Benefit of this lens...

[Becky]

Hey there, I've heard a lot about the cheapest Canon lens money can buy, the EF 50mm f1.8... and that for the money theres apparently no excuse not to have it!

I currently have a couple of lenses, one being the 18-55mm f1:3.5 to 5.6.

Is there any benefit of my buying the other lens? And if so why? Because of the wide aperture?

Is there an advantage to me getting thins lens, or would it be better to go to the f1.4 which is considerabley pricier, and why?

Also in this lens I notice that there is a mark 1 and a mark 2, they look slightly different, but is the functionality the same? From watching a few on ebay the mark 1's seem to fetch more money, why is this?

Excuse my sillyness I'm still very new to this. :blushing:

Replies asap if possible... I got my eye on one at a good price if I can take it today.

 

[John E.]

Hi Becky,

The 50mm lens will allow you to shoot in lower light conditions. It is one of the sharpest and cheapest lens one can buy. Sometimes you may want the shallow depth of field. I am not sure but I think the 1.4 lense is a higher quality and of course you can shoot in even lower light conditions. 50mm is very good for shooting people as there is little distortion. All depends on what your interests are and how much $ you have.

Here is a very good link that explains the various canon lenses and explains thier strength and weaknesses.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Selection-Introduction.aspx

 

[Becky]

Thanks John!

I just fancy a new lens really...

I have a 75-300mm Canon also, but I'd happily sell it and add the money to something else. I know its fairly slow and would be happy to settle for less range but a faster and better quality lens.

For a zoom lens around 300quid what would anybody recommend?

 

[ksmattfish]

Is there any benefit of my buying the other lens? And if so why? Because of the wide aperture?

It is 2 to 3 stops faster than your zoom lens. In a low light situation that could mean the difference between hand holding at 1/30th vs 1/8th or 1/4th.

You'll be able to get a much smaller DOF than with the zoom.

Recently I saw a lens test in one of the bigger photography mags comparing the Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII ($70) with several of Canon's top of the line pro zooms ($1000+). When you looked at enlargements of the fine details the prime performed much better than the zooms.

Is there an advantage to me getting thins lens, or would it be better to go to the f1.4 which is considerabley pricier, and why?

The f/1.4 may be slightly sharper at f/2, but once you close down to f/2.8 or more, they are probably indistinguishable. To even be able to notice the difference at f/1.8 or f/2 you'd probably need to shoot both on a tripod with mirror lock-up.

The f/1.4 model has a sturdier build.

Also the f/1.4 would be a fraction of a stop faster.

Also in this lens I notice that there is a mark 1 and a mark 2, they look slightly different, but is the functionality the same? From watching a few on ebay the mark 1's seem to fetch more money, why is this?

The mark I has a sturdier build, and probably has a DOF scale. The mark II is fairly plasticky, and no DOF scale. It would cost Canon an extra nickle to add the DOF scale, but being the king of cutting corners in favor of profit, they have left it off.

If you can find a deal on the mk I I'd go for that. I couldn't find one used that went for less than twice what the mk II goes for new, so I bought a mk II. It's a nice little lens, even without the DOF scale.