Is a 50mm too far from normal for a 30D?

[Mihai]

Hi there,

my first post, so please don't hit hard .

I plan to buy a Canon 30D + a Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM as my first SLR system (other lenses will come in time as needed). This is basically following the advice of Philip Greenspun but adapted after I held a Rebel in my hand and decided not to buy any EF-S lenses (for forward compatibility with future full-sensor digital SLRs). When I say future, I don't mean next year. I mean 5 -10 years from now.

My first question is: will the 50mm be too tele to be useful as a general purpose lens on a 30D, or "will do"?

The second question - any flaw in my plan? I've been considering Nikon's D200 and the D80 as alternatives and I have a hard time deciding, although I like Canon's opening toward full sensors.

Thanks for any advice you have,
Mihai

 

[duncanp]

sigma do a 30mm f3.8 which bringd you back round to more normal, byt i dont really think a 50mm with tthe cropping factor isnt too telephoto

 

[Torus34]

Welcome!

First, this Forum really frowns big time on those who 'hit hard.' If you check the rules, you'll see what I mean.

Your choice of a Canon 30D means you will be making a very substantial purchase. The 50mm is an excellent lens. It might be a bit too narrow for landscape work, though. There's an easy fix. For about $US150, you can add the 18-55mm EF-S lens. This will take care of your shorter fl needs while you recover financially. While it will not go down in history as the greatest glass ever, it will provide you with lots of good images until you're ready to trade it in on a high-quality replacement.

 

[ShutteredEye]

The 50 is an excellent lense, both the 1.4, and the 1.8. It's a great lense to get to know your camera with too. I say go for it!

 

[Big Mike]

I agree completely with Torus34. The kit lens EF-S 18-55 would be a good option. I understand that you don't want to invest in EF-S glass...but if you get 5-10 years of use for $150...I'd say that's money well spent.

You have probably read that the EF-S 18-55 lens is crap. It seams that everyone on the Internet is saying that. I own that lens and I don't think it's all that bad (especially for the price). The worst part is that it 'feels' so cheap because it's so light. It certainly isn't the best quality lens I own, but it gets a lot of use because of it's wide view.

On my film EOS, I loved my 50mm lens. I still love it on my 20D but I do find it too long, especially indoors. Maybe consider a 24mm, a 28mm or a 35mm.

 

[Mihai]

Thanks a lot guys!

Duncanp, I agree with you that a 35mm is a better choice for a first lens. However, at f/3.5 its way too slow for my purpose. I plan to use this first lens primarily to shoot my kids indoors and as a high quality first lens, mainly to learn to use the camera without having to think about zoom (and have the freedom to go to high speed at large apertures). Of course, a 35mm f/1.4 would be the best choice, but I don't know of any that are full size (not EF-S).

Regarding the zoom kit lens, besides the fact that is an EF-S, what worries me most is that it's slow and doesn't have USM. How big of a deal is this USM thing? However, I will consider it as something to bridge the gap until I get a better lens in that range.

However, what I hear from you all (except from ShutteredEye), is that with a 50mm I WILL feel limited by the narrow field of view (and hence need the wide angle kit lens).

Perhaps a 28mm would be a better option than a 50mm (given that there is no decent 35mm). Any suggestions?

Thanks guys,
Mihai

 

[Big Mike]

Canon makes an EF 35mm F1.4 L USM & an EF 35mm F2 (both OK for full sensor).

Check their line-up here

 

[AdriBella]

I'm a nikon loyal myself. So as I cannot speak from experience on Canon; I LOVE my Nikon 50mm f/1.8. At $100 it was a steal for the quality. It is great for portraits BUT if you plan on using it indoors you really need to have a lot of space indoors. I use my 50mm outside as I cannot get a good enough distance when inside. HTH. I would invest in the 50mm (you will be gld you did ) AND maybe a kit lens to hold you over until more funds are available.

 

[Mihai]

Mike, those two lenses are too... extreme . I mean the L is $1200 and the 35/2 doesn't have USM and is slow. I'm looking at Canon EF 28/1.8 USM as a better alternative (for my budget and wishes).

Or get the 50, get frustrated indoors, eat rice for two months and get
a wide-lens zoom.

M.

 

[ShutteredEye]

I have both a 50mm 1.8 and 24mm 2.8. The 50 is on my camera 95% of the time.

It's not too narrow, you just have to work for your shots. And just try taking portraits with a 28mm....

 

[Mihai]

I can work. I love work. I used to work a lot when I had a good all manual fixed lens a long time ago and I loved it. I want to get back in working mode.

I think that I'll go with the 50mm and if I absolutely can't live with it I'll also get a wide angle (zoom).

Thanks a lot,
Mihai

 

[Big Mike]

It depends what you are shooting. Yes, 24mm is too wide for portraits (too much distortion) but 50mm can be a pain on a crop factor camera. Although, for the price of a 50mm F1.8...no EOS owner should be without one.

The 28mm F1.8 USM is probably a great fit.

 

[markc]

It really depends on the kind of photography you want to do. When I got tired of the smaller zoom apertures, I bought an 85mm/f1.8 for my Elan (35mmm film). I loved it, and used for 99% of my shots from then on. For comparison, the 50mm is like an 80mm when on the 300D. I bought a 50mm/f1.4 a couple years later and loved that too, but still used the 85 more. When I switched over to my 10D, I ended up using the 50 more, but they still are about the only lenses I use.

A lot of my work has centered on kids, and for that "in their own little world" look, I find the slight telephoto and short DOF works perfect for what I want.
If you want to take a look here, all the shots in first two panels were taken with the 85mm on my Elan or EOS5, except 'Sissa (50&10D) and We Three (85&10D). Panel 3 was taken with a mix of the 50 and 85 on my 10D. The 85 on the 10D is like a 135 on 35mm film cameras.

One of the reasons for starting with a 50mm on a 35mm film camera is that is sees close to the way our eyes see. One of the problems with a zoom is that people will use it to save a walk without realizing how it's affecting the image. Starting with the 85mm wasn't "normal", but it was still a consistant view, and it helped teach me to see how the lens would see without having the camera to my face. I got so that I knew where to stand to compose what I wanted before even looking through the viewfinder.

So if you want to shoot a lot of wider angles, which will include more environment, then the 50mm would not be the best choice. But if you want to have the child the main focus and not a lot of background in the image, I think it's great. In fact, if you want to do portraits, it's going to be the minimum you'll want to use.

 

[markc]

Oh, and I've rarely had issues with enough room. These were shot with the 50mm on the 10D while sitting on the same sofa.

 

[ShutteredEye]

One of the reasons for starting with a 50mm on a 35mm film camera is that is sees close to the way our eyes see. One of the problems with a zoom is that people will use it to save a walk without realizing how it's affecting the image. Starting with the 85mm wasn't "normal", but it was still a consistant view, and it helped teach me to see how the lens would see without having the camera to my face. I got so that I knew where to stand to compose what I wanted before even looking through the viewfinder.

Mark,

When making the "human eye" comparison for the 50mm lense, are people referring to the "field of view," or the perspective? Obviously just b/c you put a 50mm on a crop factor camera, the perspective doesn't change, just the field of view.