooting with EF 35mm f/2.0 lenses!

 

Well, you shouldn't believe; but it is, all the same, a nice low light lens when you want a long normal view of things on an APS-C camera.<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

I'd rather get the 50/1.8 and the ES-62. Next time it will fall, it's most likely that the lens hood will break and not the lens. Price difference is just too much to be overlooked IMHO.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[manuel barrera houston,]

The Canon 35 mm f/2 is a great little lens, excellent for low light captures, it is not hsm but it is fast you can hear the motor buzzing like a bee. I have several lens including L primes and the 35 is used as often if not more so for street photography

[wentbackward]

If you liked the 50mm 1.8, they're so cheap, get another one and take your time to invest your $$ in a much better lens once you know what you want/need.

[bob.velkov]

I wouldn't get any non-Canon lens. It just doesn't make sense having a Canon body

with a Sigma lens *if* you can find a better equivalent in Canon's portfolio. And all

Canon EF 50/1.4, 50/1.2L, 35/2, 35/1.4L, 28/1.8 are very, very good lenses and they

will give you a far better investment protection if you decide to sell later.