50 1/8 or 1/4 1/2

Grabbed a 7d body now I need a lens to get back in practice, was leaning towards a 50 so I can shoot in some lower light situations.

It can be a cheap version of course nifty fifty, or maybe a little better trying to stay under 200.00

under 200; best bet as single lens would be a 40 f/2.8 on crop imo (A little long; but alternative 50 f/1.8 is longer and I wouldn't want that as my sole lens due to durability concerns)

Maybe you should grab a book on exposure- see, I'm not sure why you are looking for a 50mm so you can shoot in low light. It depends on what you are shooting... bugs, planes, boats, people? Indoors? Outdoors? In general, a 50mm on a crop sensor is probably not the best first lens.

Noted because I noticed Adorama has the EF 50mm f/1.8 II for 125.00


Just general practice shooting really, I guess I could force myself to grab a kit lens for practice as well so I'm not at a fixed length.

The 50mm 1.8 tends to be 'sharper' than the 1.4 if you're going to be a pixel peeper and at 1.4 depending on what you're shooting you could have a shallow DOF. Just get the 50mm 1.8, save some money and get shooting. You can get a refurb through Canon for $100, or you can go the used route and maybe find one for $70-80.

One benefit of shooting a prime is it forces you to move and see different angles, rather than being a picture turret and just standing in one spot and just zooming in and out.

For 200 you can get 35mm f/2 non IS which will get you by just nicely as a normal lens on crop.

50 would be better if you returned the 7D and got a used 5d instead.

A 50mm is a great first prime, but not a great first lens. If you're just starting, an 18-55 would get you much further than a 50 in terms of learning. I recommend getting the kit lens first, learning on that, and then throwing in a 50.

w0m wrote in post #16327198
under 200; best bet as single lens would be a 40 f/2.8 on crop imo (A little long; but alternative 50 f/1.8 is longer and I wouldn't want that as my sole lens due to durability concerns)

Agreed I adore my 40 on my 50D it's nice just so sharp and the perspective even with it being equivalent to 64 is interesting and I personally like it,

Are you an old film shooter?

If so, be aware that on 7D a 50mm lens is not a "standard" lens. It's a short telephoto, very nice for portraits and such.

If you want a standard or normal lens, with an APS-C crop camera you should be looking at a 28mm, 30mm or 35mm lens. The Canon 28/1.8 is good (same build quality and performance as the 50/1.4). There is also the Sigma 30/1.4, which is a crop only lens. And there are several Canon and Sigma 35mm.... ranging in price and performance... which would act as a slightly long normal lens.

That said...

50/1.8 II is the cheapest lens Canon makes. It's not bad optically, but is very plasticky and has fairly poor autofocus (it's noisy, slow, hunts and is inconsistent). As a micro motor lens, you should not manually override the AF... need to turn in off at the switch before manually focusing it. Not that you will do that much... the manual focus ring is narrow and not very encouraging... and there is no focus scale on the lens.

The 50/1.8 really is a bargain... Might be fine as a first prime used for occasional portraits, for example, but really isn't built to hold up to rigorous use.

The 50/1.4 is a nice upgrade with subtly better image quality if you know what to look for. It handles flare better, with better contrast and color saturation. Also it's 8-bladed aperture gives nicer background blur than the f1.8 lens' 5-blade aperture. The Canon 50/1.4 uses a hybrid USM focus drive that's known to be a bit fragile, but is much faster, quieter and more accurate than the f1.8 lens' AF. The trick to keeping it in good working order is the lens hood (sold separately). Both when in use and when reversed for storage, it protects the lens from bumps. Of course, the 50/1.4 costs a bit more than 2X what the f1.8 lens does.

Both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are slightly soft wide open. Stop them down slightly, f2 or f2.2, and images sharpen up quite nicely. My 50/1.4 is usable wide open, but when I usually want sharpness over speed and

For a bit more money, there is also the Sigma 50/1.4. It is quite big and heavy for a 50/1.4, sharper than the two above Canons wide open, but a bit softer beyond f5.6. It's background blur might be slightly smoother than the Canon f1.4, thanks to the Siggy's 9-bladed aperture. I had a hard time telling them apart in that respect, personally. It tends to render a slightly cooler image than the Canons, but that's easily adjustable in post-processing.

The Canon 50/1.2L is the premium, money-no-object choice. It's also rather large and heavy (though surprisingly a little smaller and lighter than the Sigma, which IMO is overbuilt). Due to it's extreme aperture, this lens is a bit more challenging to use well, but has the nicest background blur of any of the 50mm, using an 8-bladed aperture with curved blades and thanks to its potential for extremely shallow depth of field. Some people note focus shift with it, where it's accurate as can be at certain distances, but not as accurate closer or farther away. It's sort of optimized as a portrait lens, perhaps at it's best at working distances from around 5' to 20' or so. Unlike some other ultra large aperture lenses, the 50/1.2L's AF if reasonably fast (comparable to the 50/1.4's).

Not sure what you mean by low light shooting, but the 7D can shoot ISO 1600 all day long, ISO 3200 and higher with a bit of extra post processing work. So you might find an f2.8 zoom serves you better than a prime. The EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is an excellent choice. Personally I use the 24-70/2.8 and am happy with that range of focal lengths for my standard zoom (But I also have ultrawide lenses to complement it: 12-24 and 10-22). These cost more, but have top image quality that rivals most prime lenses... plus the versatility of a zoom.

You spent good money on a camera. Don't cheap out too much on the lens for it. In fact, the lens you use will make far more difference in your images, than the camera it's used upon. I'd rather have a high quality lens on the cheapest camera Canon offers, than the other way around.

I've had the 50 1.8, currently have the 50 1.4, but am selling it and some other stuff and getting the L.


I'll let you know if it's worth it.

Any 50 is worth its price, on FF.
I went from 50 1.8 II with intermittent 50mm primes to 50L.
Nifty Fifty is good for its price, so does 50L, if you know what you really need it...

Sigma 30 1.4 mark one was on the sale for low price this year. Probably, possible to find now used at more lower price.
Good starter for first prime on 7D.

Buying so capable camera and going cheap on glass is strange.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #16327339
For 200 you can get 35mm f/2 non IS which will get you by just nicely as a normal lens on crop.

50 would be better if you returned the 7D and got a used 5d instead.

If you can find a good copy of the old 35/2, I highly recommend it on a crop. I like the FOV a lot more than 50mm. 50mm is shooting with a telephoto lens all day; one of the reasons why I rarely used my nifty fifty back when I used APS-C.

Let me answer to some here as the wording in the original question was not quite right.
I was looking at a 50 for a cheap general purpose lens to try and get to know the new camera and get my finger back in shape lol.
The last camera I had was a 350 back in 2005 paired with several lenses from Sigma and a canon 70x200 F4 and a kit lens.
I have been a member here since 2005 and recently just decided to get back into it, so I naturally came here to seek advice.
I want to do this as a hobby not a job and have fun doing it. I pinch pennies where I can.
As of right now I have no lens at all and my camera shipped out today- I really didn't want to drop another 1200-2k in a lens right at this time, but would like something to shoot with,and I always heard great things about how everyone should own a 50mm, hence the reason I asked this question.
Sorry if you think the question was stupid or if you think putting a cheaper lens on a good body is stupid, but I want to start shooting.

get the 18-55 kit lens.. or the tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc.. Both are pretty cheap and very versatile

I second the tamarin 17-50. I used to have one and it's an awesome lens for the price.