First post, need advice.

[Dao]

Close range and 50mm on a cropped body may or may not work. It depends on what shots you are going after (head shot, half body, full body ....) and how close range you are talking about (2 feet, 10 feet, 20 feet 30 feet ..... )

 

[jjd228]

For example:

 

[TCampbell]

As much as I love primes, and love my 50/1.8, I'm not sure it makes sense to get anything beyond the kit lens right off the bat. You don't really know yet whether 50 is a focal length that works for you on that body and the cost is a significant part of the package. What if you find that the long end of the zoom is not long enough for some of what you like to do? Then you would want the 85/1.8 instead of the 50. Take it in steps - you'll get there!

Thank you. Literally 99.9% of my shoots will be models at pretty close range (at least in the same room), typical boudoir stuff. Lots of low light etc. I actually decided to get the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM after reading countless reviews and even talking to a few people who use that lens a lot for this type of work. Assume money isn't a factor... would you get this lens to shoot what I'll be shooting? I know it's a complicated question that depends on all kinds of things, including personal preference, but if you were forced to say yes or no, what would you say? With money not a factor, do I get this lens or stick with the kit lens the camera comes with?

The 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens. The 50mm f/1.8 suffers from a 5-blade aperture which gives a very poor quality to out-of-focus areas (described as "nervous" or "jittery" quality bokeh rather than a smooth quality.) The 50mm f/1.4 has an 8 blade aperture. The 50mm f/1.2L has a 9 blade aperture with more of a rounded shape... but that's a $1500 lens (I think it's currently on sale for a little over $1300.) Most people feel that it's too hard to detect the difference between the 1.2 and the 1.4 to justify the extra $900-$1000 for the 1.2.

A 50mm lens on a crop-frame body will give an angle of view similar to an 80mm lens on a full-frame body. That's "moderately" zoomed in, but it's actually considered ideal for a portrait lens (moderately zoomed in is generally exactly what you want.)

A lens in the neighborhood of about 30mm (usually people pick the 28 or 35mm) offers a fairly "normal" angle of view (will seem neither wide angle nor telephoto). You'll need some working space in a studio to use a 50mm -- for a full length (full body) shot you have to step back a bit because the angle of view is moderately narrow.

 

[Designer]

As much as I love primes, and love my 50/1.8, I'm not sure it makes sense to get anything beyond the kit lens right off the bat. You don't really know yet whether 50 is a focal length that works for you on that body and the cost is a significant part of the package. What if you find that the long end of the zoom is not long enough for some of what you like to do? Then you would want the 85/1.8 instead of the 50. Take it in steps - you'll get there!

Thank you. Literally 99.9% of my shoots will be models at pretty close range (at least in the same room), typical boudoir stuff. Lots of low light etc. I actually decided to get the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM after reading countless reviews and even talking to a few people who use that lens a lot for this type of work. Assume money isn't a factor... would you get this lens to shoot what I'll be shooting? I know it's a complicated question that depends on all kinds of things, including personal preference, but if you were forced to say yes or no, what would you say? With money not a factor, do I get this lens or stick with the kit lens the camera comes with?

So now you are talking about only one lens, the 50mm f/1.4. I think you should do a little more shopping around for price in that case.

Amazon has the body for $535 and the lens for $339, which add up to $874, by my reckoning.

Plus tax and shipping, of course.

 

[jjd228]

As much as I love primes, and love my 50/1.8, I'm not sure it makes sense to get anything beyond the kit lens right off the bat. You don't really know yet whether 50 is a focal length that works for you on that body and the cost is a significant part of the package. What if you find that the long end of the zoom is not long enough for some of what you like to do? Then you would want the 85/1.8 instead of the 50. Take it in steps - you'll get there!

Thank you. Literally 99.9% of my shoots will be models at pretty close range (at least in the same room), typical boudoir stuff. Lots of low light etc. I actually decided to get the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM after reading countless reviews and even talking to a few people who use that lens a lot for this type of work. Assume money isn't a factor... would you get this lens to shoot what I'll be shooting? I know it's a complicated question that depends on all kinds of things, including personal preference, but if you were forced to say yes or no, what would you say? With money not a factor, do I get this lens or stick with the kit lens the camera comes with?

So now you are talking about only one lens, the 50mm f/1.4. I think you should do a little more shopping around for price in that case.

Amazon has the body for $535 and the lens for $339, which add up to $874, by my reckoning.

Plus tax and shipping, of course.

Yes but for $648 you also get the 18-55mm EF-S IS II Lens. Is that worth the extra $100 or so?
See here: Amazon.com: Canon EOS Rebel T4i 18.0 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm EF-S IS II Lens: CANON: Camera & Photo

 

[Derrel]

I would buy a Nikon equivalent body, and if you really want a prime 50mm lens, then get the 50mm f/1.8 G-series for around $225. It has aspherical element design and a modern, high-grade ultrasonic motor and really excellent optics. The 18-55 kit zoom is not very versatile, and a 75-300 on a crop-frame camera is just wayyyyy too long for indoor use. Which is a large part of why the bundle is a bad fit for a boudoir shooter...18-55 is basically "meh", and 70-300 range zooms are for outdoors use in decent light. Canon's 50mm f/1.4 is a lovely lens--it has nice bokeh and good optics. But not the same with their 50/1.8 EF-II...it has ugly bokeh and bad focusing behavior indoors in lower light...loud focusing, and frankly, I found mine unreliable, and irritating, in indoor focusing situations.LIke the old song says, " Dzzt-dzzt-dzzzzt-dzzzt! went the cheap low-grade focusing motor, as it struggled to find focus!"

Anyway...there are a lot of cameras on the market. I hope you can find a legitimate good deal. I find it sad to see all these awful "kits" being sold so widely. Honestly, I think you ought to reconsider the need for a 50mm and save the money, and apply the cost of a good 50 toward buying one better,more versatile zoom, like say the Nikon 16-85mm, specifically, so you have the entire needed range in one good lens, and not two "kit" zooms.

 

[Designer]

O.K., yes, the 18-55mm is "worth" $100. Particularly since it is going to be on your camera a lot.

OTOH, I agree with Derrel about going to Nikon. I'm a Nikon owner, so I'm obviously biased.

 

[Juga]

O.K., yes, the 18-55mm is "worth" $100. Particularly since it is going to be on your camera a lot.

OTOH, I agree with Derrel about going to Nikon. I'm a Nikon owner, so I'm obviously biased.

I am pretty sure that both God and Jesus use a Canon so I would go that route.

Oh and Tim Tebow

 

[im2c0ol]

With cropped body sensor I guess you can go with 35mm f/2.0 will come out close to 50mm. As I think you getting most reviews about the 50mm f/1.4 peoples are mostly on full frame body, so it's a different situation. I do remember when I had the 50mm on my t1i and trying to take indoor photo is aint easy. But now I'm using full frame so it works very well for my indoor shooting in 10'x12' indoor area and even smaller room.