Canon Prime: 50mm ... f/1.8 or f/1.4?

[repoman0]

^Shooting RAW and using LR3 to process, I find I can make very acceptable images from ISO1600 on my 450D, even viewed at 100%. Noise reduction while keeping lots of detail is pretty incredible these days. And ISO800 ends up looking just as good as 400 or 200 by the time I'm done with it.

Also, I'm very happy with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 compared to the 1.8, but have never used the Sigma. Focus is spot on most of the time. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. I can post a few samples if you want.

 

[elitejp]

I shoot with the Canon 50d and my camera does have automatic iso in av and tv modes but maybe your camera model doesnt. In any case like slash said the lower the iso the less noise your picture will have. But that does not mean that you always want to shoot low iso. What you do want to do is get a properly exposed picture(the line in your viewfinder will line up dead center), and sometimes that means shooting high iso. I know when i first got my camera how confusing it was so i will try to explain some basic things that will really help when using your camera.


in order to get a properly exposed picture you need to adjust 3 settings: iso, shutter speed (ss), and aperture (f/value)
You always want to shoot at the lowest iso you can (dont up the iso if you dont need to) the trade off is the lower the iso the less sensitive the sensor is to light which is a good thing. As there is less light available then you will need to up the iso which will cause the sensor to ne more sensitive to light. Its as if the sensor is trying to pull the little bit of light available out of the darkness and in doing so causes the picture to look grainy and full of red/ green and blue spots.
Choose the f value you want the lower the number the more bokeh you will have. The lower the number the more light can come in but the depth of field is also lessened.
SS normally needs a minimum of whatever focal length your shooting times 1.6 (since your shooting a crop camera) Unless you want camera shake than this is just about the minimum you can shoot unles you have a tripod.

Your goal is always to get the most light into your camera at the lowest iso. So for example I was shooting a group picture of friends 3-4 rows deep at last years Christmas party with only indoor lighting. My focal length was 24mm which means that if I wanted to handhold the camera I would need to shoot at around ss 1/40 (24mm multiplied by 1.6=38). But since the lighting was bad I needed to shoot at iso 3200 or 6400 at f/2.8 to be able to get a picture that wasnt pitch black. But i still have a huge problem with the f value because its so low (2.8) and im taking a group portrait of with people about 3-4 rows deep. If I shoot at f/2.8 I would have the first row and probably half of the second row in focus the 3rd and 4th row will become blurred. if i up the f value to get everyone in focus my iso would be through the rough resulting in an extremely noisy picture and if i slow the ss then I would get camera shake. since I knew this would be a problem i brought with me my VERY inexpensive tripod and put the camera on the tripod. This allowed me to drop the ss to something like 1/15 ( any slower and you would see movement from the people), lower the iso to 800 and up the f value to f/5.2. The best case scenario would have been to use a flash.

Now this is just a personal recommendation but i would hold off on buying anymore lenses until you begin to evaluate why you need such a lens. In another thread you said that you just bought the 18-55 and the 55-250. just shoot with these lenses until you need something else.

 

[AkumaX]

if you're still debating, i'd say just get the 50mm f/1.8 for ~$90-95. then if you feel that you need to get an xx f/1.4 lens (30mm or 50mm), you can still sell the 50mm f/1.8 for 2nd hand for at least around $80 (therefore, "costing" you about $20 for the learning experience 😛)

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

My Canon in Av mode anyways lets you set ISO to whatever you want including Auto. in auto mode, it never picks 1600 (max). It usually does 800 or 400 in the settings i was in. I think 800 was actually more common.

How can I verify that my image stabalization (IS) is working. I'm a little bit suspect of it.

 

[twistedlogic]

How can I verify that my image stabalization (IS) is working. I'm a little bit suspect of it.

You should see it working in the viewfinder.

Turn IS off, look thru viewfinder with shutter half-pressed. Then turn IS on and do the same while slightly moving left to right. You should notice with IS on the viewfinder looks kinda wobbly as it tries to correct for shake.

Or take a slower SS shot with IS on and IS off and see if you can notice a difference.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

^Shooting RAW and using LR3 to process, I find I can make very acceptable images from ISO1600 on my 450D, even viewed at 100%. Noise reduction while keeping lots of detail is pretty incredible these days. And ISO800 ends up looking just as good as 400 or 200 by the time I'm done with it.

Also, I'm very happy with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 compared to the 1.8, but have never used the Sigma. Focus is spot on most of the time. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. I can post a few samples if you want.

I would love samples of the two Canons. I am mostly interested in what can be done at say f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2.X (3.3-2.5 somewhere) it would be appreciated.

From reading reviews of the Sigma though, I think I'd have a hard time pciking the Canon f/1.4 over the Sigma f/1.4. Regardless, I'd love examples.

 

[repoman0]

I would love samples of the two Canons. I am mostly interested in what can be done at say f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2.X (3.3-2.5 somewhere) it would be appreciated.

From reading reviews of the Sigma though, I think I'd have a hard time pciking the Canon f/1.4 over the Sigma f/1.4. Regardless, I'd love examples.

I don't really have any good samples of the f/1.8, I had a Mk I and only took it out for one outing before selling it because the autofocus was pretty bad. Even managed some soft shots in the f/10 range. I will post some from the f/1.4 later though!

 

[repoman0]

This is all I have time for for now, first is at f/1.4, second at f/2.8. Very little PP, nothing at all actually on the second one. Followed are 100% crops.


IMG_4378 by ajtooke, on Flickr


IMG_4395 by ajtooke, on Flickr


IMG_4378crop by ajtooke, on Flickr


IMG_4395crop by ajtooke, on Flickr

 

[cparker]

I have both the 1.4 and 1.8 Canon 50mm lenses. They have both been problem free, and I can recommend either one for you. Probably best to get the 1.8 and save money which can be spent on another lens, maybe that 30mm Sigma, which might prove more useful to you on a cropped body than the 50mm lens. I have a 35mm 1.8 lens on my cropped Nikon d40 and it's become my favorite lens of all in my collection of quite a few Nikon and Canon lenses. That's partially because of the "normal" lens focal length on a cropped camera and it's fast speed (it does very well wide open!). So, to sum up, best choice would be the 50mm 1.8 AND the Sigma 30mm 1.4. An awesome combo that will give you great flexibililty.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

repoman,

I'll check those iamges when I get home (flickr blocked at work)

cparker/All,
For now I am leanng towards the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I figure that I could always do the upgrade path if I want to later on and it saves me money for now.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Now that I have thought about things for a few days, I really don't know if I can stomach spending $500 on a lens. The $90 I can do. I'm going to sleep on it again tonight.

That's pretty much how it goes. I would go with the 50/1.8 for now and let it sit for a while. As mentioned, it's not like it will drop in value to $0 immediately. If you buy it for $95 then you can turn around later and sell it for $75 or more (as long as it's not broken or scratched up). No biggie.

You've just dropped a lot of cash on this whole setup, and given how frugal you were with the purchase of the body+lenses, putting that much money into a single component is probably more than you can handle right now. It may be more than you can handle, ever -- I'm not calling you cheap, I'm just saying that the economics of photography as a hobby get ever more ridiculous unless you're really into it. It just gets more and more expensive for less and less of a visible benefit. The 50/1.8 is your last refuge of "cheap but excellent" -- from that point on, you're looking at lots o' dollars.

 

[basslover1]

That's pretty much how it goes. I would go with the 50/1.8 for now and let it sit for a while. As mentioned, it's not like it will drop in value to $0 immediately. If you buy it for $95 then you can turn around later and sell it for $75 or more (as long as it's not broken or scratched up). No biggie.

You've just dropped a lot of cash on this whole setup, and given how frugal you were with the purchase of the body+lenses, putting that much money into a single component is probably more than you can handle right now. It may be more than you can handle, ever -- I'm not calling you cheap, I'm just saying that the economics of photography as a hobby get ever more ridiculous unless you're really into it. It just gets more and more expensive for less and less of a visible benefit. The 50/1.8 is your last refuge of "cheap but excellent" -- from that point on, you're looking at lots o' dollars.

Yes, quality photography gear is a giant money pit.

It's exactly why I haven't gone out and got a fast (f/2.8) wide angle lens yet. Spending $400+ on a single lens is really tough to swallow.

 

[AkumaX]

I have both the 1.4 and 1.8 Canon 50mm lenses. They have both been problem free, and I can recommend either one for you. Probably best to get the 1.8 and save money which can be spent on another lens, maybe that 30mm Sigma, which might prove more useful to you on a cropped body than the 50mm lens. I have a 35mm 1.8 lens on my cropped Nikon d40 and it's become my favorite lens of all in my collection of quite a few Nikon and Canon lenses. That's partially because of the "normal" lens focal length on a cropped camera and it's fast speed (it does very well wide open!). So, to sum up, best choice would be the 50mm 1.8 AND the Sigma 30mm 1.4. An awesome combo that will give you great flexibililty.

funny, i have both the 50mm f/1.8 AND the sigma 30mm f/1.4 😀

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I had a 50/1.8 before and I dropped it after 6 months of use. I haven't bought a new lens to replace it, but if I do, I think I'll get the Sigma 50/1.4.