when would I need a 50mm prime lens?

sburatorul · May 8, 2009

after i posted here the previous reply i just went to the store and got myself a birthday present... the 50mm 1.8 af-d. and until now i just love it. got like 100 pics with it and the manual focus is not so hard to get hold of. for squirrels i have the 55-200 so i got that covered

.

Dao · May 8, 2009

sburatorul said:
after i posted here the previous reply i just went to the store and got myself a birthday present... the 50mm 1.8 af-d. and until now i just love it. got like 100 pics with it and the manual focus is not so hard to get hold of. for squirrels i have the 55-200 so i got that covered .

Great!! Glad you have fun with it. Happy birthday by the way!

inTempus · May 8, 2009

pokopelo said:
I really appreciatte you taking the time to do this post, it has been very very helpful to understand how this lens is useful...

I'm glad it was useful.

photograham · May 8, 2009

Its a great lens to use!

sburatorul · May 8, 2009

Dao said:
Great!! Glad you have fun with it. Happy birthday by the way!

thanks dao!

CyclonePWR · May 10, 2009

Would you guys still buy the 50mm f1.4 if you all ready had the 17-55 f2.8 for canon? This would be for an XSI.

I guess a better way of putting it would be, do you gain quality with the 1.4prime over the 2.8zoom at 50mm or just f stops and improvement in low light?

If the quality increase is little would you rather take the 350$ and put it into 70-200L or 10-22 wide.

inTempus · May 10, 2009

Personally, I would put the money into a 70-200. For me, this is one of my most used and useful lenses. You already have the focal range (50mm) covered. Sure, many would argue that the 50mm prime will be sharper, and it probably is a little. Is it going to be a HUGE difference in IQ? I don't think so, but others might disagree.

If you don't do a whole lot of low light shooting, then the larger aperture will be of little use until you do.

You can always come back to the 50mm later.

That's how I see things...

YMMV

CyclonePWR · May 11, 2009

Yeah thats what I was thinking too.

LarryD · May 11, 2009

There was a time when a 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 was in everybodys bag....... It was the only way to get some low-light, natural shots with the film you might have in the camera.......... Hi-speed film just wasn't loaded up routinely..

With the ability to change ISO at any time, and the low light capability of new digitals, I will be contrary and say that the 50mm prime is not of great value any more..

With crop-bodies, it's not even as useful as it used to be indoors, giving you a FOV closer to a long 80mm..

As said, though, it's cheap.........

However, I think the photographer is better served with a 16-35 f2.8L, or the 24-70 f2.8L

I never see a reason to put a 50mm on any of my digitals any more..

For the original poster, I would say put your money towards the great 70-200 f2.8, or the 10-22; they will see a lot more use.

inTempus · May 11, 2009

I would say the 50mm with its 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2 aperture is just as useful today as it ever was. Most modern DSLR's are lucky to have a good looking image produced at ISO 3200 (assuming they can even get there, many are stuck at 1600). Even on my upper end bodies that can comfortably hit ISO 6400 I've found several occasions where it was either fast glass or flash if I wanted the shot - and flash isn't always an option.

If you're a wedding photog, the fast primes are still quite useful. If you're an event photog, fast primes are still quite useful. If you like to shoot your kids around the house using natural light, fast primes are still quite useful.

I've not heard too many people argue f/2.8 is enough for every application and anything faster isn't as useful as it was 10 years ago.

But I would agree that for a general purpose lens for a guy with a limited kit, a 24-70 or even a 70-200 will be more useful than a prime at any focal length.

icassell · May 11, 2009

I was shooting indoors at the small animal house at the wildlife park this weekend. My Canon 50mm f1.8 was really nice to have as I could shoot at lower ISO than my usual walk-around lens (the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8). It has the added advantage that it is very small and light (not to mention the fact that it was relatively inexpensive even though I paid a bit more for the Mk I version).

It is also far less obtrusive than the bigger zoom if you're trying to do candids.

Ian

inTempus · May 11, 2009

I will always have a 50mm in my bag. It's extremely useful. But I wouldn't take it over my 24-70 or my 70-200. But if you find yourself in low light often and pushing your ISO to the limits to get a shot... go prime.

Bigpopa · May 11, 2009

I am running the Sigma50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM on my D60 and this thing rocks ........Alittle bit of money but well worth it.

B Kennedy · May 11, 2009

the 50 f1.8 vs 1.4? Is the 1.4 worth the extra 300 beans cause I definitely wouldn't be spending the way extra for the 1.2 (although it would prolly be nice). You guys have me convinced to get it :sexywink:

I just dont know if I'd want to take my 24-70 off for this one. I love the 24-70 and the image quality is outstanding lense that I keep on the camera 247. You think the 50 prime is worth it for me?

B Kennedy · May 11, 2009

also it would be worthwhile to note that prior to looking into the 50, I've had my eyes set on the fisheye ef 15mm/2.8. I just dont know if I want to save the few bucks and put it towards the fisheye, which I feel I might get more use out of. What do you think?