Canon EF 50mm f1.8, worth the investment?

[TTP]

Hi!

I just recently purchased the Canon 20D
which came with the EF-S 18-55mm Canon Lense.

Is it worth to invest in the extremely low priced
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II Lense.

Would there be a difference in optical quality
versus the EF-S Lense or would this be one to
pass on for now.

Thoughts?

[Adam Hicks]

Do a search... tons of stuff on this. great lens. cheap. get one.

[Scottes]

The 50mm f/1.8 is undoubtedly the best bargain from Canon. Great lens, quite fast at f/1.8 max. I'd say that the quality beats the 18-55 (though not by a lot).

[tim]

Yes.

[avdh20]

Great lens. Plus if you own a Canon you have to have the Nifty Fifty.

[Dante King]

Hardly an investment. More of a no brainer.

[Andy_T]

I'd say that the quality beats the 18-55 (though not by a lot).

That would be build quality.

Image quality is *very* different.

My quick (unscientfic) test provided images of the same sharpness at 50 mm focal length with the 1.8/50 @ f/2.8 and the 18-55 @ f/8. These were 'sharp' when viewed at 100% crop. That's quite some difference :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[malum]

It costs peanuts and it blows the kit lens away in terms of image sharpness.
Once you have used it it makes using the kit lens a bit disappointing at anything less than F8.

Of course the downside is that you will also want to buy some L glass after seeing the results...

[griff2]

malum wrote: Of course the downside is that you will also want to buy some L glass after seeing the results...
Yes, the nifty fifty has started many an L addiction..

[mr.photoguy]

If you have the money... mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn I would say go for the Tamron 28-75.. I am kind of wishing I got it in the first place instead of the 50 1.8.. However, if money is tight, then the 50 1.8 is understandable.. I just hate the choopy circle lights that are created by it in the background, you have to becarful ...

[rg-tom]

mr photoguy they are completely different animals...the 50mm F1.8 is the ultimate budget low light lens. The tamron is a very nice mid range zoom, but the F1.8 is irreplaceable ;)

[mr.photoguy]

Please. I have them both...
I don't even use the 50 1.8 @ 1.8 .. rarely ever do.. It's ususally f2.5 and above.

To be honet, the 50 is a nice lens.. I am not knocking. The bokeh isn't all that great (nothing new), and when you have lights far off in the background they come out like odd looking pointy edged objects.

The Tamron @ 50mm is very comparible. At 2.8 it is usable, the bokeh is pretty good, and if you have little lights far off in the background they show up as round.
The contrast, and saturation out of the Tamron is pretty good also.
Let's not talk about sharpness..

But like I said, if you can spring it.. why not go for the Tamron. or if you want to spend a bit more, get the 17-85 IS, although that isn't a fast enough lens for my tastes.

Here is a sample image of the Tamron...
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/41851498
that's wide open @ 2.8
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/41829971
50mm f 1.8 @ 3.2

There bothe good lenses, but "If money permits, I would tackle the Tamron". Then make a move for a ultra wide angle, like the 10-22, or 12-24.

Also, The 50 f1.8 is better than the kit lens @ 50mm.. but then the kit lens at 50mm will be about a f5.6, but respectively the 50f1.8 will be sharper.

[cmM]

awesome lost. One of the sharpest lenses I own ;)

[khiromu]

50/1.8 can also serve as nicer body cap when you are not using your camera!!

[pcasciola]

The 50/1.8 is a great lens for the price, and it definitely blows away the kit lens in many ways, especially when shooting in low light. I'm glad I got in when I had only the kit lens in that range, but I agree with mr. photoguy here. Now that I have the Tamron 28-75 Xr Di, I rarely use the 50/1.8 unless I need faster than f/2.8 which is not that often. I did some side by side comparisons at f/2.8, and the difference in sharpness and contrast was hardly noticeable. The counterpoint to that is that there are definitely some bad copies as well as some mediocre copies of the Tamron floating around, while I don't think I've ever heard of a bad 50/1.8.

If $325 is too much for you to spend right now, then I would say definitely go for the 50/1.8. If you later decide it's not for you, you could sell it in a heartbeat and only lose about $10-20 on it.

[smittymike19]

The 50/1.8 is a great lens for the price, and it definitely blows away the kit lens in many ways, especially when shooting in low light. I'm glad I got in when I had only the kit lens in that range, but I agree with mr. photoguy here. Now that I have the Tamron 28-75 Xr Di, I rarely use the 50/1.8 unless I need faster than f/2.8 which is not that often. I did some side by side comparisons at f/2.8, and the difference in sharpness and contrast was hardly noticeable. The counterpoint to that is that there are definitely some bad copies as well as some mediocre copies of the Tamron floating around, while I don't think I've ever heard of a bad 50/1.8.

If $325 is too much for you to spend right now, then I would say definitely go for the 50/1.8. If you later decide it's not for you, you could sell it in a heartbeat and only lose about $10-20 on it.

excellent post.

[skyphix]

The only other lens in this range that I have is the 18-55 and my 50mm Mk1 never leaves the camera.

[michael.luczkow]

Hardly an investment. More of a no brainer.
+1

[TTP]

Great info and advice guys!
Sounds like a win-win no matter what!

Also, the Tamron maybe something to look into...
Off to do more research and reading on that one.

Thanks again for the input!