Nifty Fifty or more?

[boclcown]

I have about $70 saved up following my recent splurge on my 400D, and a couple dozen DVD's. Anyways, I have enough for the 50mm 1.8, but am also aspiring to purchase the sigma 18-50 2.8.

Would I be better off buying the 50 1.8 and enjoying it for the moment, or getting the 18-50 first? Which would be more useful?

I have the kit lense atm, and am in need of something sharper (and faster).

[joshandlauri]

Don't know about that sigma, But the 50(79.99) was my first lens purchase and didn't come off til i bought the sigma 17-70 ($340 ouch). It was awesome, somewhat quick and very sharp compared to the kit lens. Low light no problem.

[kumicho]

got the nifty, and about a month later got the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I haven't felt the need to go back to the nifty (yet), as the f2.8 is still quite wide and useful from a low-light perspective. I learned a lot from using the "foot zoom" but now the nifty is almost superfluous. I'm sure I'll go back to it, but right now it's not really necessary. I'd say save up a little more and go for either the 18-50 or 17-50 2.8 and then pick up a nifty when you get the chance. :)

[breakdown]

I bought a 50mm shortly after getting my rebel xt. I used it when I was indoors and at nighttime quite a bit but I used the kit lens during the day. My next purchase was a 430 EX flash unit and since then I've hardly touched my 50mm lens. I find zooming to be way more useful. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I were in your situation, I would save up for the Sigma. Personally, I'm waiting for my tax return to arrive then I'm getting a 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Can't wait.

[mbellot]

What are you going to use the 50 for?

On the XTi 50mm is a bit "long" for indoor shots (unless you're in a big area). Try walking around with your kit lens fixed at 50mm to get a feel for it...

I have the 50/1.8, but I rarely use it. I ended up picking up a 28/2.8 as well for more speed than the kit and wider view than the 50.

If money is tight (and it sounds like it is), I would suggest holding off. But do some reseach as well, there are several lenses in the range of the Sigma that get pretty good reviews.

If you're just looking to burn $70, then go for it. There is no question the lens is sharp, and the f/1.8 aperture can be fun to play with...

[Tee Why]

save up for a 18-50.

[12345Michael54321]

Which would be more useful?

It largely depends on what sort of pictures you wish to make.

For example, I do a fair amount of portraits. I often want to draw attention to the subject by sharply limiting depth-of-field. The nifty 50's maximum apertrue of f/1.8 is somewhat better in this regard than is Sigma's maximum aperture of f/2.8.

But this aside, the f/2.8 zoom costs what, around $400 or so? The nifty 50 is around 70 bucks. Given the low cost - less than 1/5 as much as the Sigma - I'd recommend buying the 50mm lens. It's not hard to imagine situations where a reasonably fast, reasonably sharp and contrasty, small, lightweight, fixed focal length lens, equivalent to a short tele in the 35mm world, could come in handy. I might not suggest this if the lens were $250, but at $70 it's just not expensive enough to result in much buyer's remorse, even if you don't use it all that much.

[jaymrobinson]

It depends on your shooting style. If you are willing to put in the extra effort to make good images with a wide aperture single focal length lens, then I think you should definitely get the 50 1.8.