Canon EF 50mm

[Marley]

I'm a newbie and just bought a used D30 with no lenses.

I don't really know where to start Lens wise.

After reading some posts I see that the 50mm comes highly recommended.

Canon has two models of this lens.

f1.4 and f1.8

is the f1.4 worth $230 more???

I could buy a extra lens if the cheap one is sufficient.

If I buy the $299 lens that will be the only one for a while.

Any recommendations on Lenses would be appreciated.

[vandermerwede]

The 1.8 is a sharp lens and an exceptional bargain at the price they sell at. Now comes the caution. You said you'll be able to afford another lens if you got the 50 1.8. Well there aren't too many good lenses under $300 US so you may be hard pressed to buy another good lens. Cheap lenses are just that, cheap. That is what makes the photo (other than the photographer). A good lens on a cheap body is much better than a cheap lens on a good body.

[Dans_D60]

I don’t know about the 1.8. I’ve heard it’s a very good lens for the price. I have the 1.4 and for $300 it’s an ultra sharp great low-light lens. Totally agree with Vandermerwede – start saving now for good glass. SLR Digital cameras have advanced so far as to out perform lens technology. Just review the reports on the new 1Ds. Many claim better than medium format but also will amplify any lens imperfections. Your D30 is a fine camera that cost over $3000 just two years ago – don’t make your lens the weakest link. My thoughts….Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com
D30, D60, 50 1.4, 15-30 EX (Sigma), 28-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, 100-400 IS

[Marley]

score!

my girlfriend gave me 2 Canon EF lenses she had for her EOS Rebel G

75-300mm & 35-80mm.


considering I got these for free I'm now ready to spend
$300 or $400 on 1 lens.

suggestions?

[GenEOS]

35mm 1.8 USM would be my choice.

[Rudi]

marley wrote:
is the f1.4 worth $230 more???


Yes! No doubt! Good glass is always worth the extra!

http://www.users.bigpond.com/ruda/demo/ds.jpg

The above was taken with the EF 50mm f/1.4. Sure, I could've used the f/1.8 (if I had one :) ), but it would focus slower and I couldn't achieve such a shallow DOF if I shot it at another 1/2 stop slower (it was shot at f/1.4).

With the f/1.4 you get slightly better glass, but also much better build, and faster, quieter AF (with FTM). The f/1.8 version is a good lens for the money, but the f/1.4 is a better lens. Period!

It's always a good idea to buy the best glass you can afford. In your shoes, I'd save my pennies for the f/1.4.

[thewhitenite007]

I too would buy the 35 1.8 USM. In the long run it is the Canon 50mm 1.8 with the 1.5 ratio in place. The 50mm would eventually turn out to be like 75mm which im sure you dont want. So yes I would buy the 35 1.8. By the way i love my 50mm 1.8

[Yavor75]

Absolutely, the 35mm 1.8 first- and then I'd look at the Sigma 20mm. It is dam sharp and is about $260 used on Ebay. Remember, your two lenses from the rebel are very low performers optically. That said, you are really going to like what you see with the 35mm 1.8. The 20mm Sigma is also sharper than either of those two lenses. I have the 28-80 from my old Elan, and have never even bothered attaching it to the D60. The numbers on these lenses are all at : www.photodo.com if you want to compare.

Enjoy-
bob

[Pekka]

I think you discuss Canon 35/1.4L --- there is no 35/1.8 in Canon line. There is 35/2 which is something worth considering, I doubt if many would be able to see a significant difference between 35/2 and 35/1.4 and this view is also supported by photodo which says

Canon EF 35/1,4 L USM:
Weighted MTF for 35 mm: f1,4 0,61, f4 0,82, f8 0,81
Average Weighted MTF: 0,81 Grade: 4,0
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0,89
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0,78
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0,59

Canon EF 35/2:
Weighted MTF for 35 mm: f2 0,73, f2,8 0,77, f4 0,79, f8 0,81
Average Weighted MTF: 0,80 Grade: 3,9
Weighted MTF 10 lp/mm: 0,89
Weighted MTF 20 lp/mm: 0,77
Weighted MTF 40 lp/mm: 0,53

PS. I don't agree with Yavor75 with Sigma 20/1.8 sharpness: Canon 35/2 is clearly a sharper lens. Nevertheless, Sigma 20/1.8 is still a very good buy and highly recommended budget lens.

[thewhitenite007]

Pekka wrote:
I think you discuss Canon 35/1.4L --- there is no 35/1.8 in Canon line. There is 35/2 which is something worth considering, I doubt if many would be able to see a significant difference between 35/2 and 35/1.4 and this view is also supported by photodo which says

PS. I don't agree with Yavor75 with Sigma 20/1.8 sharpness: Canon 35/2 is clearly a sharper lens. Nevertheless, Sigma 20/1.8 is still a very good buy and highly recommended budget lens.



I too dont agree with Yavor, Sigma lenses are either really good or terrible. THey are not a sharp as the canon. And Pekka is right there isnt a 35 1.8. It is only 2 and 1.4L USM. But the 1.4L is $1199 while the 2 is $249. I would def. go with the 35 f/2. The only difference is the F/2 doesnt have a floating system inside. I would def choose 35 over 50 for a digital.

[Rudi]

thewhitenite007 wrote:
I would def choose 35 over 50 for a digital.

I think that is a personal choice. The 50mm becomes an 80mm on the D30/D60, and is an awesome portrait lens, while the 35mm becomes a 56mm lens. Personally, I went with the 28mm f/2.8. It's a stop slower than the 35mm f/2, but gives me 45mm on the D30. If I'm going to have a "normal" prime, then I'd rather it be slightly on the wider side... :)

[50/1.4]

For $300 you could get the Canon 50/1.8 AND the Sigma 28/1.8, a very good lens. If you are going for absolute quality for $300, get the 50/1.4 though I don't think you will find its 80mm equivalent FOV to be as generally useful as a 28mm's 43mm equiv. FOV. Unless you mainly shoot portraits.

[W4KLV]

The $3,000+ Canon 50mm F1.0 is said to offer new possibilities for a photographer. Has anyone ever seen or had any experience with this big lens? Would you be able to photograph indoors at, say a reception, and get good results without flash? How much more useful would this be than the Canon 50mm F1.4?

[thewhitenite007]

The lens is $2569. Its extremely sharp being a 1.0 lens. I dont think its worth it though, being that you can buy the 1.4 for $340