Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (Prime Lens)

[mastertech01]

On a crop body I recommend the 35mm F2.0 or a Sigma 30 F 1.4. You can find the 35 for a couple hundred quite often. It gives you closer to the 50mm full frame aspect ratio on the crop than the 50 does. 50 just cuts the mustard on a MKIII or other 1.3x body. IMHO

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

For portrait work wouldn't a 35 mm lens be less desirable than a 50 mm?

 

[mastertech01]

That is a question you have to ask yourself. Test out a few of them and see what serves your best interest. Im just telling you if you want a 50mm aspect ratio you wont get it on a crop with a 50mm lens.

 

[Kanalua]

Take you kit lens, set it on 50mm and see if you like the view.

It's great as a kit lens and even a street photography lens.

It's $100!!! This is a no brainer for any novice/beginner!

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I set up my 18-55 mm at 50mm and it seemed more like 50 mm would be good for head shots more than full body shots. Might work for waist up but I am not certain. But now I see why some might want a 30 or 35 mm.

I probably will end up with the 50mm. Just not certain now.

 

[mastertech01]

28mm 1.8 is also a great lens but a bit pricey. You might have to foot zoom a bit for portraits. There is no real best lens, you just have to decide how you are going to use it most and from what distance and whether you need low light capture, good bokeh, and how much you are going to spend vs how often you will use the lens. I see so many lenses that were great ideas, fantastic photos, but never get used. One of the best lenses out there is the 85mm 1.8 , but it is also one of the most sold lenses too because it is not a real good focal length for everyday. If you dont have a 55-250 IS you may want to look at that too for walk around. Cheap and excellent photos. I have difficulty holding heavy L lenses without IS so I have switched to IS for most of my lenses now.

 

[alfa147x]

Just get the 50 1.8
Unless you have a $300 - $400 you can't get anything better. It's one of my favorite lenses.

 

[Madwand1]

28mm 1.8 is also a great lens but a bit pricey.

Have you seriously compared it with others? Going by the photozone test results for example, it's not much better than the 28 f/2.8 in the center, and actually worse at the edges and for CA.

And when I tested one, the 28 f/2.8 was nothing special, so I returned it. I haven't tried a f/1.8 though.

 

[Madwand1]

I set up my 18-55 mm at 50mm and it seemed more like 50 mm would be good for head shots more than full body shots. Might work for waist up but I am not certain. But now I see why some might want a 30 or 35 mm.

I probably will end up with the 50mm. Just not certain now.

The zoom is not a real comparison, because you don't see the optical improvements or the effects of reduced depth of field. The wide-angle lenses aren't as good as they're harder to design than the 50, and they are more expensive. The real weak point of the 50 f/1.8 is the focus system, but you can probably live with it for portraits. The plastic body is more of an issue of taste, and it saves on size, weight, and cost.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Madwand,

I was using the 18-55mm to see what a 50mm will actually capture. Seems to be waste and up type portraits, not full body type shots. Which is fine. But I am now thinking that I should consider a different lens. maybe soemthing in the 30-40mm.

So, in the 30-40mm (28 mm might be OK to) what shoudl I consider for under $200? I do require autofocus though. And I really want soemthing that can take sharp photos at under f/3.0.

Having read reviews on the 50mm, I now realize that it is much sharper than the 18-55@50mm when using F stops of 5 or so.

Also, the 50mm at f3.0 is pretty close in sharpness to the 18-55@50/f5.0

Anyways, any autofcous lenses in the 28-40 mm range I should consider?

 

[corkyg]

If the ISO speed is constant, the exposure should be the same. But, the exposure is not the whole story on picture quality. Generally speaking, a prime lens will be optically better, edge to edge, than a zoom lens. Could I tell the difference with the naked eye? Probably not.

 

[Maximus96]

If the ISO speed is constant, the exposure should be the same. But, the exposure is not the whole story on picture quality. Generally speaking, a prime lens will be optically better, edge to edge, than a zoom lens. Could I tell the difference with the naked eye? Probably not.

you can, if you're a pixel peeper like me...its a bad habit though

 

[twistedlogic]

How much faster is the 50 mm at f/5.0 compared to the 18-55mm set at 50mm and f/5.0?

They are the same speed, resulting in the same exposure. But shot wide open, the 50 1.8 would be 3 full stops faster, resulting in a 8X faster shutter, or the difference between using ISO 200 vs ISO 1600:

Stops in thirds
1.4
1.6
1.8 --------------
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.8
3.2
3.5
4
4.5
5.0 --------------
5.6

Also 50mm can be used for full body, you just need to back-up far enough, . The advantage of a 28 - 35mm prime would be for indoor use where walls prevent you from foot zooming.

Also photographers prefer using longer focal lengths for portraits, as it results in compressed features of the face, and a compression of the background.

 

[cecco]

I'm actually in the same boat as you op. I have I have a Rebel T2i with the same lenses as you and I'm looking at the 50mm 1.8f for indoor/portrait shots. This is my first dSLR and I'm trying to get the most bang for the buck. At that price range the nifty fifty seems hard to beat.

 

[AkumaX]

absolutely, the nifty 50 1.8 is hard to beat!

but IHateMyJob2004, if you really want a portrait lens (as in, you can't back up enough to take a nice portrait @ 50mm), then you might want to save some $$$ and get the sigma 30mm f/1.4

 

[Cattykit]

They are the same speed, resulting in the same exposure. But shot wide open, the 50 1.8 would be 3 full stops faster, resulting in a 8X faster shutter, or the difference between using ISO 200 vs ISO 1600:

Stops in thirds
1.4
1.6
1.8 --------------
2.0
2.2
2.5
2.8
3.2
3.5
4
4.5
5.0 --------------
5.6

Also 50mm can be used for full body, you just need to back-up far enough, . The advantage of a 28 - 35mm prime would be for indoor use where walls prevent you from foot zooming.

Also photographers prefer using longer focal lengths for portraits, as it results in compressed features of the face, and a compression of the background.

1. F-stop is not T-stop. http://front1.dxomark.com/index.php.../0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(camera1)/183

2. One more reason why longer focal length lenses are prefered for portraits: distortion.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

absolutely, the nifty 50 1.8 is hard to beat!

but IHateMyJob2004, if you really want a portrait lens (as in, you can't back up enough to take a nice portrait @ 50mm), then you might want to save some $$$ and get the sigma 30mm f/1.4

For that price , could choose between the 30mm or 50mm by Sigma. Heck, get both maybe

 

[twistedlogic]

1. F-stop is not T-stop. http://front1.dxomark.com/index.php.../0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(camera1)/183

Why does this matter?

2. One more reason why longer focal length lenses are prefered for portraits: distortion.

Wikipedia:
"Perspective distortion takes two forms: extension distortion and compression distortion, also called wide-angle distortion and long-lens or telephoto distortion."

Also photographers prefer using longer focal lengths for portraits, as it results in compressed features of the face, and a compression of the background.

 

[AkumaX]

For that price , could choose between the 30mm or 50mm by Sigma. Heck, get both maybe

right :awe: but since we're on crop cameras, you techinically 'see' 30mm @ 48mm, and 50mm @ 80mm.

the 50mm cropped is great for headshots, but 30mm cropped 'might' be better for portraits?

 

[rivan]

I was using the 18-55mm to see what a 50mm will actually capture.

Ignore this. I was wrong.

Beware, and correct me if I'm wrong (I know someone will!), but your kit lens is an EF-S lens. 50mm on it IS 50mm. The Nifty 50 (being an EF lens) will be more like 80mm on an EF-S.

Edit: wow, I took my sweet time submitting this post. AkumaX just pointed out what I was saying. If 50 on your kit lens isn't wide enough, the problem will be worse on the nifty 50.

 

[Maximus96]

Beware, and correct me if I'm wrong (I know someone will!), but your kit lens is an EF-S lens. 50mm on it IS 50mm. The Nifty 50 (being an EF lens) will be more like 80mm on an EF-S.

Edit: wow, I took my sweet time submitting this post. AkumaX just pointed out what I was saying. If 50 on your kit lens isn't wide enough, the problem will be worse on the nifty 50.

50mm on an EF-s is same as a 50mm on EF. both will be the equivalent of 80mm on an full frame camera due the the 1.6x crop.

 

[rivan]

50mm on an EF-s is same as a 50mm on EF. both will be the equivalent of 80mm on an full frame camera due the the 1.6x crop.

Huh, what do you know. This whole time I've been completely wrong about EF-S lenses. I guess I just assumed being designed for APS-C sensors they'd compensate for the crop.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Just ordered the Canon 50mm. Can not wait to get it. I'll have it for NYC!

Also, ordered lens hoods (Canon branded) for all my lenses including the new one.

 

[Kanalua]

Very sharp.

 

[Maximus96]

Just ordered the Canon 50mm. Can not wait to get it. I'll have it for NYC!

Also, ordered lens hoods (Canon branded) for all my lenses including the new one.

the 50mm 1.8 has the lens recessed so deep that a hood isn't really necessary, as least in the attempt to prevent flare.