I fancy a prime lens - is the Canon 50mm F1.8 a good buy?
Discussion
xjay1337 said:
tog said:
But stopped down it's great. I've had my Canon 50mm since my 15th birthday in 1988. I don't use it all that often (I'm more of a 35/85 kind of guy) but I shot about 250 corporate portraits with it over a few days last month and was really impressed. On a 5D3, stopped down to about f8, in good light, I'd forgotten just how sharp it can be. My assistant was amazed - especially as it was a fair bit older than him!
I agree, they're much sharper at those apertures. Then again, it defeats the purpose of a prime IMO!It's a much different lense but I did some playing around with a 24-70 F2.8 and that was lovely. And has a lovely price tag to go with it.
I've got the f1.4 version. I found it good for portraits and detail shots on my cropped sensor camera, but wouldn't use it as a walkaround lens. I find it more useful now that I've switched to full frame. The 28mm f2.8 STM lens mentioned earlier in the thread would be a good bet. I've got the 40mm version, which I pretty much use instead of the body cap on my camera - it is that small.
Out of the 50mm mentioned, the new f1.8 STM is the star.
I've had plenty of 50s but at £100 there's nothing not to like. It's made out of plastic, but it's light and feels solid and well made. Additionally, IMHO it performs better than the older Canon 50mm f1.4 in terms of sharpness at equivalent points.
Yes, it doesn't do f1.4, but the times where you absolutely must have f1.4 and not f1.8 are almost never, and only the centre of it was usable at f1.4, and soft enough that I preferred the overall look of stopping it down to f1.8 (plus) anyway.
I sold my Canon f1.4 because to me it was the inferior of the two in sharpness, and it never got used. On a crop sensor though, I'd walk around with a 30-35mm instead.
The pancake 40mm is also often undervalued and overlooked, but I've shot whole family holidays with just that lens, and the IQ even fully open at f2.8 is very good.
I've had plenty of 50s but at £100 there's nothing not to like. It's made out of plastic, but it's light and feels solid and well made. Additionally, IMHO it performs better than the older Canon 50mm f1.4 in terms of sharpness at equivalent points.
Yes, it doesn't do f1.4, but the times where you absolutely must have f1.4 and not f1.8 are almost never, and only the centre of it was usable at f1.4, and soft enough that I preferred the overall look of stopping it down to f1.8 (plus) anyway.
I sold my Canon f1.4 because to me it was the inferior of the two in sharpness, and it never got used. On a crop sensor though, I'd walk around with a 30-35mm instead.
The pancake 40mm is also often undervalued and overlooked, but I've shot whole family holidays with just that lens, and the IQ even fully open at f2.8 is very good.
JustinP1 said:
Yes, it doesn't do f1.4, but the times where you absolutely must have f1.4 and not f1.8 are almost never, and only the centre of it was usable at f1.4, and soft enough that I preferred the overall look of stopping it down to f1.8 (plus) anyway.
Exactly. I have the f1.4 and used it a couple of times as a crisis lens at weddings when the church was really dark and no flash was allowed. But even then to get the focus acceptable I had to use it at f2.It's nice to think 'Woo, I have a 1.4 and my friends only have puny 1.8s', but it's unlikely to be worth the extra cost.
If the angle of view of 50mm on a crop sensor is OK for you and you don't want zoom then the 1.8 is very good value.
rich888 said:
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 costing approx £100 was one of the first lenses I purchased for use with my crop-sensor 700D and is absolutely superb for DOF plus it's damn fast and sharp so great for working in lower light situations, however, if space is tight you might not get the whole car in the frame, is also fantastic for use as a portrait lens, is equivalent I think to an 85mm on a full frame camera. You can use this on a full frame at a later date should you decide to make the leap though the 7D2 is a pretty impressive bit of kit so I guess you will be using it for quite a few more years.
I enjoy attending classic car shows and found that when using the 50mm lens quite often I couldn't back up far enough away due to other cars being in the way so needed something a bit wider so purchased a Canon EFS 24mm f/2.8 lens which costs approx £125 so isn't a lot more money but it does allow for quite a bit more to be pulled in to the frame, and being f/2.8 is still a pretty fast lens. It's so tiny when stuck on the front of your DSLR folks hardly notice you. Depth of field isn't so good but at least you can photograph the whole car without having to stand back 20 feet!
For the money these two lens are excellent choices.
Now I also went a bit mad and bought a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 which I happen to like an awful lot and was my favourite choice for when attending car shows or using indoors but it does cost far more money. It also weighs substantially more and is comparable in size and weight to the Canon 135mm f/2 lens so is no lightweight, unfortunately it's not compatible with full frame cameras which is a bit of a blow for me because I now have a 5D3 which I'm getting to grips with. I knew this when I bought it I just didn't realise that I would be ordering a 5D3 so soon!!!
Hope this helps.
Some very good points. I hadn't thought of the 24mm f2.8 - it's virtually the same price as the new STM fifty, by the looks of it.I enjoy attending classic car shows and found that when using the 50mm lens quite often I couldn't back up far enough away due to other cars being in the way so needed something a bit wider so purchased a Canon EFS 24mm f/2.8 lens which costs approx £125 so isn't a lot more money but it does allow for quite a bit more to be pulled in to the frame, and being f/2.8 is still a pretty fast lens. It's so tiny when stuck on the front of your DSLR folks hardly notice you. Depth of field isn't so good but at least you can photograph the whole car without having to stand back 20 feet!
For the money these two lens are excellent choices.
Now I also went a bit mad and bought a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 which I happen to like an awful lot and was my favourite choice for when attending car shows or using indoors but it does cost far more money. It also weighs substantially more and is comparable in size and weight to the Canon 135mm f/2 lens so is no lightweight, unfortunately it's not compatible with full frame cameras which is a bit of a blow for me because I now have a 5D3 which I'm getting to grips with. I knew this when I bought it I just didn't realise that I would be ordering a 5D3 so soon!!!
Hope this helps.
Forgive my naivety here, but would that go wider than my 17-55 lens zoomed right out?
Car photos was actually a separate requirement to a general play around lens, though. I don't know if I'd use it enough to justify it.
To give you an idea, here are the sort of confines I usually find myself squeezing into:
Chris71 said:
Some very good points. I hadn't thought of the 24mm f2.8 - it's virtually the same price as the new STM fifty, by the looks of it.
Forgive my naivety here, but would that go wider than my 17-55 lens zoomed right out?
No, it wouldn't. The smaller the number, the wider the angle, hence using 10mm for massive landscapes and 600mm to get the interesting little bird on that tree just to the left of the rock in the middle of that massive landscape.Forgive my naivety here, but would that go wider than my 17-55 lens zoomed right out?
The reason Canon, Nikon and all the other old school SLR manufacturers had a really cheap 50mm prime lens is that this focal length represents pretty much exactly your own field of vision on a 35mm camera, so was perfect for just walking around, seeing something in front of you and thinking it would make a great photo, as when you lifted the camera up, that's what you'd see, not a zoomed in or out version.
The problem with this is that for some completely unfathomable reason, the vast majority of people who would want a cheap standard field of vision prime lens have been using cropped sensor DSLRs for the last decade or so, but the manufacturers haven't yet built a cheap prime that takes this into account.
I've got a 7D Mk1 as my main camera, and I also have a 50mm f1.8 for it. The last time it got used was probably 4 years ago, shortly before I tool delivery of a 28mm f1.8, as it was unbelievably frustrating to use! The crop factor on a 7D is 1.6, so my 28mm lens comes up as 28 x 1.6 = the equivalent of 44.8mm on a full frame DSLR or 35mm film SLR.
This gives me a slightly wider field of vision than my own eyes do, but that's actually perfect, as for a number of my favourite shots, I've got them printed off on A1 canvas mounted on stretcher bars, so the extra bit I get round the edges covers the side of the bars, and the front is more or less exactly what I saw before I put the camera up to my eye!
Only you can decide what's right for the sort of shooting you want to do, but if your aim is to be able to see something you like the look of, lift the camera up to your eye and take the picture, I'd suggest you'll find something in the range of 28-35mm far more satisfying than a 50mm.
Kermit power said:
Chris71 said:
Some very good points. I hadn't thought of the 24mm f2.8 - it's virtually the same price as the new STM fifty, by the looks of it.
Forgive my naivety here, but would that go wider than my 17-55 lens zoomed right out?
Only you can decide what's right for the sort of shooting you want to do, but if your aim is to be able to see something you like the look of, lift the camera up to your eye and take the picture, I'd suggest you'll find something in the range of 28-35mm far more satisfying than a 50mm.Forgive my naivety here, but would that go wider than my 17-55 lens zoomed right out?
^^ works for me .
When I had a cropped sensor Canon, my Sigma 30mm f1.4 stayed on it 80% of the time, especially portraits indoors.
There's a new 'Art' version of it which looks even better, that would be my personal choice.
However, the more fundamental thing is if you realise your style is shooting more wide angle stuff, then in the long term a full frame body such as the 6D would mean that it's a lot easier to get lenses to do the job you want!
There's a new 'Art' version of it which looks even better, that would be my personal choice.
However, the more fundamental thing is if you realise your style is shooting more wide angle stuff, then in the long term a full frame body such as the 6D would mean that it's a lot easier to get lenses to do the job you want!
JustinP1 said:
When I had a cropped sensor Canon, my Sigma 30mm f1.4 stayed on it 80% of the time, especially portraits indoors.
There's a new 'Art' version of it which looks even better, that would be my personal choice.
However, the more fundamental thing is if you realise your style is shooting more wide angle stuff, then in the long term a full frame body such as the 6D would mean that it's a lot easier to get lenses to do the job you want!
I am looking to get a Sigma 30mm f1.4 to go alongside the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM as I find on a crop body that 50mm is too narrow. It is the equivalent of 80mm on a full frame, whereas a 30mm would be 48mm equivalent. There's a new 'Art' version of it which looks even better, that would be my personal choice.
However, the more fundamental thing is if you realise your style is shooting more wide angle stuff, then in the long term a full frame body such as the 6D would mean that it's a lot easier to get lenses to do the job you want!
corozin said:
Still, for £80 you'd be daft not to buy one. It's the cheapest way I know to get f1.8.
That was my thinking until I got one and realised I never ever use it. With the benefit of hindsight, it's pretty daft to spend £80 on something I never use!I've also got a Tamron 28-70 f2.8 which is a perfectly decent lens that you might think would be on my camera most of the time, but I can't remember the last time I used that either!
The overwhelming majority of my shots are with my Canon 28mm f1.8, then in order of use, a Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 70-300mm and Canon 100mm F2.8 macro.
Snails said:
JustinP1 said:
When I had a cropped sensor Canon, my Sigma 30mm f1.4 stayed on it 80% of the time, especially portraits indoors.
There's a new 'Art' version of it which looks even better, that would be my personal choice.
However, the more fundamental thing is if you realise your style is shooting more wide angle stuff, then in the long term a full frame body such as the 6D would mean that it's a lot easier to get lenses to do the job you want!
I am looking to get a Sigma 30mm f1.4 to go alongside the Canon 50mm f1.8 STM as I find on a crop body that 50mm is too narrow. It is the equivalent of 80mm on a full frame, whereas a 30mm would be 48mm equivalent. There's a new 'Art' version of it which looks even better, that would be my personal choice.
However, the more fundamental thing is if you realise your style is shooting more wide angle stuff, then in the long term a full frame body such as the 6D would mean that it's a lot easier to get lenses to do the job you want!
The nifty-fifty if popular because it's cheap, and that's about the only reason people buy it. It's a bit long for every day use and a bit short for portrait or situations a short-tele is useful.
On a crop-sensor a 30mm or 35mm is a more useful focal length for an every day/walkabout prime lens.
On a crop-sensor a 30mm or 35mm is a more useful focal length for an every day/walkabout prime lens.
Simpo Two said:
Everyone says you have to have one. I have one. I never use it.
GSalt said:
The nifty-fifty if popular because it's cheap, and that's about the only reason people buy it. It's a bit long for every day use and a bit short for portrait or situations a short-tele is useful.
On a crop-sensor a 30mm or 35mm is a more useful focal length for an every day/walkabout prime lens.
I agree with these two, I don't think 50mm on a crop is all that useful, I've got one and never use it either.On a crop-sensor a 30mm or 35mm is a more useful focal length for an every day/walkabout prime lens.
I've often thought about a 35mm prime instead.
OP: If I was you I'd use your 17-55 at 50mm for a while and see if you get on with the length, they might only be £80-100 but its wasted money if you aren't going to use it.
Crafty_ said:
Simpo Two said:
Everyone says you have to have one. I have one. I never use it.
GSalt said:
The nifty-fifty if popular because it's cheap, and that's about the only reason people buy it. It's a bit long for every day use and a bit short for portrait or situations a short-tele is useful.
On a crop-sensor a 30mm or 35mm is a more useful focal length for an every day/walkabout prime lens.
I agree with these two, I don't think 50mm on a crop is all that useful, I've got one and never use it either.On a crop-sensor a 30mm or 35mm is a more useful focal length for an every day/walkabout prime lens.
I've often thought about a 35mm prime instead.
OP: If I was you I'd use your 17-55 at 50mm for a while and see if you get on with the length, they might only be £80-100 but its wasted money if you aren't going to use it.
Now if I was at a car show I would definitely need something wider and the 24mm f2.8 seems like a very good compromise and has an even smaller footprint.
As GSalt has mentioned, perhaps use your 17-55 lens a little bit more then check out what zoom range you are tending to focus at, is it nearer to 17mm or 55mm, I believe Lightroom can provide these stats for you. Once you have this info you can then make your choice.
If you're looking to branch out into portrait photography then the 50mm may be an option for you or the 85mm lens, alternatively the Canon 100mm which can also be used for macro photography to great effect, so many choices nowadays!
There are some very knowledgeable guys on PH who can better guide you than me, and that includes many of the users that have contributed to this thread - I believe that Simpo Two takes wedding photographs for a living so he might be able to recommend a decent prime lens for portrait photography. I bought the 50mm because it performs well in low light conditions which is useful for photographing my fast moving kids indoors where the lighting might not be that good and I prefer not to use flash whenever possible.
rich888 said:
I was out and about with my 4 year old yesterday wandering around Rufford Abbey with the 5D3 and canon 50mm in hand and have to say I was well chuffed with the results, the 50mm lens is just so tiny and the bokeh is fantastic, nothing comes close to it for the money.
For the OP or anyone else coming along later, it's worth remembering that the OP's 7D2 is APS-C vs. the full-frame 5D3 which makes for a [u]very[/u] different answer to most lens-related questions. A 30mm lens on a 7D2 gives a near-identical framing to a 50mm on a 5D3.(personally though, I'd skip the 50 on any format - on APS-C I'd go for 24mm and 85mm, and on full-frame 35mm and 85mm. I'm not up on current Canon lenses though, I switched to Fuji/Merrill a while ago)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff