Trying to pick a second lens - 50mm?

[Dmariehill]

I've got a Canon Rebel T4i with an 18-135 mm IS STM lens. I've also got the Canon Speedlite 430EXII flash. I've spent the last year getting to know my camera, how to better use the settings and just getting used to this lens. I've got a good idea of what I can do with this lens. I think it's time to look at adding a second lens now.

I like taking photos of nature and macro shots although this lens doesn't lend itself as well to that. My main subjects though, are my kids - 18 mo and 4 mo. Right now I don't need a big telephoto lens as they aren't in sports or even running further away than I can handle with the lens I have. I'll worry about a larger zoom lens when they get bigger and faster.

My struggle is with indoor shots. I'm needing to be able to do indoor/low light shots without a flash. I don't mind pulling out the big flash for portrait style shots espcially if I'm hoping for a frameable picture. But for playtime/candid/snapshot type photos I need something else. My MIL suggested a 50 mm and that's actually what she used all last weekend at our house. I didn't get to see her shots to see if I liked how they turned out (her flashcard corrupted and she's going to have to try to recover the data on it). I've now done enough research to totally overwhelm myself without answering my question about which lens to add next.

I think the 50mm would be a nice addition - so is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8II enough? or should I go ahead since I have the budget and go with the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 ? Typically, I've tried to buy the best I could afford within reason. I don't have ambitions of being a professional - just a hobbiest once I get past beginner stage. So ideally, I'd like to buy a lens that will last me a while. Is it worth considering the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM?I know the 1.8 is the cheapest . . . . is the 1.4 worth the difference in price?

I'm also thinking it may be time to invest in a filter or two. . . . My biggest issue is bright sunlight - so would a ND filter such as this one be helpful for that?

I've also read a little about a circular polarizer. . . . maybe it's time to add that as well?

Hubs told me to pick out something for myself that was not for the kids, not practical, just something for me - so I'm thinking I could add a couple of filters to the lens and get away with it. ;-)

Thanks for the help

 

[robbins.photo]

Well I'm a nikon guy myself. I use a 50mm 1.8 and have always found 1.8 to be more than enough in lowlight situations. I can't imagine you'd run into that many situations where you'd really want to shoot wide open at 1.4, even at 1.8 the DOF is pretty narrow

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

YES, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is worth the difference in price over the f/1.8 Canon lens. One lens is a really nice, quality lens, while the other is a drecky econo-50 that has a number of serious performance issues.

I'm not sure about the Sigma 50mm f/1.4; it's HUGE. It's aimed not at the Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 prospective buyers, but instead is aimed squarely at the Canon 50mm f/1.2-L's prospective buyers.

As a "standard 50mm lens", Canon's f/1.4 model has a lot going for it.

 

[PaulyPMC]

The 50 1.8 is okay, image quality is not that bad but the build quality is TERRIBLE. Plasticky, light, noisy and slow to focus in low light.

If it's in the budget the canon 50 1.4 is your best bet. I have owned the sigma version but had focusing issues, so picked the canon version instead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaomul]

All valid points above but 50mm on a crop can be tight indoors. Maybe a 35mm f2 or similar might be better

 

[PaulyPMC]

Yeah, the 35 f2 is a decent lens. The 28 1.8 is also very good but a bit more pricey (at least in Oz) than the fifty or the 35.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dmariehill]

Thank you everyone! I was expecting that with the 50 I'd be having more crop to the photos. I hadn't thought about the 35. I'll look at that too.

 

[Dmariehill]

Thanks everyone again. I got the 50 mm f/1.4. I need to play with the settings some more, but I think it's going to fit my needs well. This snapshot from this morning is while I was just trying to figure out the settings so the comp is horrible (bottle and junk in the background anyone?) But I like the way my daughter turned out. This was just quick snapping while she was watching Sesame Street so it's just a snapshot but it was a nice test of the lens. Thanks for all the great advice.

 

[Derrel]

Oh what a little cutie pie she is! Yeah...as you can see, from closer ranges, the 50mm lens on an APS-C format camera is...a nice, short telephoto lens that kind of defocuses the background and has a fairly selective angle of view BEHIND a close-up subject. It's also light in weight, and makes a small camera not feel over-burdened by a big heavy lens that always wants to make the camera nose-dive if it's worn on a neckstrap while walking around.

After a while, you'll learn from experience just how close or far to be to get the shot you "see" in your mind's eye using your 50. One TPF member whose opinion I respect told me his 50/1.4 Canon is sharpest right around f/3.2 in careful testing trying to find the highest-performance aperture (on the 60D body). I would expect that f/3.2 or f/3.5 would be pretty good performers on your sample as well.

A lot of people buy a 50mm and shoot it wide-open, at f/1.4 or f/1.8, depending on the lens model, and that can lead to disappointment many times; except in the absolute WORST, dimmest, most cave-lighting kind of places, I've always, always been a big proponent of stopping down my lens at least a little bit, to say f/2.5, or f/2.8,or more likely f/3.2 or f/3.5, to get enough depth of field to not make those one eye in-focus, other eye out of focus shots.

Anyway...remember, just because the lens offers f/1.4, don't always be tempted to shoot wide-open...the pictures will usually be better stopped down at least one f/stop, which is f/2.0. But consider that around f/3.2 to f/3.5 you will get beautiful images with soft, subdued backgrounds when the subject is inside of 15 feet.

 

[JacaRanda]

I am a little late to this party, but I think you did yourself a favor in getting the 1.4 instead of the 1.8.

Have fun!

 

[Dmariehill]

Thanks Derrel - I had this shot at 2.8. I slowed down the shutter speed too. Last night I was frustrated with the lens. But after a 4 am wakeup with my son, I remembered reading about slowing the shutter and the 2.8 being a better starting point for the lens than the 1.4 point. That made all the difference this morning. I'll try a few at 3.2 as well and see what happens.

 

[TWright33]

I am a little late to this party, but I think you did yourself a favor in getting the 1.4 instead of the 1.8.

Have fun!

Unrelated to the topic, but every time I see your avatar I think you look like Denzel Washington.

 

[Derrel]

Denzel? Really??? He's MUCH better looking than Denzel!!!

 

[JacaRanda]

Denzel? Really??? He's MUCH better looking than Denzel!!!

View attachment 69948

I actually prefer non-fat milk but does it help? Noooooooooooooooooooo, I have beautifully shaped manboobs to prove it. And of course as mentioned before, the wonderful Optech strap I use accentuates my lovely figure. :madmad::banghead:

 

[JacaRanda]

I am a little late to this party, but I think you did yourself a favor in getting the 1.4 instead of the 1.8.

Have fun!

Unrelated to the topic, but every time I see your avatar I think you look like Denzel Washington.

Man-oh-man, if I only had some of his cash. I'd be able to spend the $80.00 bucks for the camo lenscoat instead of painting my lens with Wifey's green fingernail polish.