Nifty Fifty??? Lens envy? Help!

[PoohJen]

Hi!

I've seen lots of recommendations for the inexpensive 'nifty 50' - the Canon 50mm1.8. FINALLY it's gotten back down on Amazon to the $75ish range I've read about here. But before I hit 'buy' I noticed the $316 50mm 1.4. and then the dreaded second guessing begins...

My stuff: Rebel XT, Sigma lenses 18-125, 70-300 APO. My subjects: mainly sports (mostly baseball) and high school theatre. Also nature and your occassional family event/vacation/etc.

My sports stuff comes out great. I was frustrated this week with the quality of my low light theatre shots (perhaps it would help if I brought a tripod!).

So...why do I need a 50? What would I use it for?

Should I bypass the 1.8 and go for the 1.4? Why? (or does the 'why do I need' question automatically shame me into 1.4 unworthiness?)

I wasn't in the market for a $$ lens...so don't know if I can justify the 1.4.

Thanks everyone! I always appreciate your insights!

 

[photo_chick]

I have the 50mm f/1.8 (It was $65 for it, new, locally) and I love it. I like the wide aperture so I can get more low light shots.

 

[GrumpyOne]

Only you will know if you need the 1.4 or can "settle" for the 1.8. I saw some comparison shots between the two for the canon lenses and there was a small but noticeable difference in quality, the 1.4 always produced a slightly better picture, IMO, when the difference was noticeable. I wasn't able to find the review again but perhaps someone else has a link to it.

Of course, if you really want to gather light, there's the 50mm 1.2

Considering you'd be getting over 1 more stop for $75 and getting less than a stop more for an extra $250, if you can't think of a reason why you would need it and you can think of useful purposed for the $250, I'd say go with the 1.8.

 

[Groucho]

This page has some side-by-side shots. Not only is the F1.4 faster, it is built better, has better optics, and more aperture blades, which translates to better bokeh (the blurred out-of-focus areas.)

However, it is 3x the cost. Were I a Canon owner, I'd probably end up with the F1.8 but pine for the F1.4 but have a hard time justifying the extra cost.

The usefulness of the lens is anywhere where you want to take good photos in low light, and/or where you want a short depth of field. How fast is your current fastest lens? The kit lens maxes out at F3.5, I think - that's somewhere around 2, 2.5 stops slower than F1.8, which is a pretty big difference.

You'll probably find that even the F1.8 has overall better sharpness and color than cheap zoom lenses.

Ultimately, it's so cheap that it's hard to really knock it too much, even as a non-Canon user. Anything bad you say around it can be answered with "yeah, but it's only $80."

 

[boBQuincy]

The 1.4 also has USM focusing (although not full time manual focusing afaik) so it should focus faster and more quietly. 1.4 is about 2/3 stop faster than 1.8. Taking all this together, in some situations the f/1.4 might deliver the image where the 1.8 would not.

I have a 1.8 and know that one day I will break down and get a 1.4, the day the lack of sense overrides the lack of $$$.

 

[ktulu]

I have the 1.8 and I'm really happy with it, it does great for the price. If you have the $$$$ then I'd say go for the 1.4, or maybe get the 1.8 and something like a battery grip if you don't have one

 

[0bli0]

dw has the 1.8 and i have the 1.4. as Groucho points out, the additional aperture blades make for a much nicer bokeh and highlights. the dof on 1.4 is very shallow and it's not the worlds fastest focussing lens, so you have to be careful - especially with kids. i suspect 50mm will be too short and the 1.4 slow to focus for theatre. the 85mm f/1.8 may fair better here. but they're both great lenses for doing portraits. they're also great for a variety of things.

the best thing about both lenses is they're primes - and very sharp.

to be honest, for most people the fractional stop may not be worth the extra quid required to go to the 1.4.

fwiw, here is a sample 50mm @ f/1.4 from Disneysea

 

[JR6ooo4]

That is what I was going to say. THe 50mm range will probably be to short for theater, even if you were in the front row.

I have the 50mm f1.8 and still use the slow 70-300 f4.5-?? for theater shots. With a tripod and pistol grip head. I just have to learn the show and shoot when there is slight pauses in action.

Mikeeee

 

[handicap18]

The usefulness of the lens is anywhere where you want to take good photos in low light, and/or where you want a short depth of field. How fast is your current fastest lens? The kit lens maxes out at F3.5, I think - that's somewhere around 2, 2.5 stops slower than F1.8, which is a pretty big difference.

Only thing I would add to this is that the widest aperture is at 18mm. On a kit lens at 55mm the widest aperture is f/5.6 which is 4 1/3 stops different. Like the difference in size between a dime and a 1/2 dollar.

I have the Nikon version of the f/1.8 and I love mine. Based on your post you probably really wont need the f/1.4 expecially for the cost difference.

I don't use mine often, but do use it. Espcially for portraits of the kids. It is a very sharp lens especially for the cost. Also comes in hand for Disney on the indoor rides, though it is just a tad to long. It still work great for the no flash rides.

A few portraits:

and a few Disney: