Choosing new Canon prime lens

[tinton14]

Hello,

I'm having some trouble deciding which lens to upgrade to now. I'm currently using a Canon 500D/T1i with kit lens of 18-200mm. After some research, reading different reviews and mixed reviews on different lenses, I'm planning to purchase a new lens, I'm planning to get a new faster and prime lens. Right now I have been considering Canon 50mm 1.8 (i/ii) (most likely i if i can find one), but I was also looking at the 85mm 1.8 USM as well as the 50mm 1.4 USM. The only lens I've been able to try is the 50mm 1.8 ii more thoroughly and it does feel very toylike and I don't feel very confident that it will last me very long. I was only able to take about 2 shots with both the 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4, however since it was in some store, I couldn't see how well they actually are in low light. With the small amount of time I had trying them though, I felt both the 85mm and 50mm 1.4 were more quiet at focusing and seem to be faster at it as well, they both feel to be much better built to last compared to the "nifty fifty". I do like to take a variety of photographs from landscapes to portraits to other objects. I'm leaning towards either 85mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4 for now mostly due to the feel of them being much more durable and the short experience I had with them. The only reason I'm thinking about 50mm 1.8 is the price difference, however I do want a lens that will last me a long time and not something that will be broken easily, not that I won't do my best to keep them safe. I've read problems with the 1.4 auto focus failing after a year use, and other stories with 50mm 1.8ii being broken very easily. With both taking photos indoor and outdoor on a 500D, which would be recommended? Any thoughts on this would be helpful in me making a decision soon. Also, while currently on vacation in Hong Kong, I was around asking for the prices of these and most of the stores had the 50mm 1.8ii out of stock without knowledge of when new orders will be in, could this be Canon discontinuing the lens and/or possibly coming out with the next version of this (mkiii possibly?)? This is just a guess since it was the only lens that was like this around all stores I asked, or it could just be since its the cheapest Canon lens around. Sorry this was so long, thank you all for your help here.

[Jojie]

I have 50mm 1.8 II. Yes very plasticy and looks like it will break in a drop. But for the price and the tactness of iit's outcome.... priceless...

[Cardiiiii]

Go for either the Canon 85mm f1.8 or the SIgma 30mm f1.4.

[OsmosisStudios]

Havent heard of any replacement for the 50/1.8 mkII, and i've been able to order them at work still, so I dont foresee anything else.

This depends greatly on how you like to shoot. Keep in mind, a lot of people find 50mm to be too limiting indoors, so 85 is really pushing it unless you plan on doing some fairly tight headshots. You may be more interested in the 35mm/50mm debate.

If you've got the money for it, the 50/1.4 is going to be the best option, I think.

[tinton14]

Thank you for your replies, I guess the 50/1.8mkII is just low on inventory in Hong Kong then since I would have to wait a month for the places to be able to get their hands on them on the few that could give an estimate of time, the rest didn't know if they would get more. I like to shoot, I'm still learning since I'm fairly new to DSLR and all, got my 500D back in the beginning of January. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is out of my budget, I'm trying for below 400USD. I haven't had trouble with the 50mm 1.8 II indoors, however I don't find the lens focus to be very good on it when I compare to my 18.200 kit lens, I do not know if there should be difference with focus on prime and zoom lens or if its just the 50mm 1.8 II I was able to borrow, however while the pictures are fine, the focus seems to be sluggish(?). I've just taken a look at the 35mm f2 and seems fairly good, although with a small price difference of it from 50/1.4 and it isn't a USM if I'm not mistaken. 35mm f2 seems to be between 50mm 1.8 II and 1.4? Is the f2 going to be lacking compared to the 1.4 though? Thank you again for all your help.

[inkista]

Your observations are spot-on. Most people don't notice the USM bit on the lens designation.

The EF 50mm f/1.8 II and EF 35mm f/2 are not USM lens, so you'll hear the autofocus, and it'll be slower. And the 50/1.8 II in particular is notorious for AF issues--part of the low-low price.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 has micro-motor USM, so a little slower, and doesn't offer full-time manual focus, but it will be silent.

The EF 85mm f/1.8 USM has ring-type USM, which is the nicest.

It's just a tad over your budget, but there's also the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM (also a ring-type).

[tinton14]

The different USM is still a bit confusing to me with micro-motor and ring-type also the full-time manual focus. I thought there was just USM which was a better motor for quieter and quicker focus? There is the distance scale on some of the lens, although I haven't gotten a chance to try them, are those useful/helpful? Would I miss it not having it? Does ring-type mean full-time manual focus?

inkista, I noticed that you have 50mm 1.8 II and 85mm 1.8, I know its a little different compared to the 50mm 1.4, but how would you compare the difference between the 35mm difference between the two?

thanks again for all your help.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by tinton14

The different USM is still a bit confusing to me with micro-motor and ring-type also the full-time manual focus. I thought there was just USM which was a better motor for quieter and quicker focus?

Yup. That's what marketing wants you to think. For the most part, this is correct, but ring-type is nicer, and the specs on the lenses pretty much don't tell you which is which. All the Ls have ring-type, but for the non-Ls, that link I gave above is a good way of telling which version you have.

There is the distance scale on some of the lens, although I haven't gotten a chance to try them, are those useful/helpful? Would I miss it not having it?

They're much more useful on manual focus lenses than on auto focus ones. With autofocus, it's advantageous to have the focus "travel" be smaller: when you turn the manual focus ring on an AF lenses, it tends to be only about 90° from infinity to closest focus distance or less. With a manual focus ring, it can be more like 270° around the barrel of the lens. So, you have a much larger focus scale. The smaller the focus scale is, the harder it is to use with any accuracy. Chances are good, that unless you use hyperfocal distances or zone focus street shooting (I.e., prefocusing and shooting without holding the camera to your face), the focus scale isn't going to be a huge amount of use to you.

Does ring-type mean full-time manual focus?

Yes, with two exceptions: the 50/1.4 (whoops. I'll go correct that in the post above), and the 28-105 USM Mk I.

inkista, I noticed that you have 50mm 1.8 II and 85mm 1.8, I know its a little different compared to the 50mm 1.4, but how would you compare the difference between the 35mm difference between the two?

Different enough to note. Not necessarily enough to justify a $400 lens purchase, unless you can't move from where you're sitting to shoot (I shoot science fiction conventions and booksignings where I'm not allowed to roam the floor). Focal length differences are kind of on a sliding scale--the closer to the wide end, the bigger the differences are, and the farther you are towards telephoto, the smaller the differences get. I've got an 85, a 90, and a 100mm lens, and they all feel pretty much the same to me, focal length-wise (not rendition or handling wise, but that's another story). But they definitely feel appreciably longer than my 50s and shorter than my 135.

[BCampbell]

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anywhere in here why you're planning on shooting with the new lens.

I don't feel that the 50mm lenses are good for general/walkaround use on the crop sensor bodies. Unless you're specifically getting a prime for, say, portraiture or very specific landscape work, I'd look at wider options.

[tinton14]

So if I understood this correctly, ring-type means that it is easier to focus more accurately when using ring-type. Also as you mention ring-type would be the nicest, and all L lenses have ring-type, would that justify the higher price at it over the 50mm 1.4?

What about the quality though, for 50mm and 85mm, hows the difference for it? I'm still figuring out what I shoot more of and all that, so I'm not exactly sure which focal length is better for a more well-rounded shoot.

I'm planning on getting a prime not for just general and walk around lens, I feel that there is a limit to what I can do with my 18-200mm kit lens. However I feel/hope that I could learn more in photography using a prime lens instead of another zoom lens since it will change the way I shoot compared to a zoom lens. I shoot portraits and landscapes as well as still life, not one specific type yet. Also I shoot at lower light settings sometimes, so a 1.4 or 1.8 could be helpful. What do you mean by wider options though? More towards the 35mm or 85mm or something else?

Thank you all for your thought and help on all this.