Urgently need help deciding.. 50mm 1.8

[italianfemmy]

Ok, I am getting ready to press the button to buy the Canon EF-S 70-200L 2.8 IS and the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8.

I don't remember the reviews I read on the 50/1.8 and don't have time to reach them all but I was wondering since I found one brand new on Amazon for 78 if I should go ahead and buy it with the same order so that I don't have to pay extra shipping.

How well does this lens work for weddings and low light in churches, etc? Is it a big difference down from the 2.8? Also, can you only use it at 50mm or does it have a range?

Thanks for your help in advance...

[picturecrazy]

it works... in bright light.
As a low light lens, it lacks focus accuracy. It's great for the price, but that's it. I have one and only use it outdoors when it's bright. It also has the most hideously ugly bokeh I have ever seen. This lens was designed purely for sharpness so they cut corners on everything else.

And if possible, I would put the extra into buying the 70-200 F/2.8 IS. It's a lifesaver. You may end up just selling the non-IS version and buying the IS one later and lose more money in the end.

Indoors in the evening or dark churches, 1/30 ISO800 is very common. You can't do that at 100mm without IS!!!

[italianfemmy]

Oh sorry... I am getting the IS. I forgot to add the IS to the end of it. I found one at a great price so I am grabning it up.. hence the urgency here.

Ok, so 50/1.8 not so much... are there any lower number aperatures in the 1 point something's that will do excellent in very low light other than primes? Thanks!

[Tish]

The three low light primes I see mentioned most are the 50 1.4, the 35 L (I think...), and the 85 1.8. The 50 & the 85 are in the $300-$400 range typically.

Congrats on the new lenses!

[monter]

Thanks for starting this thread. I was just looking at the 50 as well. I think I've pretty much talked myself out of it. good luck deciding!

[CyberPet]

I'd rather look into the f/1.4 version of the 50 mm if I were to use a fast prime. The f/1.8 is a bit "plastic". Although, it's a cheap lens, so you don't have anything to lose by buying it, it's a good lens to have in case you need that little extra speed.

[tim]

I'd suggest the Sigma 30mm F1.4 instead of either Canon 1.4 or 1.8. I'd rather use the kit lens than the 50mm F1.8.

[Photolistic]

it works... in bright light.
As a low light lens, it lacks focus accuracy. It's great for the price, but that's it. I have one and only use it outdoors when it's bright. It also has the most hideously ugly bokeh I have ever seen. This lens was designed purely for sharpness so they cut corners on everything else.

And if possible, I would put the extra into buying the 70-200 F/2.8 IS. It's a lifesaver. You may end up just selling the non-IS version and buying the IS one later and lose more money in the end.

Indoors in the evening or dark churches, 1/30 ISO800 is very common. You can't do that at 100mm without IS!!!

Just curious... why fo you have the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8?

[picturecrazy]

Just curious... why fo you have the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8?

Used the 1.8 for a while. It's sharp and can take fantastic pictures. It's shortcomings became more and more apparent... especially that darn ugly bokeh! BARF! Got the 1.4 to replace it. But the 1.8 is so darn cheap that putting the effort into selling it isn't worth the $50 I'd get for it. I'm going to give it to my brother-in-law as he just bought an XT.

Now that I've downsized to crop bodies, I have found the 50mm range to be less useful. That's where the awesome Sigma 30 1.4 comes in. Now I want to trade my 50 1.4 for an 85 1.8.

[jamiewexler]

I think the 50 f1.8 is a great backup lens, that you should own if you can't spring for the extra $$$ that the 50 f1.4 commands. There are situations when - even with IS - you'll want a lens with a wider aperture for shortened DOF, and the 50 f1.8 is the most economical way to get there. I used a 50 f1.8 as my main available light lens for about 20 weddings before I bought a 35/2 for the extra width in close quarters. It is a capable lens:

http://k47.pbase.com/v3/30/516430/2/44210803.CindyDerek111a.jpg

http://k41.pbase.com/v3/30/516430/2/44214436.JenDave0140a.jpg

http://k53.pbase.com/v3/30/516430/1/44764990.JenBrian020a.jpg

http://i5.pbase.com/v3/30/516430/1/46103538.smKaraRobert1105a.jpg

http://k43.pbase.com/v3/30/516430/1/46669825.KristinScott08.jpg

I just upgraded to the 1.4 when I got the 5D, and I don't see the 1.4 as being any sharper than my 1.8. It focuses faster and lets in more light, and the bokeh is prettier, and it's built better, but it's not any sharper...

[Scott_Quier]

If you have the money to do so, I would recommend you take a pass on the 50 f/1.8. I had it. And there's a reason it's so inexpensive, as has been noted above. AF is not it's strong point, especially in low light. I have the 50 f/1.4 and am seriously considering the Sigma 30 f/1.4 as well, just for the very narrow DOF these apertures afford.

[Phil V]

I'd love the 50 1.4, the Sigma 30 1.4 and the 85 1.8, unfortunately I don't have the available cash at the moment.

I do believe that for anyone that can't afford either of those 3 the 50 1.8 is a no-brainer. It's vastly superior to having NO fast prime, just MHO of course. It's easy to say that it's inferior to the 1.4, but if the 1.4 is out of your budget - the 1.8 is simply irreplaceable.

[DocFrankenstein]

Skip it.

Optically it's a nice piece of glass. The bokeh is bad, but can be worse.

I have it and shoot for hobby, so if it misfocuses it's no biggie. You're planning to shoot for money. You don't want to deal with buzzing motors and imprecise focusing.

It is also a tad too short for a portrait prime. I'd want an 85 on a crop factor camera.

[coreypolis]

my least used lens, I'll be selling it along with some other things when I have enough to grab a new mid range zoom L.

[mmahoney]

The 1.8 bokeh can be quite good .. have a look at at the two food shots on my website shot with the 1.8 .. you cannot tell me how many aperture blades the lens has, it looks very circular.

Unless you need the build quality or speed (or quiet focus) then the 1.8 should do you fine .. in fact my lens collection includes some good "L" glass and the inexpensive 1.8 holds it own with them.

www.mikemahoney.ca
Mike

[italianfemmy]

I've decided to pass on the 1.8 and wait until I have enough money built up again to get a nicer prime. I don't want the hassle of selling it in a couple months at considerably less than I bought it for just so that I can have to buy one again. Not worth it to me personally. :-)

[TheSteveMadden]

I've decided to pass on the 1.8 and wait until I have enough money built up again to get a nicer prime. I don't want the hassle of selling it in a couple months at considerably less than I bought it for just so that I can have to buy one again. Not worth it to me personally. :-)


What part of $70 is "considerably less"? ;) Seriously... If it will be a long wait to save the other $230, why NOT get a 1.8 for training - the resale hit can't be more than the price of a pizza. Think of all the shots you'll miss while you're waiting.

Just my opinion, of course.

I gave mine away to a dear friend after I aquired the 1.4 so she could experience prime shooting with her new XTi. I considered the $70 as a cheap rental fee and passed on the joy. Maybe she'll do the same when or if she upgrades.

s

[dlphotography]

It'll do the job, but I had problems with the speed of focusing.