Should I keep my 50mm 1.8G

[EchoingWhisper]

I might buy a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8. Should I keep the 50mm 1.8G once I had the 17-50mm? From what I've seen from DxOMark, the only benefit of 50mm 1.8G is the 1 1/3 stop of light and super low chromatic abberations. Other than that, the Sigma ain't that bad. So, what's your opinion?

 

[EchoingWhisper]

And, one thing the 50mm 1.8G is bad is that its out-of-focus green/purple fringing is mad.

 

[bentcountershaft]

The 50 1.8 lenses are just a handy lens to have around. They fit nicely in a pocket for when you don't want to take a lot of gear and there are certainly times when the extra light can come in handy. To me they're cheap enough that it's hardly worth it to go to the trouble of selling it anyway. Cost and size benefits outweigh resale value to me. That said, i can't remember the last time I took a shot with mine that wasn't an example shot for the forum.

 

[Mach0]

Don't sell it to buy something else. If you can't get the 17-50 now, wait till you can. Hang on to the 50 unless you truly dont have a need for it.

 

[Dao]

My Honest opinion, I think you should stop visiting DxOMark, just shoot and look at the result yourself. (Don't think too much)



If you need a fast standard zoom lens, you need a fast standard zoom lens. And the 50mm f/1.8 cannot replace it. On the other hand, if you need a 50mm f/1.8 lens, you need a 50mm f/1.8 lens.

I have a fast standard zoom and a 50mm lens. And I do not think my fast zoom can replace the fast 50mm prime and vice versa. But that is just me, my personal choice. Others may have different choice based on their own need.

I do not wear pink jacket, it does not mean it is wrong if a guy wear a pink jacket because it is his personal preference.

 

[minooo]

2.8 isn't such a revolutionary aperture. So I would rather give it up.
1.4 would be more attractive.

 

[djacobox372]

1.5 stops is a lot, not only in low light performance but also in dof compression.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

True. Thanks.

 

[bhop]

I'd sell it and get the 35 f/1.8 G instead.. on a crop sensor body, that's a more usable focal length IMO. At least it would be for me.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I'd sell it and get the 35 f/1.8 G instead.. on a crop sensor body, that's a more usable focal length IMO. At least it would be for me.

Yes, agree. 35mm will be much more usable. The 50mm work well as a portrait lens though.

 

[yellow_cake]

What bhop said. 50mm is a versatile lens if you're on full frame, on DX the range becomes a bit long.The 35mm will give you the same length as the 50mm would on full frame cameras.I personally would keep the 50 and get a 35 as well, that is if I were looking to keep some primes.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I'd sell it and get the 35 f/1.8 G instead.. on a crop sensor body, that's a more usable focal length IMO. At least it would be for me.

Yes, agree. 35mm will be much more usable. The 50mm work well as a portrait lens though.

But sadly with the 35 1.8G comes dreadful bokeh, poor CA control and distortion. Three things the 50 1.8G does not seem to suffer from..

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I'd sell it and get the 35 f/1.8 G instead.. on a crop sensor body, that's a more usable focal length IMO. At least it would be for me.

Yes, agree. 35mm will be much more usable. The 50mm work well as a portrait lens though.

But sadly with the 35 1.8G comes dreadful bokeh, poor CA control and distortion. Three things the 50 1.8G does not seem to suffer from..

But it also comes with good sharpness too.