50mm, which one?

[DueyDooDah]

OK. I keep seeing people post that a 50mm prime is a need to have. Let me ask 2 questions:

1) What would be the main purpose(s) of such a lens?
2) Looking at the Canon line (used on a 30D), which 50mm? 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 or 2.5 macro?

I can't make sense out of the reviews. They all say "no better lens exists" or "buy this lens". If that's true, then why would I pay for more than the $79 for a 1.8? I know 1.2 is the faster of the bunch, but really, how much faster? What will it gain me? And, is the macro capability worth the slower speed?

Please ease my pain.

 

[Master Mason]

OK. I keep seeing people post that a 50mm prime is a need to have. Let me ask 2 questions:

1) What would be the main purpose(s) of such a lens?
2) Looking at the Canon line (used on a 30D), which 50mm? 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 or 2.5 macro?

I can't make sense out of the reviews. They all say "no better lens exists" or "buy this lens". If that's true, then why would I pay for more than the $79 for a 1.8? I know 1.2 is the faster of the bunch, but really, how much faster? What will it gain me? And, is the macro capability worth the slower speed?

Please ease my pain.

The 1.8 which I have is a great lens for the price. the 1.2 is the L version, and even most of the pros that I see talk about it say that it isn't worth it for that particular lens. The 1.4 is supposed to be the best on a price/benifit basis, but it is over 3 times more expensive than the 1.8. What you gain is a little speed and a better built lens. the 1.8 is kind of platicky... Having said that, I seriously doubt that I will ever upgrade my 1.8, it does everything I need it to do and it was a great price.

As for uses, you can use it for portraits, low light situations, where even a 2.8 won't get you there. It is an amazing lens for the price.

 

[photo_chick]

Can't tell you if spending more is worth it for you, but I have the 1.8 and I LOVE that thing. Until I got it I was still pullling out my old Pentax 35mm for low light shots, looking back I should have bought this one for my Rebel G long ago. Don't know how I got along without it!

 

[SharonLowe]

I really think having that lens depends on what you shoot. A 50mm lens used to be the norm on cameras - that's what everyone shot withadn all the teachers used to make you go around and shoot only with a 50mm to make you move to get the photo you wanted. Nowadays, a 50mm isn't always the best lens to have. It depends what you shoot. It is a super portrait lens especially on a small sensor (85mm is the perfect portrait lens but with the multiplier effect, it is too long for most DSLRs) and it great in low light. But, if you shoot mostly walking around and don't want to keep swapping lenses, the 50mm might not be for you.

As for which one, I have the f/1.4 and love it - I frequently do the walk around with it only exercise just to stretch myself; the f/1.8 is a great lens too and you can beat the price. Just a bit plasticy as others have said but for the price it is really nice.

 

[boBQuincy]

OK. I keep seeing people post that a 50mm prime is a need to have. Let me ask 2 questions:

1) What would be the main purpose(s) of such a lens?
2) Looking at the Canon line (used on a 30D), which 50mm? 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 or 2.5 macro?

I can't make sense out of the reviews. They all say "no better lens exists" or "buy this lens". If that's true, then why would I pay for more than the $79 for a 1.8? I know 1.2 is the faster of the bunch, but really, how much faster? What will it gain me? And, is the macro capability worth the slower speed?

Please ease my pain.

A 50mm will gain you some good low light capabilities. The f/1.8 will do it at a low cost. F/1.4 is a little faster, slightly better optics, better built (may not be an issue) and may focus quicker, for about 3x the price. F/1.2 will do all of the above even better, but maybe only slightly better, at a very high price.

It's really diminishing returns, the f/1.8 is good enough for most people and you haven't invested much just to try the concept. If you aren;t concerned with $$$ I would buy the f/1.4. If like most of us, you are on a budget, the f/1.8 looks really good!

 

[jann1033]

i think you mainly are seeing ( at least on here) the 1.8 recommeded simply because of the price, what other decent-good lens can you get new for under $100 personally i don't use mine all that much but depending on what i do with my other lenses i might start using it more( ie if i get rid of my 28-135, i had it up for sale then backed out and decided to keep it now it is acting up...will this never end ). i like my 100mm prime more for walk around type if i want to use a prime but that is just me...

 

[Groucho]

This page has some side-by-side shots with the Canon 50mm F1.4 and Canon 50mm F1.8. I think the big difference is not so much speed but the superior bokeh of the F1.4. since it has 8 aperture blades instead of the 5 of the F1.8.

Like another said, I think the price differential is the big thing that drives F1.8 sales - if the F1.8 was $175 and the F1.4 was $250, you'd probably see a lot F1.4 sales. But $80 vs $300? That's a big gap to justify. And $1,360 for the F1.2? That is going to be extremely difficult to justify for anyone but a true professional (and even then!), especially with no IS. (And yes, IS would help even with a 50mm on a full-frame body, especially since you'll obviously be planning on using it in low-light environments.)

 

[DueyDooDah]

Thanks to everyone that replied. This makes things a bit easier and now I get the differences, although no one addressed the macro lens. I assume the macro lens differs in it's apeture size (obviously) and allows extreme close up images. But otherwise, can this lens serve the same purposes as the other 50mms?

 

[jann1033]

[some how i double posted instead of edited so i'm deleting this one since i looked up about the price of the macro in the last one

 

[MarkBarbieri]

As a macro, I'm not keen on a 50mm lens. The working distance is too close. I prefer a 100mm or 180mm. I guess it depends on what kind of macro work you do.

As for the others, I opted for the f/1.8 because it's dirt cheap and I rarely ever use it. If I was going to use one a lot more, I'd have considered one of the others.

 

[jann1033]

Thanks to everyone that replied. This makes things a bit easier and now I get the differences, although no one addressed the macro lens. I assume the macro lens differs in it's apeture size (obviously) and allows extreme close up images. But otherwise, can this lens serve the same purposes as the other 50mms?

yes but imo i like'd a longer macro ... the Canon 100mm macro seems to be a great lens for in the $600 neighborhood although the 60mm macro has some decent reviews as well for a crop camera. but yes it should function as a normal prime lens as well( at least my macro does but it's 3rd party) depending on the price i'd get the 100 for a macro if it's even in the same ball park. if the 50 is a 1:1 ratio that means the photo is life size on the sensor.
tamron say>>>>A macro magnification is expressed in 1: x, which is a ratio of the actual size of a subject [1] to the size of the subject image reproduced on the film plane [1/ x]. Therefore, the larger the x value becomes, the smaller the reproduced image on the film plane. For example, an image of a coin reproduced on film as the same size as the actual coin is 1:1 macro, while the same image reproduced at 1/2 of the original size is 1:2 macro. The macro ratio is also referred to as magnification ratio, and the maximum ratio of a lens' reproduction capability is designated as "maximum magnification ratio".

just checked and it's $250 ish but only 1:2, i'd skip it probably, get the 50 1.8 and save the $150 to add toward the 100mm if you want a macro. i think handicap(?????) might have the tamron 90 mm ( and tinksdad and i think gdad both have 100 mm ish macros but not sure what kind)