struggling with 50mm lense

[ADAMJAY]

Just joined the page (check out my introduction thread for a little background) ....anyways, I've been reading and reading about prime lenses and figured it was about time I get one and try it out. Decided to go with Canon 50mm 1:4. I mainly shoot with 24-105 L f4 and 70-200 L IS f4 so I don't have the best but pretty decent lenses. So, I guess my question is, will the 50mm be better than the lenses I have already? I know I know, that can get into detail.... So far my shots with the 50mm have not been impressive to me. Either im not doing something right, which very well could be, OR its just not going to stick out compared to the lenses I already have.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Opinions?

 

[jaomul]

Obviously your zooms in general will be more flexible. The beauty of the 50mm lens is the fact its f1.4. You can shoot in much lower light and keep your shutter speeds up without pushing the ISO as much as you would need in the zooms.

All things being equal the 50mm should be sharper at 50mm with similar settings. You will probably find your 50mm lens is at its sharpest at maybe f2.8/f4. Your 24-105 is probably sharpest at f5.6, from what I see the 70-200L lens is sharp everywhere.

To be fair you are comparing your 50mm to 2 excellent quality lenses (especially on a crop camera wher the central and best parts of the lens are being used). You may not see a massive difference in actual picture quality at similar settings, though the prime will as said allow you shoot in lower light, and if you open up your aperture an f1.4 lens should give the very narrow depth of field that the others just can't

 

[soufiej]

Just joined the page (check out my introduction thread for a little background) ....anyways, I've been reading and reading about prime lenses and figured it was about time I get one and try it out. Decided to go with Canon 50mm 1:4. I mainly shoot with 24-105 L f4 and 70-200 L IS f4 so I don't have the best but pretty decent lenses. So, I guess my question is, will the 50mm be better than the lenses I have already? I know I know, that can get into detail.... So far my shots with the 50mm have not been impressive to me. Either im not doing something right, which very well could be, OR its just not going to stick out compared to the lenses I already have.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Opinions?

There is never a good answer to the "better" question. "Better" is subjective.

Objectively, yes, the 50 mm is likely to be "better" at what it does than are the zooms. Zooms are always a compromise. Compromise has been designed out of the prime in so far that it is not a zoom and therefore doesn't share the same trade offs. Yet all lenses are better at some point and worse at others.

If you like to read about gear, check the reviews of the lenses to see what lab tests suggest is good and less "better" about each lens. First, understand the 50 mm begins at f 1.4. Your zooms both begin at f 4.0. If we acknowledge that most any lens will be "better" as you stop down the aperture a bit, then the 50 mm has a long way to go before it even reaches the point where your zooms begin.

Beyond that, when you read, learn to read between the hyperbole. If you aren't seeing the improvements of the prime lens, I'd guess you simply aren't looking in the right areas. Do not expect to be blown away by a different lens. Just as any one lens will improve as you stop down, so too will most modern lenses be only fractionally better than another. Yet, reading a review, you'd think your name will suddenly be placed in the Photographer's Hall of Fame simply because you own a lens.

It doesn't work that way.

Probably not telling you anything you don't already know but sometimes it's best to be reminded.

Since you've not said what is unimpressive about the lens, it's rather difficult to say what you should expect. I'd say you shouldn't expect to suddenly be taken up in skill level just because you use a different lens.

Beyond that, you'll need to be more specific and possibly offer a few examples for us to see.

 

[Designer]

So far my shots with the 50mm have not been impressive to me.

What would make your shots more impressive?

In what way is the lens disappointing?

Please be as specific as you can.

Please post an image with which you are not impressed but think you should be.

 

[The_Traveler]

the biggest unknown factor here is your skills and technique.

 

[ADAMJAY]

Thanks everyone for the responses. After playing with the lens more and more, and starting to get better with it. Since none of the lenses I have stop down that low, I was just shooting way to shallow. Example:

The collar is in perfect focus, everything else not so much. Rookie mistake lol
So I started coming up a few stops. Don't remember what this actually was but its better. Still not completely impressed with it though.

I guess I just read so much about it and had high expectations for it. The lenses I have are already pretty decent, im sure if I had a kit lens then I would tell the difference. I have yet to experiment in low light conditions yet, so maybe i'll fall in love with it then!

 

[The_Traveler]

You need to read about the impact of aperture and lens to subject on depth of field.

and it is not possible to say anything about pictures that have been resized so small.

 

[Designer]

..none of the lenses I have stop down that low, I was just shooting way to shallow.

Here are some terms with which I am not familiar.

I know what it means to stop down, but then you lost me.

Also, please give your best effort at explaining what it is you don't like about the lens.

 

[astroNikon]

You have to learn what the aperture does in the exposure triangle
Here's a previous thread on the same issue ===> Struggling with Focus Page 2 Photography Forum

 

[Derrel]

"Stop down that low" is an utterly incorrect use of long-time photo terminology. The PROPER phrase you were looking for was, "None of my lenses could open up that wide." "Stopping down" always,always,always means closing the lens diaphragm down, to a smaller-diameter aperture..."stopping down" means closing the light-admitting aperture down as in downward in PHYSICAL SIZE--and closing down or stopping down both mean going from say, f/5.6 to f/8 to f/11.... or from f/1.4 to f/2 to f/2.8 to f/4: those operations would both be "stopping down". That has been the proper way to use the term "stopping down" for about 100 years.

Refering to aperture settings by way of numerical value is a newcomer's mistake, and it marks one as inexperienced. I don't want to make fun of the OP, just clarify a common new-leading-the-new trend that is adding a huge amount of confusion to the photo community and attempts to communicate with others.

The phrase "opening up" means moving the aperture selector (on-lens or on-camera control system) to a physically wider, larger diameter light-admitting hole. One "opens up" the lens when one moves the f/stop control from say the starting point of f/8, to f/5.6 to f/4. One would say, "I opened up the lens three f/stops, from f/8 to f/4."

There has been a tendency for newcomers, and noobs who write for the web to refer to "f/number" and to then bastardize the phrases stopping down and opening up in an utterly improper manner.

The practice of writing blog and internet posts to help instruct newcomers to photography by using f/number, the number part, is a new-fangled, ill-advised bastardization of proper photographic terminology. It's about as incorrect as saying stuff like: "We had a huge office party this Friday, and we ran down a huge bill!", or "I just got done paying my income taxes for the quarter, and I ran down a huge tax owed amount."

 

[snerd]

........... The practice of writing blog and internet posts to help instruct newcomers to photography by using f/number, the number part, is a new-fangled, ill-advised bastardization of proper photographic terminology. It's about as incorrect as saying stuff like: "We had a huge office party this Friday, and we ran down a huge bill!", or "I just got done paying my income taxes for the quarter, and I ran down a huge tax owed amount."

Never mind all that..................... could you borrow me a dollar?!

 

[Gary A.]

Please don't take my comments as an attack upon you. I am just making some generalizations.

I'm sure you've heard that Good equipment doesn't make the photograph. That isn't entirely true. Good equipment in the hands of a skilled photographer can certainly make a significant difference, not only in the impact of the image but also in the number of keepers (consistency).

I think that at this time, you simply may not have the skill and experience to capitalize on the the little differences and nuance between L zooms and a prime. Over time you may, but at this point in your photographic development, you may be too 'green' to utilize a prime in a fashion that it stands out against a zoom L. Between L lenses and good primes, (I would call an L as pretty rarified air), it would be difficult, even for a seasoned pro to repeatedly illustrate a significant differences (DOF notwithstanding).

 

[Gary A.]

PS- Hold onto that lens ... shoot with it everyday. Get to know that lens like it is your right hand ... know the FOV before you bring the viewfinder up to your eye ... previsualize the image it can capture at various apertures and lighting conditions ... only after you have harmonized with the lens can you completely judge it's qualities beyond a clinical review.

 

[Derrel]

I dunno...I owned a 24-105 L f4 and the 50/1.4 EF for five years or so...the 50 is a decent but unspectacular lens...it's an okay lens. It is small, light in weight, and has pretty good bokeh for a 50. It's not one of Canon's L-series models, and it's not up to the standards of the Leica 50mm lenses or the new Sigma ART 50/1.4 for demanding uses like night-time work at wide f/stops...but still, it's a very good 50mm lens.

But as far as it "standing out" from my 24-105 L or my 70-200/2.8 L USM or other Canon lenses like their 135/2-L or 85/1.8 EF, no...the 50mm is not a "standout". In fact, it has more CA than the better zooms do. If you want a sharper lens at wide apertures, their 50mm f/2.5 compact macro is a better lens.

There is a LOT of hype on the 'net about 50mm lenses, written most often by people who have owned one or two prime lenses...it is super-easy top search the 'net and find rave reviews of this very standard, modest lens. The thing is...it's a 50mm lens...it has zero focal length flexibility, and many times, 50mm will flat-out be a sub-optimal lens length...if you're not entirely familiar with its fixed angle of view, you'll probably find yourself out of position for many,many shots, so you'll need to crop, or pass on the shot.

When you use a prime lens, you arrange your shooting process to bend to that single focal length lens and its angle of view. It is pretty much a one-trick pony.You come back with all kinds of pictures that were shot with ONE, single lens length if that's the only lens you have or use. Your two zooms are pretty good, modern lenses. When you have only a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. It's understandable that you're not blown away by the 50's pictures...it's a rather normal, regular lens...with one length, and no really pronounced visual "impression"--no wide-angle distortion or elongation or space-expansion, no obvious visual distance-compressing capabilities like the 70-200mm zoom has in spades.

I really think a 50 belongs as an integral part of a TRIO of single focal length lenses, like a 24/50/85 or 24/50/100mm trio; wide/normal/telephoto. Not too surprising that 24-70mm and 24-105 and 24-85mm zoom lenses are popular, is it?

 

[gsgary]

The 50 will get you shots the others won't