Looking at Cannon 50mm f1.8

[Athas_orm]

Hi,

I've seen the thread on the budget lenses.

First a word on my current equipment.

I own a Canon EOS 1000D, (just so you know bottom of range)
I have a EOS 300 (film) which I don't suspect will be used any longer I only ever used as a PS anyway and I don't think I know of any shops that process film in the country any more.

Now for the lenses.
The kit lens that came with the 1000D - EF-S 18- 55mm 1:3.5-5.6 II
I the EF 28-90mm 1:4-5.6 (hangover from the EOS 300)
Finally I have the EF 70-300mm 1:4-.6 III (hangover from the EOS 300)

Now as far as I understand it all these lenses are cheap and nasty is that correct?

I was also thinking about getting the again cheap Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II. Which I saw for £110 sterling today in a shop with a friend who's just bought his first DSLR. He joined the forum today but no sign of him yet.

Is this lens worth it? I mean they also had another 50mm at f/1.4. Is 1.8 a huge difference from 1.4.

I'm on a pretty tight budget but as far as I can see the 50mm seems to be a pretty popular lens. Does it complement the lenses I have. I'd really like to get a macro lens but I don't know if I can justify the prices I've seen all over £400.

final few questions.

Should I not even be thinking of buying a new lens yet considering I have only had the camera since December?

Should I be saving for better lenses? Or is there something else decient on a budget I should consider. I basically wanted something a bit "faster"

Is my EF 28-90mm 1:4-5.6 really any use any longer. I haven't even tried to use with the digital camera to be honest?

Sorry for the glut of questions.

Wes

[FormElement]

There's a reason they call the 50 f/1.8 the "plastic fantastic" and "nifty fifty". Just BUY IT.

In other words, YES you own nothing even remotely like it. It will make a huge and very cheap difference.

Beyond that, don't even worry about other equipment until you have a solid understanding of your own style.

[tonyniev]

yes, buy it...last weekend, I forgot my flash in the unbrella stand at home and I had to take pictures using available light, so I took out the $1000, 24- 105 mm zoom and placed my $100 "nifty fity" 50 mm F1.8 on the 5D Mark II to take the photos...here is a sample:

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Athas_orm

...Now as far as I understand it all these lenses are cheap and nasty is that correct?

No. They're cheap but limited. And slow. But not nasty. Learn to stop down to f/8 for sharpness and the shutter speeds you need, and they can turn in some very nice images for you.

Re: the thrifty fifty
Is this lens worth it? I mean they also had another 50mm at f/1.4. Is 1.8 a huge difference from 1.4.

As max. apertures go, it's only 2/3 of a stop. But lenses are about more than their numbers. The main difference between the EF 50/1.4 and the EF 50/1.8 is one of build quality and usability features for both manual and autofocusing. Whether or not that's worth an additional $300+, though is up to you.

The 1.8 has a plastic mount, the 1.4's is metal. The 1.8 has a small, awkwardly placed focus ring at the end of the lens. The 1.4's is sizable and properly placed on the barrel. The 1.8 doesn't have a distance scale, the 1.4 does. The 1.4 is USM (ultrasonic motor: fast, silent), the 1.8 isn't (whirs, takes a little longer). The 1.8 has five aperture blades, the 1.4 has eight. Optically, though, they both perform very close to each other.

The 1.8 is a better "first timer" choice than the 1.4, simply because you probably don't know if 50mm is a good focal length for you. At the low price of the 1.8, it makes a much better "training" lens, and after you upgrade to your ideal fast portrait prime, the 50/1.8 can still be useful as a macro reversal lens, or a trashable small & light travel lens.

I'm on a pretty tight budget but as far as I can see the 50mm seems to be a pretty popular lens. Does it complement the lenses I have.

Absolutely. You have nothing with a maximum aperture that wide. Between the 50/1.8 and the kit lens set to 55mm, there's more than a three stop difference. Three stops is the difference between using iso 100 and iso 800. You need to suss out what max. aperture actually means. Then the 50/1.8's appeal will become clear. If you've only been looking at focal lengths, you're missing half the picture.

I'd really like to get a macro lens but I don't know if I can justify the prices I've seen all over £400.

Welcome to dSLR land, where the prices all seem too high on all the glass you want.

Should I not even be thinking of buying a new lens yet considering I have only had the camera since December?

I don't think so. You're already relatively familiar with what different lenses can bring to the table from the two film lenses you've got.

Should I be saving for better lenses? Or is there something else decent on a budget I should consider. I basically wanted something a bit "faster"

That's the 50/1.8. And that's about it for budget lenses. If you want to go better, you're going to be hitting higher pricetags, pure and simple. Well, unless you go the adapted manual focus lens route, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms you probably don't want to open.

Is my EF 28-90mm 1:4-5.6 really any use any longer. I haven't even tried to use with the digital camera to be honest?

I'd recommend you do so and see. Chances are good you'll prefer the 18-55 for some things, the 28-90 for others. I'd say shoot a lot with both, and then after editing down to your keepers, see which one you used most for what.

A few tips: almost any lens will get sharper when stopped down from wide open. And the rule of thumb for eliminating camera shake from an image is to use a shutter speed of 1/focal_length or faster. So, with 300mm, that means 1/300s. With 50mm, that means 1/50s.

[Raoul Isidro]

Go for the 50mm F1.8 if you are on tight budget.
You only realize the value and beauty of any lens when you go and use it yourself, not from reviews, write ups, feedbacks and opinions of others.
I like very much the 50mm F1.8 of Canon and Nikon.
I use both of them and they are great performers.
Cheers!

[Samanax]

It's a very good lens for the price. The build quality may not be so great but it's the optics that matter and the EF 50mm f/1.8 II does have good optics.

I have one on my XTi and it almost never comes off.

Shooting with a prime will help you learn to move around while you compose the shot. No zoom on the lens...you zoom with your feet...and as you move around you keep looking through the viewfinder and compose while you move.

[ChrisPhilip]

Great info guys. I have a Canon 450D (XSi) with the 18-55 kit lens. I am also thinking about getting this 50mm f1.8 II lens. Just a quick, maybe stupid question, what types of photos is this lens best suited to? Are there types of pics or situations where the kit lens would be better suited (other then the zoom factor)? For example I like to do landscape/cityscape photos and lately am getting into portriats. Im guessing this lens would be better for portraits?

[Athas_orm]

Thanks for all the advise. I bit the bullet and got it. Looks very good compared to the quality of the kit lens, however I'll need to get used to moving my feet again.

Chris, I think this is a better lens for the portraits yes but I haven't tried out properly to know.

See comment above by inkista

[BCampbell]

Hope you enjoy it Athas. I jhave this lens too and it gets a lot of use from me, it's super sharp once you get used to the quirks -- easily worth the money.

However I wish I had the f/1.4. My advice to anyone considering the 1.8 is to save up for that lens instead, it's very much worth the price increase.

I do have issues with the local length on the cropped (Rebel/##D/T#i) bodies. It's long; longer than you think at first, and a bit too long for what I use it for most -- indoor candid shoots. But I can get shots that I wouldn't be able to get otherwise, at all. To see how well this focal length works for you, take your kit lens and set it to 50mm and leave it there. You'll quickly see that it's a little restrictive.

50mm is the "standard" focal length, but that started in 35mm film days. On full frame bodies, yes it's "normal". On cropped bodies, it's the equivalent of 80mm. Something in the 28/30/35mm range is closer to "normal" for us. Of course those aren't $100.

[ChrisPhilip]

Well Im going to buy this lens this weekend. I also went ahead and ordered a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Macro APO DG after reading the post here about inexpensive lenses. I figure these two will supplement my 18-55mm kit lens for now while I learn and grow. Then later on down the road I can upgrade again. I figure I will use the 50mm for portraits and maybe try using it as a walk around lens to get used to a prime. I do some autosport photos so the Sigma should help me there, I need to perfect my panning shots. Plus I can use this lens for macro (somewhat). For now, the 18mm end of the kit lens will do for landscape and cityscape shots and eventually Ill try to get a better wide angle lens.
So I think these three lenses will get my feet wet in all different forms of photography. And the two lenses cost me less then $400 CDN (Had to get the sigma shipped).