Which normal lens to buy for 400D

[dan_wickenden]

<p>Hi there,<br>

I have an EOS400d with the basic telephoto lens. I have bought a sigma wide angle lens which is great but I want to buy a normal lens, mainly for portrait pics.<br>

I am looking at the following. Any advice please?<br>

<a href="../equipment/product-detail?product_id=503">Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM</a><br>

<a href="../equipment/product-detail?product_id=504">Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II</a> </p>

<h2>Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM</h2>

 

[jim_j2]

<p>Of the 50mm's either will do fine for Portraits, with the 1.6 Crop factor the 50mm will become 80mm. Many Portrait shooters speak highly of the 85mm focal length.</p>

<p>I am not familiar with the Sigma 30mm.<br>

If you were considering a zoom, then I would recommend checking out the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AF SP XR Di II LD IF. I have this lens and it is pretty sharp for the money compared to the Canon offerings in the same focal lengths.</p>

 

[craigd]

<p>I recommend the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM over the f/1.8 II. The f/1.4 is better built (the f/1.8 is built like a cheap plastic toy), focuses faster and more reliably, and allows you to override the autofocus simply by turning the focus ring at any time.</p>

[bjscharp]

On the 400D, neither of the 50mm's is a `normal' lens. On the APS-C sensor, they are short telephoto lenses. Great for portraiture, but if you want a real normal, your options are the Sigma 30mm, or either the Canon 35mm f2.0 or 28mm f1.8

 

So from the options you gave, and considering your request for a normal lens, I'd recommend the Sigma (which I have, and really enjoy).

 

Of course, the 50mm 1.8 is so darn cheap you could always get that too, and it's a very good lens for the money. If you decide you like the 50mm focal length, you can always upgrade to the f1.4 model later.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Bernard

[bueh]

<p>Of the two <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50mm primes</strong></a>, I'd recommend the f/1.4 version because I find FTM (full-time manual) extremely useful.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that there is also a well-regarded Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens and also a Tamron 60mm f/2 macro lens in that focal length range. Plus the super-expensive Canon f/1.2 L version.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>B. J. +1: 50mm is a short telephoto on your camera, equivalent to 80mm on a 35mm film camera. In those days, ~90mm was often a preferred length for portraits because it has a nice perspective.</p>

<p>If you are willing to go slower , you could also consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I personally don't shoot most pictures of people even as wide open as 2.8, because if the shot is candid and fast, it is pretty easy to miss the focus with a faster lens. This is the lens I use most often in indoor events. It lacks full-time manual focusing, but it is VERY sharp on a crop sensor camera like yours, and it is relatively cheap for what it is. It is the equivalent of 45-120mm on a film camera, so it captures most of the focal length range most often used for portraits. Here is one shot with that lens on a 50D (same size sensor as yours), at f/3.5, 54mm, and with reflected flash from the side (top of the camera):</p>

<p><img src="http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Other/Some-nice-people/MG2254/745587891_chszC-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[davyjo]

<p>Buy a 50 1.8 and give it a try. You can pick up a used one here or on fremiranda.com for $75-$80. Take a bunch of pictures and see how it works. If you find it lacking sell it, you'll loses the cost of shipping ($5?) and buy the 1.4. If that one is lacking watch out. The 1.2 is a lot of money!<br>

Some of my favorite pictures were taken with the 1.8...on a 5D II! Yeah a $80 piece of plastic on a $2500 body.</p>

[electron]

<p>Either 50 will be a great lens, but there are trade-offs with either. The 1.4 has a more circular aperture that gives nicer specular highlights when stopped down slightly and its bokeh is a little better. It's obviously a little faster, with the benefits that go along with that. I didn't find autofocusing to be significantly better with a friend's 1.4 than with my 1.8 (my copy is a mk. I 1.8, but is should perform identically to to mk. II).<br /><br />The 1.8 will render specular highlights as pentagonal shapes, but I don't find it terribly objectionable. When I do, I can re-frame, or sometimes I can shoot wide open (where the aperture is circular), as long as DOF isn't too shallow for the subject and distance. The 1.8 has an AFD focus motor, which isn't silent, but it's not obtrusive either. I think this sound, more than anything else, creates the impression of slower AF with the 1.8. Being 2/3 of a stop slower is a slight disadvantage, but not as much as you might think. f/1.8 is still pretty fast (especially if you're used to zoom-lenses) and produces a very shallow DOF. <br /><br />The 1.4 is a nicer lens in many respects, but not $250-$300 nicer in my opinion.<br /><br />Those are my thoughts on the 50's, but if I interpret your question to mean you're looking for a "normal perspective" lens on a crop body, then my advice is to go for the 35 f/2. It's a fantastic lens, and a steal if you buy a nice used copy. With a 1.6x crop factor, 35mm equals a 58mm FOV. It's a bit longer than the traditional 50mm FOV, but "normal" is a fairly loose idea to begin with. The bottom line is that it's an extremely useful focal length on crop bodies and the image quality of the EF 35 f/2 is top-notch. Build quality is quite good and it's a nice compact size.<br /><br />My reccomendation would be to look for used copies of the 35 f/2 and 50 f/1.8 (for the 50, buy a mk. I if the build quality of the mk. II bothers you). The pair will cost less than the 50 f/1.4 alone and you'll get more lens for less money. That's what I did and I have no regrets. If I could only keep one of those two, it would be the 35 f/2.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I bought the 1.8 to hold me over until I got the money for the 1.4. That was over a year ago. The 1.8 was so cheap and works so well that I have never felt the need to fork over the extra $200+ for the 1.4 version. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The 1.8 has great IQ and is very sharp, besides I'd rather spend that money on other stuff than half a stop on an already fast lens. I think a 50mm 1.8 + 430 EX II flash would give you much more possibilities and better quality photos for the same price as a 50mm f/1.4.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>“I have an EOS400d with the basic telephoto lens, but I want to buy <em><strong>a normal lens</strong></em>, mainly for portrait pics . . . I am looking at the following . . .<a href="../equipment/product-detail?product_id=503">Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM</a>; Ca<a href="../equipment/product-detail?product_id=504">non EF 50mm f/1.8 II</a>; Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither the 50/1.4 nor the 50/1.8MkII is “normal” on your camera: both are short telephotos and both are nice for portraiture.</p>

<p>That said both are good – I have the EF50mmF/1.4 because I use FTM (full Time Manual Focussing) and I do use the extra lens speed.<br />Both lenses are good and will serve well.<br />At the time I bought the 50/1.2 was not an option.<br />Although the 50/1.8MkII might be <em>“built like a plastic toy" </em>the IQ is quite OK - and anyway Plastic is OK also - it is not like you are going to use it as an Ice Hockey Puck - is it?</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 has more iris blades and that influenced my decision also.</p>

<p>In the Canon range - the EF35/2 or the EF28/1.8 is closer to a “normal lens” for your camera – so too is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM.</p>

<p>All these three lenses can be used for Portraiture also.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>FYI: <a href="00X7IA">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00X7IA</a></p>