Is the Canon 50mm 1.8 a good "People" lens?

[r.m._watkins]

It is time for me to upgrade from my 28-105 3.5-4.5 to a better lens,

but since I just found out my wife is pregnant there isn't much extra

funds. I had planned on buying the 85mm 1.8 lens for people shots

(I don't do much landscape), but now am thinking about the 50mm

version since I can get it for $65 and still possibly get the other

at a later date. How does this lens perform for candid shots and/or

portrait shots. I know most people want a little longer focal length

for portraits, but it would be several more months before I could

afford that. Also, I am concerned about it being too sharp for

people. Will it show too much details and blemishes?

 

Also, how does it work with that big an aperture and a eTTL flash.

Any examples?

[jim_larson1]

I bought a 50/1.8 to supplement the 28-105/3.5-4.5 several years ago. It is an excellent lens.

 

On my film body, I find that it is a bit too "wide" for portrait work, but excellent for landscape work.

 

On my 10D, which has a 1.6FOV crop, I find the 50/1.8 nearly permanently mounted on the camera. Very good for portraits. Works great with Ettl flash.

 

"Big aperture" only burns you if you need a large depth of field: 1.8 is great for a single person or couple subject, but not good for a "group photo". For a "group portrait", I just stop down the lens a bit to expand the depth of field.

 

My advice: 50/1.8 on film is not as useful as 85/1.8 The 50/1.8, however, is an awesome lens nonetheless.

[max_meng1]

Check out the details performed by this superb lens :)

[jimvanson]

You betcha...thats what I use for most of my shots...I usually shoot around f2.8-f4, ISO 250, 420 EX flash on E-TTL set at minus 1.5 for fill.<p>And "...<i>too sharp for people. Will it show too much details and blemishes</i>"?<p>Ain't no such thing as <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1061903&size=lg"><b>too sharp/shows blemishes</b></a>.

[yakim_peled1]

I had/have them all.

 

Had: The 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM is very good at f/8-11. However, that limits your lightning condition and your DoF (way too much for portraiture).

 

Had: The 50/1.8 is a great lens but it is too short for me (for portraiture, that is). You need to get too close to your subject.

 

Have: The 85/1.8 USM is my portrait nirvana. Perfect focal length, perfect aperture, perfect AF motor.

 

However, as you can't afford it, suggesting you to buy it is useless. I second the idea of adding the 50/1.8 to your kit. Use it when you need it's faster aperture and/or better quality. Use the zoom in other conditions.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[bobatkins]

Shoot from further back and crop and it's an excellent portrait lens. Shoot close up and you may distort features a bit.

 

Portrait (or any other) persepective depends ONLY on shooting distance, not on focal length.

 

As long as you shoot fairly wide open it's not "too sharp". If images are too sharp they are easily softened. The reverse is not true!

[wooi_loon]

Another question: 100m f2.8 it is a suitable portrait lens? I afraid it is too narrow.

Many thanks.

[citizensmith1664875108]

I have a 100 f/2 and I think its fantastic. There isn't too much between it and the 85 f/1.8 aside from the obvious.

 

The 50 will do you good though. You may be to wide for head shots, but head and torso are fine with that lens. Another advantage with it being fast is that you'll be less likely to use a flash, avoiding any possible concerns with newborns and bright lights.

 

And of course, congratulations...

[joe_lempkowski1]

If you can't afford the $65 for this lens, you shouldn't be taking pictures. The 50mm/f1.8 is the best deal in photographic equipment today. I use mine a great deal.

[olivier_de_lame]

Hi,

 

Contrairily to the other answers, I do not think 50mm 1.8 is a good People lens (it does not mean it is not a good lens).

1) For portrait longer lenses (85mm 100mm and 135 mm) are more adapted. 50mm can be good if you want to have more environment in your picture, but this is difficult. Moreover, in this case you have to remember that 50mm 1.8 is not USM and has a quite slow AF. This is a problem for portrait. This is why I will once replace my 50mm 1.8 with a 50mm 1.4 .

2) For candid you need to have a longer lens (~135mm) to take a photo from far without being seen, or a shorter lens (~28mm) to take photos from the heap without anyone being aware you took it.

3) Notice that your lens 28-105 3.5-4.5 has a very good reputation. You can use if for people photography, both for candid and for portrait: my feeling is that replacing the lens or buying equipment in general is often a wrong answer to the difficulty of taking good photos.

 

The question regarding the sharpness of portrait is mainly a question of taste and subject: I prefer portrait to be sharp, but to

eliminate somewhat wrinkles soft focus might be better. You can buy a lens for this (135mm 2.8 SF but it is not USM) or you can use filters. I have not tried any of these solutions. In any case 50mm 1.8 is sharp when it is correctly focussed.

 

For the other part of the question, obviously you cannot take candid with a flash (or you have to be successful the very first time). I use a Metz flash, not eTTL (aTTL) so using a 420EX or a 550Ex should work OK.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Olivier

[oliver_s.]

About two months ago, I had to take tight head shots of approx. 35 people. I used just the EF 50mm/f:1.8. One lady worried about wrinkles, no one else, although the lens gets extremely sharp by f:2.8. So much for whether people <u>want</u> wrinkles and blemishes hidden! If they did, you could still soften a lens by simply mounting a cheap UV filter. (But of course you can't improve sharpness by any filter.) For environmental portraits, the "standard" focal length is almost perfect. DOF is still limited by f:2.8 at short distances. Btw I haven't seen any too sharp b/w portrait yet.<p>If AF is an issue for portraits, I wonder how pros manage to take sharp people pics with a Hasselblad 555 ELX and the 4.0/150mm Sonnar or other contemporaries of the Brontosaurus :-)<p>As an anecdote, there seems to be one head of government who wants to look wrinkle-free by any means: Italy's Silvio Berlusconi is reported to demand a fine stocking be put over any TV camera's lens when he's to appear on the screen. I can't vouch for the truth of this, however.

[rover]

Yes, just go out and buy it! I have the 28-105 USM II and the 50/1.8, and took all of the pictures of my son when he was an infant with the 50. As a new parent the exposures you will make of your child will be more candids than portraits, and the 50 is great for that. In fact, indoors or in smaller rooms the 50 will provide a very good perspective while allowing you to be close enough to your baby, if you need to be. I find now that my son is 3 I shoot more with a 35mm lens so I can show him and his surroundings, as for me what he is doing, or able to do, is an important part of my photography. The 50/1.8 is a bargan you can't afford to pass up. Think too of what focal lengths you set your zoom to when you are taking candids. I had the 50 first and was surprised when I got the zoom that I was shooting more at the wide end than the tele. Good luck.

[brett_bainbridge]

"50mm 1.8 is not USM and has a quite slow AF. This is a problem for portrait. "

 

Come on, we're not talking about maintaining focus on a speeding race car, or even on sneaking quick candid portraits from across the street here. The AFD on the 50/1.8 is certainly slower and louder than a USM motor, but it's a light lens with a short focusing throw, and it focuses in a snap. No it's not as fast as the USM, but it doesn't matter - it's still pretty damn fast. As long as you don't give it reason to hunt for focus you will be fine.

 

The focusing of the 50/1.8 is in NO WAY an impediment for portrait photography. Yes it lends itself more to environmental portraits which may or may not be your intent, but it's a fine lens and cheap at twice the price.

[river side]

Personally i'd buy such a cheap lens first and then ask questions later.

[gareth_harper]

Yes it's a great little lens. Yes it is good for portrait.

It's perhaps at times a little harsh for full face close ups. When you want to do face only portraits you might want to stick your old 28-105 on heading towards the 105 end. The slightly longer lens setting will flatter the subject as you close in. As you move back switch to the 50mm for absolutely superb sharpness, contrast and detail.

[icephoto]

<p>I used my 50mm f1.8 all the time for people and candid shots. The small stature of the lens makes it really good for candid shots. I took it mounted to my 7e instead of my longer lenses when I went to a mouse-based theme park and found that for candid things it worked very well.</p>

<p>For serious portraiture I would recommend something a little longer (85, 100, or maybe even 135). I used the 50mm at a wedding and got some nice set-up shots, but I found that too much was in focus, in spite of my best efforts to knock down the DoF (lack of experience/intelligence on my part plus too much light).</p>

<p>However, the caveat is that I do mostly landscape and nature stuff, so portrait work is not something that I concentrate on (unless it's a bird or an animal, but that's a different beast all together...). If I'm shooting at a wedding or something similar, it's usually because I'm related to the bride or groom...</p>

<p>I'll echo the comments of above. For under $70 it's the best deal in photography. Period.</p>

[bruce johnson]

You can't go too far wrong with the 50/1.8, especially at the price. Why don't you try leaving your 28-105 at 50mm and using it awhile to get a feel for that focal range, then trying 85 for awhile. Compare the focal lengths for yourself before buying a prime.

 

Also, if a digital body like the 10D or 300D is in your future (yeah, more money, but no more money on film/developing...) keep in mind that the 50 becomes an 80 making it a better portrait lens, but the 85 becomes a 136 - you better be able to back up quite a bit for that. Just something else to consider along with the above excellent advice.

 

As for me, I use the 50 for including a bit of the environment into the picture, which I like as it gives a sense of place. When my goal is more for a head portrait though, I reach for the 100/2.8 macro (this is on a film body). 'Fraid I can't comment directly on the 85, but my 2 focal lengths work well for my "people" needs.

[brambor]

I have had the 1.8 for over 10 years now. Over the time I tried to come up with reasons to get rid of it only to conclude again and again that it is a great lens. I took a lot of great pictures with the lens and continue to do so. Cheap build but if you treat it right it will last your ten years or more just like mine.

[scott_milso]

Buy it!! Great lens. Great focal length for people also. The 85 is good for head shots in a controlled environment but you will find it way to tight for trying to catch images of your little in the confines of a house. You WANT that sharpness for your babies pretty eyes, nothing beats tack sharp eyes with catch lights. You can always soften it with the Tiffen SoftFX filter for people with less than perfect skin. You probably DON"T want to flash your baby shots unless you have OFF camera flash, with the f/1.8 you won't need flash anyway, just a window. Don't shoot all of your shots at 1.8 though the eyes will be sharp (That's where you should focus) but the ears will already be beyond good DOF. I Use this lens ALL the time on my kids at around f/2.8.