50/1.8 ?

[biggin]

How about a 50/1.8 for low light if I went with the 17-85 IS as my walk around? That would work wouldn't it? I know some are going to suggest the 17-40 L but I need more reach than that and I have limited funds right now!

[robertwgross]

The 50mm f/1.8 lens has a few things going for it.

1. F/1.8 is an excellent wide open aperture for dim light.
2. The cost is very low.
3. The lens is very lightweight.

Many of us here have it in our camera bag for reason #1.

---Bob Gross---

[Steve Parr]

"Nifty Fifty"

"Fantastic Plastic"

It's called these things for a reason.

It could be the single best lens purchase I've made...

Steve

[norcal99]

I just got the nifty fifty in the mail today! Haven't had too much time to fool around with it yet but from what I've seen, it's pretty good... and it was only $70!

[tim]

It's a great lens for low light or shallow DOF, everyone should have one.

[021411]

Got mine today. Here's a test shot. It's a sharp lens. I took an indoor low light picture and it came out pretty good. I don't have it uploaded yet.

http://htt.smugmug.com/photos/19734203-O.jpg

[Steve Parr]

See, the Nifty Fifty can take an otherwise boring, dried up fence and make it look good!

Steve

[Dante King]

Yeah! Seventy buck superstar!

[Skip Souza]

How about the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 SR Di LD, cheaper, faster sharper than either the 17-40 L or the 17-85 IS. Truly a killer lens.

[TTP]

Great looking fence post!

I ordered the 50mm based on the recommendation from this forum.
I should get it early next week.

[Citizensmith]

Sold mine. After I got an 85 1.8 the 50 was getting no use what so ever. I'd never been particularly inspired by it anyway.

Basically there are quite a few lenses that are better quality, work better, or are better in low light. But, there are none that cheap, so if money is an issue its a good choice.