Canon 50mm 1.8 do I need it?

[Matt24138]

I have the 18-55 and 55-250 for my xt. What would the 50 do for me or can I cover it with my kit lens? I can afford the 1.4 so it would be the 1.8. Or should I buy lens hood and filters instead?

 

[D-B-J]

If you need to ask us this, then you don't need it.

 

[Matt24138]

I should rephrase. What would I be able to do differently. The lens was recommended to me. I am sorry for sounding stupid I have only had my slr for a couple weeks.

 

[D-B-J]

No you did not sound stupid. I remember a year ago i asked "do i need a battery grip" and i came to the conclusion i didn't. A year later my photography needs required it and i couldn't live without it. So no, don't say you are stupid. What it will do for you is two things, based on one aspect. It will give you a shallower depth of field than you can currently achieve at f3.5 and f5.6, and it will let in more light. The shallower depth of field will give you more artistic freedom, and more light will give you the ability to shoot in more low light situations by allowing a faster shutter speed. Oh and of course both of these are based on the wider aperture (being 1.8).


Regards,
Jake

 

[EPPhoto]

Your other two "kit" type lenses don't have the ability to shoot at 1.8......um......that's the difference lol

 

[TheBiles]

You need to experience f/1.8 and the sharpness of a prime. Trust me. Definitely worth the $100.

 

[Matt24138]

My main interest right now is night photography so now I understand why it was recommended to me. Thank you for the replies.

 

[Josh66]

I think you will find that it will have better image quality than the kit lens... Not to mention the obvious stuff, like the larger aperture.


It may or may not make any difference in night photography (other than the image quality part)... Depending on what you're shooting.
It is faster, but that won't necessarily mean anything if you're going to be shooting stationary objects from a tripod at f/8.

 

[TheBiles]

I will say that you will immediately notice that the images are much sharper and you can create a razor-thin depth-of-field with the huge aperture. I had a blast with my nifty fifty during the first weekend I had it, and I think any new photographer should pick one up.

 

[BNHPhotography]

I purchased the same lense about a month ago, and to experience the increased image quality is AMAZING! The aperture settings, etc are great, but what i noticed from the first shot, just messing around, was the saturation of color, and just over all, how much better it was than my kit lens. Bad things--If you get farther than a couple feet from your subject you HAVE to switch lenses, this one gets very oof, very easily. Just my thoughts, as someone mentioned earlier it is worth the 100 bucks. I bought a refurb, it has a missing pixel or something, but it doesn't show up all the time.

 

[fokker]

For $100 I think everyone should own one. Apart from the obvious stuff that has been mentioned, there is one more benefit of a prime lens like this: By taking away the ability to zoom in or out on your subject you have to think a lot harder about what's in the frame and how you are going to compose your shot. After using this lens for a while you will devleop the ability to see in your mind's eye exactly what the scene will look like before you put the camera to your eye which is a real benefit when it comes to taking candid shots of people (you can adjust the settings, walk over to where you need to be be and then quickly take the photo in about 1 second - no awkward smiles while waiting for the photographer to frame the shot).

I liken this experience to riding a single-speed mountain bike, where you have to ride some sections faster than normal and not use the brakes in order to get you up the hill on the other side - it makes you think about what's ahead of you and by restricting your options you become more focused on the task at hand, which is to ride fast without crashing, or to take great pictures (and in both cases, to have fun).

 

[fokker]

I purchased the same lense about a month ago, and to experience the increased image quality is AMAZING! The aperture settings, etc are great, but what i noticed from the first shot, just messing around, was the saturation of color, and just over all, how much better it was than my kit lens. Bad things--If you get farther than a couple feet from your subject you HAVE to switch lenses, this one gets very oof, very easily. Just my thoughts, as someone mentioned earlier it is worth the 100 bucks. I bought a refurb, it has a missing pixel or something, but it doesn't show up all the time.

Wait, what? Your lens has a missing pixel?

 

[o hey tyler]

I purchased the same lense about a month ago, and to experience the increased image quality is AMAZING! The aperture settings, etc are great, but what i noticed from the first shot, just messing around, was the saturation of color, and just over all, how much better it was than my kit lens. Bad things--If you get farther than a couple feet from your subject you HAVE to switch lenses, this one gets very oof, very easily. Just my thoughts, as someone mentioned earlier it is worth the 100 bucks. I bought a refurb, it has a missing pixel or something, but it doesn't show up all the time.

Lenses don't have pixels. They're glass.

 

[BNHPhotography]

I said, or something. Its an extremely small point that only affects this lense, and it usually only shows itself in lower light situations. Sorry, im a noob, if I would've thought about it I would've realized they didn't have pixels...

 

[o hey tyler]

I said, or something. Its an extremely small point that only affects this lense, and it usually only shows itself in lower light situations. Sorry, im a noob, if I would've thought about it I would've realized they didn't have pixels...

Don't apologize for being a noob or feel the need to defend yourself. Just consider this something new that you learned. Lenses don't have pixels.

Also, the singular isn't "lense" it's "lens". However the plural is "lenses" and not "lenss".