First Portrait Lens Canon Nifty Fifty or Sigma 18-125mm f3.8-5.6 dc os hsm

Messages
530
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I have spent a few days with my Dad (A retired film SLR professional) & have not only seen some of the joys of portrait photography from his old work, but have also had the pleasure of trying out the 100mm F2.8, which is clearly out of my price range & rather unthinkable in getting as an beginner in photography. My Dad says that while a 50mm prime lens is good, I would get better use out of a replacement kit lens & having looked at WEX, I noticed that I can get the 18-125mm Sigma for under £150 & looks as tho it would also make a good replacement to the bog standard 18-55. I am really interested in getting into as many areas of Photography as possible, but without spending a fortune to begin with on lens for each area. I have a half decent telephoto lens (55-250 II) which I will be upgrading to the 70-300 in the near future as I was really impressed with using my Dad's 70-300 on his 50D & my 450D. So the next thing to decide on is a budget lens for portraits either say a Nifty Fifty or a lens like the Sigma, that could well be used for portraits, as well as other things at the wider end.

Opinions please

Thanks :)
 
For portraits you ideally want a fast lens (wide aperture) to reduce the DoF. The nifty will certainly give you that and, for the price, it's a stonking lens, but a 50mm prime won't replace your kit lens for general use and the out of focus areas can be a little harsh due to the five-blade aperture.

I realise your budget is limited but maybe look at something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? I gather it's a very well regarded lens and would provide a very good walkabout replacement for the kit lens and also a decently shallow DoF for portraits.
 
For portraits you ideally want a fast lens (wide aperture) to reduce the DoF. The nifty will certainly give you that and, for the price, it's a stonking lens, but a 50mm prime won't replace your kit lens for general use and the out of focus areas can be a little harsh due to the five-blade aperture.

I realise your budget is limited but maybe look at something like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8? I gather it's a very well regarded lens and would provide a very good walkabout replacement for the kit lens and also a decently shallow DoF for portraits.

Yes I understand that now with the nifty fifty & probably will be on the look out in the future for a better walkabout replacement. I have just had a look at the Tammy 17-50 & it can be bought quite cheaply with the image stabilization, so may well go for that one at some point. The first thing I need to do is master my current lens as much as I possibly can, before I will consider upgrading. The reason I have come to this conclusion is after seeing results from what other people have taken with the same body & lens & has made me realize that I need to improve on my picture taking & appreciate the equipment I have, before rushing out & buying another glass. But thanks for the reply & info on the Tammy :)
 
I absolutely love my first lens (the nifty fifty) and felt I learnt a lot from it. However, my most used lens is a second hand sigma 85mm which I bought on here. I can heartily recommend it. My second love is the 100mm macro. If I was cannon I'd but a 135mm in a heart beat! Mandy
 
The two choices you gave are pretty limiting IMO. For most portraiture a longer lens (100-300mm effective) is where I want to be if I have the room...so the 125 is the better choice. But at 125mm it's an f/5.6 which means you'll want/need to use it at ~ f/8-f/11... that's just too small/slow for a lot of situations...so the 50mm is the better choice...

So, between those two lenses:
Outdoor use in good light where you can choose/control the BG, or indoor with lighting and control of the BG, I would probably choose the longer zoom (I have no experience w/ that Sigma).

For use when you cannot choose/control the BG, and for "available light" indoors it has to be the faster prime.

In general, when it comes to bargain budget the primes are going to be the best choice... You get better IQ and better low light performance for the least money. They tend to be limited in use so you'll wind up with more of them in the end... but the whole collection could cost not much more than a single top end zoom.

(You can NOT "zoom with your feet")
 
for a start the canon 18-55 isn't a bad lens for a kit. the 50 1.8 on a crop body will give 80mm so pretty good for a portrait lens to starting with for a zoom i would look at 70-200 2.8 if you have the money
 
The joy of the 50 is the forcing your to think of the shot...so if you have time a plenty the results are more rewarding. The speed of the lens is great, but a really shallow DoF would leave areas of the portrait out of focus/softer than you would necessarily want. However, i like my 50 for around the house with the kids, it gets me to think more instead of just snapping.

In terms of walkaround and low f2.8 then the Sigma 17-70mm is serving me proud, and has taken some beating from my other half and even my 6yr old at times. Its a relatively sharp lens for the money and provides good walk around versatility, landscape options with sharpness starting to be good from 18mm and it has OS stabilisation which can be be useful but also turned off when on the tripod. Not the quickest focusing but quicker than the 50mm.

My understanding is that the most flattering focal length is around 100mm so top end on the Sigma does that on a crop body, and the lowest f is f4.0 at full 70mm focal length.

SK66 is right you cannot zoom with your feet...you move em and you recompose and learn that moving enables different shots, rather than clicking away from the same spot on different focal lengths...and this all alters light and no doubt a load of other stuff you already know due to your dad.
 
I have a Canon 28-135 which is my "general" lens, really sharp and is in budget 2nd hand. Not particularly fast but may tick some boxes for you.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top