New EOS 10D 28-105 f/3.5 II USM Better than 50 prime?

[jimfunk]

I just picked up a new 10D and a 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM lens as a

starter lens. This is my first dSLR (stepping up from a Sony S85). I

am considering the 50mm prime, but i would like to know how the 50mm

would differ from the 28-105 at the 50mm range. Any feedback would be

very welcome.

[mark cohran]

The prime would be 1) sharper 2) faster 3)have more contrast and 4) be cheaper.

[jimfunk]

Mark, Do you know if there is a tremendous difference between the 50/1.4 USM and the 50/1.8 Autofocus? (Other than a significant price jump)

[tom_swanson]

I think the 1.4 has more blades so the bokeh is better. Other than that I haven't heard of much difference.

 

Note that I do not have either lens.

[alvaro_buitrago]

I have the 50mmm 1.4 and the 28-105 3.5II.

 

The 50mm is much better and is my preferred lens, but it has a flaw because sometimes the autofocus fails and seems to get stuck. I fix it by rotating the manual focus ring. Other users have reported the same issue.

 

The optics of the 50mm is much better than the prime. This is the lens I really trust.

 

I do not own the 50mm 1.7 but have heard only good things about it.

[mark cohran]

I have both the 50mm 1.4 (new version) and the 50mm 1.8. The 1.4 has a metal mount, a better build, and in my opinion, has a sharper more contrasty image on the 10D. The 1.8 is lighter, much cheaper, but still sharp with good contrast. It's really a matter of how deep your pockets are and how much you need the extra 1/2 stop. I've had the 1.8 for years, and my wife gave the the 1.4 as a Christmas present last year.

[harman_bajwa]

This should help as a backdrop:

<p>

 

<a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#whichcategory">http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#whichcategory</a>

<br>

 

and

<br>

 

<a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#beginner">http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#beginner</a>

<p>

 

- Harman

[robert_davis7]

I would agree with everyone else. I've owned the 28-105mm and still own the 50mm f/1.8. Although it doesn't have the nice, silky USM, the 50mm focuses quickly (on an EOS 3) and the images will speak for themselves. And that price... kinda kills any hint of competition, huh?

[samusiskin]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0078MZ

 

Cheers

 

Sam

[jimfunk]

Thank you all for your wonderful advice! I am now convinced that adding both the 28-105/3.5 and the 50/1.8 to my bag will serve me well.

[vincent_j_m]

Others have already pointed out the differences between the 28-105 and the 50. Let me chime in with some experiences with the 50's. I owned the 50/1.8 and "upgraded" to a 50/1.4, and now downgraded back to a 50/1.8. The AF speeds on the 50/1.8 and 1.4 are about the same. In fact, in some instances the 50/1.8 focuses faster because (a) it has lighter glass and (b) while focusing, the barrel in the 1.8 moves a shorted distance compared to the 1.4.

[eigtball]

Get the 50mm 1.8 as a lowlight lens, and use it for that reason. The 28-105 lens is great. I use it on my Elan 7E for almost all my outdoor shots (yes its the only other lens I own, so sue me :p ). I feel that a 50mm is a little too restrictive for all your shooting needs. If you had both they would make a great team. So since you already have the 28-105, you can get the 50mm 1.8 inexpensively, or get the 50mm 1.4 expensively. The 1.4 gives you rounder bokeh, and more blades as said. It also gives you Full-Time Manual control, and distance scales. If you are looking for a really great 50mm prime I would say IF you can afford the price, get the better. If not the 1.8 is awsome, the bokeh is a little hexagonal, but other then that its a really nice lens FOR THE PRICE. Remember this addage, you get what you pay for. The 1.8 is CHEAP. It feels cheap, looks cheap, and is make cheap. If you take care of it, it will reward you with life long service. If you are rough, be prepared to replace it, or get the 1.4. Thats my 2 cents.

 

Cheers,

[salil_s]

I have had the 28-105mm for about 1 year now and just got the 50mm f/1.8 about a month ago. Now, I have the 50mm mounted on my camera by default, it is that good! Believe me, except for candid street photography and "fast" moving action shots you dont require a zoom lens. The tack sharp 50mm will not only give more "pop" and contrast to your images, it will allow you to capture images which you cant even think of capturing with a slow zoom. Take a look at the one and only image that I have uploaded on photo.net to see for yourself why this lens is called "fast". The image might not be one of the best night shots one can take, but it serves the purpose of illustrating how the 50mm enables you to take pictures without flash in extreme low-light situations. (And not many can afford f/2.8 L-series zooms.)

[river side]

I still have the 50mm 1.8mkII and I had the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II but I sold it..

 

You have to stop down to f8 to get the best out of that lens.. except at 105mm where u can get by with f5.6 and get a good 4x6.

 

The 50mm 1.8 mkII is how i want all my lenses.. yes.. i'd sacrifice USM or internal focusing etc for that kind of quality/price ratio.. If only more Canon lenses were like that..

 

I replaced the 28-105mm with a 28mm f/2.8 prime for the landscapes and am saving up for either a 200mm f/2.8 L or a 70-400 f/4L and using the 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 as a stopgap.

 

IMO the 28-105mm can last if u don't mind the distortion at the wide end.. some vignetting at times and having to always step down to get the best out of it..

 

Remember with digital u have slightly more DOF due to the smaller image area so u need faster lenses to get good out of focus backgrounds..