Do I really need a 50mm prime?

D

danski

Messages
470
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
I borrowed my brother's 50mm f/1.8 at Xmas and have to admit that I was able to take some lovely pics with it & loved how much bokeh you can get - but I really didn't like the build quality though nor did it feel right on my 7D. So I started looked at other 50's and concluded that the Sigma f/1.4 was probably the one to go for having read many a review & forum thread.

Now I've nearly hit the buy button a few times (both new & SH) but something keeps stopping me from doing it. Not exactly sure what the something is, my best guess is it's a nagging doubt of whether I actually need one & also if it would really get used that much - especially as I have 50mm covered by my 24-105L which is my favourite lens. Now I know the answer to the "Do I really NEED one" question is "No I don't NEED one" but that's never stopped me before. Luckily money isn't a big issue - I just can't seem to commit!?! Strange really - most out of character for me!!!

Having read quite a lot about the Siggie it seems that to be sure you get a good one it's best to buy brand new so if you do get a dodgy, soft or MIS-focusing one it can go straight back to Sigma - the 3 year warranty is also peace of mind. With SH ones going for around £275-300 the saving doesn't seem to be a big one over new either.

So folks, should I or shouldn't I? Need a bit of convincing!

Thanks
 
Why don't you just save some cash and buy a Canon 1.8 one?

I know the build quality is not brilliant but it has to be one of the best value for money lens out there.

See how much you use this and if it looks like you will use 50mm a lot you can always trade up to a better 50mm prime as people are always on the look out for 50mm 1.8 and you wouldn't lose much on it.
 
pmcgsmurf said:
Why don't you just save some cash and buy a Canon 1.8 one?

I know the build quality is not brilliant but it has to be one of the best value for money lens out there.

See how much you use this and if it looks like you will use 50mm a lot you can always trade up to a better 50mm prime as people are always on the look out for 50mm 1.8 and you wouldn't lose much on it.
Click to expand...

+1
 
Yep, buy a 1.8 and see if it suits.
 
Why try before you buy :shrug: You've tried out your bro's 50mm so why not nip to a camera shop & try one out - if it feels good an you like it & as you've said "money's not a big issue" then get one... You can always sell it on at a later date...

I've had a few of Nikon's "nifty-fifties" :confused: & sold them as didn't use them but for the price (quite cheap) I thought what the heck - everyones got one sitting in their bag (well a vast majority have) so for the price I brought another...

:thinking: Then again its your £'s & not ours... People can always spend others money :naughty: but when it comes down to it - its never our own :LOL:
 
Dan,
I feel 99.9% sigma lenses are perfectly fine and its more due to the photographer misfocusing or not using micro adjust. I would definititely get one if i needed a 50mm,
I would get the 50mm 1.8 and see how often you use it. Afterwards you can sell it on and only lose £10 and then buy the sigma.
 
You've kinda answered your own question in that you have that range covered. But do you need the depth of field from a 1.8/1.4?

Personally I wouldn't swap the dof from the Sig for anything.
 
Last edited:
The 50mm f1.8 is about £75 if you shop around. Bargain really...but it all depends if you'll use it.

That's for a MkII. The MkI is no longer available, but you can pick them up used on ebay, and the build quality is better. However, they often go for more money because of this!

It's not an all day lens by any means, but the DOF is awesome.
 
I know I really wouldn't be happy with the f/1.8 because of the buildnquality - if anything it would probably put me off hence the argument for buying the Sigma. I forgot to mention that my bro's lens broke the same day I used it (cameras wouldn't recognise it) so it went back and got replaced.

DoF is definitely the attraction of these lenses and I know many people think they've got a bad one because of DoF especially at f/1.4 - to be honest I would probably be one of those people too until I figured out how to shoot properly with it.

When I said money isn't a big issue, I meant that I prefer to buy right first time and if it costs a £200-300 extra to do this then I'm happy to do so. However I don't like buying for the sake of buying, which is why I've asked the question.

How many of you out there have got 50mm covered by a zoom lens but still find yourselves coming back to the quick prime for shooting?
 
danski said:
How many of you out there have got 50mm covered by a zoom lens but still find yourselves coming back to the quick prime for shooting?
Click to expand...

Me.

If the grandkids are coming over to visit I usually stick the 50mm on the camera as it gets excellent low light shots.
 
The 50mm focal length was good on film, but it's pretty useless to me on a crop camera. Either too long, or too short. I'd be looking for a fast 30mm or 35mm.
 
Harlequin said:
Also this might change your mind about sigma lenses http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/
Click to expand...

Very interesting article - I read the 2008 version a while back but hadn't seen the 2010 update - a lot of it makes sense though - probably a lot more truth in it than manufacturers would be willing to admit to!

As for 35mm vs 50mm, I've tried shooting at both as well as 85mm using my zoom lenses and found that 50mm suited me/my style best, but thanks for the input
 
chrisphoto said:
For how cheap they are, and they fact that they can save a bad light situation at times they're well worth the money imo.
Click to expand...


I have 50mm covered with both a 24-70 f2.8 and a 16-85 DX lens, but I like my 50 f1.8 prime so much on a full frame body, I keep saying I will pick up the faster AF-S version and never get around to it. The 1.8 is so cheap its great value and even though the build quality doesn't seem as good as my other lenses (nikon) it has served me well for years and it is cheap insurance to have in the bag. I'm sure the Canon version is much the same.
 
danski said:
How many of you out there have got 50mm covered by a zoom lens but still find yourselves coming back to the quick prime for shooting?
Click to expand...

If we ignore macro lenses as they have additional specialist uses and just concentrate on non macro primes I'd say that they have three advantages...

1. A wide aperture for artistic use such as DoF and bokeh.
2. The wide aperture for low light shooting.
3. Overall image quality advantages, less distortion, sharper etc.

I am a believer in the view that the vast majority of lenses are sharp/good enough and have been for many years but us lot here are borderline or full on geeks so we care about getting the additional advantages that matter to us and we will pixel peep (even though we know we shouldn't) so whilst a 17-50mm f2.8 may be lovely we'll see and want the advantages of a good 50mm f1.4. Note that I said f1.4 and not f1.8. I personally wouldn't bother with the cheapo Canon lens as if you get that you're making compromises on getting that last bit of image quality and build quality and you'll always know that you've bought the compromise lens.

Do it right first time. Avoid the Canon and buy the Sigma 50mm f1.4. You may also find a fast 20 and 30mm useful.
 
especially as I have 50mm covered by my 24-105L
Click to expand...

Indeed you do have 50mm covered, but have you got f/1.4 covered?

Therein lies the value of the prime lens.
 
Ive been using the canon 50 1.8 for about 2 years now and have always loved the pics i get from it. As much as i love using it, i struggle a lot for indoor shots. Ive rented the 35L for a trip but didnt really like the focal lenght and size. I recently got the sigma 30 1.4 for my 7d and the focal lenght is perfect for both outdoors and indoors. Go to a shop and try it, you'll love it
 
Unless I need wide (24mm on FF) for perspective, then Sigma 50 is always on my camera. I love the subject separation and bokeh that you don't need to be up close to achieve. Cropping on 5dii is super, so I rarely need to switch to a zoom unless it's really far away.

You may prefer the Sigma 30 1.4 on cropped. If the cost isn't really an issue, why are people still recommending the 50 1.8?
 
tomqh said:
If the cost isn't really an issue, why are people still recommending the 50 1.8?
Click to expand...

Well I guess that the fact that the question has been asked means that people are answering and are advising on the best bang for buck.

Lets be honest if money was no object why ask in the first place.
 
I have Canon 1.4 mainly because it is crazy sharp from around f/2.2 onwards - this is how I use it. I have to treat mine like a toy unlike any other lens in a bag. So far all good.

I found 50 f/1.8 quite dreadful for slow and inaccurate AF, very poor build and ugly pentagonal bokeh. They are cheap and best suited for occasional group shots at f/5.6 where they are nice and crisp.
Sigma - I am sorry, I am yet to see the first really good copy that can come close to Canon in terms of IQ.
 
daugirdas said:
Sigma - I am sorry, I am yet to see the first really good copy that can come close to Canon in terms of IQ.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with mine. It's at least a match for my Canon 50mm f2.5, which is (so I've read) regarded as being one of Canon's sharpest.
 
Last edited:
daugirdas said:
Sigma - I am sorry, I am yet to see the first really good copy that can come close to Canon in terms of IQ.
Click to expand...

The Canon /1.4 isn't even close to the Sigma version, which knocks on the door of the /1.2 in terms of IQ and trounces it in terms of AF speed.
 
DemiLion said:
The Canon /1.4 isn't even close to the Sigma version, which knocks on the door of the /1.2 in terms of IQ and trounces it in terms of AF speed.
Click to expand...

As someone who has owned both Canon and Sigma f/1.4s, this is an over exaggeration. Your average amateur photographer will not notice that much difference between the two. The build quality is what sets it apart in my opinion.

My flickR stream has sets for both, I'd be suprised if you could tell the difference.
 
I had the Canon 50mm 1.8, and while the build quality didn't bother me, the focal length (on crop body) and poor AF in low light (that's why we buy fast glass?) meant I used it probably no more than 5 times. I'm now looking at getting the Sigma 30mm 1.4.
 
Get a f1.8 one and feel how regullary you use it, if the extra f stops give you what you want sell it and replace with canon f1.4 one.
 
I had the niftyfifty on tour lens for a while, and afterwards went out and bought the Canon 50mm f1.4.

It's small, light and so is always in my bag. When you need that low light capability it's proved to be invaluable. I've shot karting, concerts and new born baby portraits using natural light with it.
 
Since getting a EFS 17-55mm 2.8 I've not used the 50mm, HOWEVER I'll keep it as anytime I need indoor shots then I'll bang it on. Also I use a 40D which is not amazing at high ISO, so every stop helps on the lens front.
 
Just picked up a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and can't wait to try it out this weekend at the Sweeps Festival In Rochester!
 
I seem to find to want to use my 50mm f/1.4 more and more now, especially in low light its invaluable.
 
i'm most attracted by the DoF & bokeh that I will be able to get with this - still think the Siggie is the one to go for all things considered.

going by some of the replies, the fact that I've got the FL covered doesn't matter - it's the aperture that I need to be looking at, which is kind of where I've been all along, just not sure how much it'll get used - probably quite a bit I'm guessing
 
danski said:
I borrowed my brother's 50mm f/1.8 at Xmas and have to admit that I was able to take some lovely pics with it & loved how much bokeh you can get - but I really didn't like the build quality though nor did it feel right on my 7D. So I started looked at other 50's and concluded that the Sigma f/1.4 was probably the one to go for having read many a review & forum thread.

Now I've nearly hit the buy button a few times (both new & SH) but something keeps stopping me from doing it. Not exactly sure what the something is, my best guess is it's a nagging doubt of whether I actually need one & also if it would really get used that much - especially as I have 50mm covered by my 24-105L which is my favourite lens. Now I know the answer to the "Do I really NEED one" question is "No I don't NEED one" but that's never stopped me before. Luckily money isn't a big issue - I just can't seem to commit!?! Strange really - most out of character for me!!!

Having read quite a lot about the Siggie it seems that to be sure you get a good one it's best to buy brand new so if you do get a dodgy, soft or MIS-focusing one it can go straight back to Sigma - the 3 year warranty is also peace of mind. With SH ones going for around £275-300 the saving doesn't seem to be a big one over new either.

So folks, should I or shouldn't I? Need a bit of convincing!

Thanks
Click to expand...

no you don't.
 
after the honeymoon period (that included two 50mm lenses)I got rid of them all and now only have one lens, a 17-40.

I find that once you get over the "wow look at what it can do" factor you find out truly what your needs/desires are.

Because of what "I" shoot, the 17-40 was the best fit for a reasonable price, and that's all there was to it. Assess your needs, look at the budget, then decide. Sometimes your only option is to buy it and then discover later you don't actually need it. It took me two cropped bodies and several lenses to find that.
 
Last edited:
trencheel303 said:
after the honeymoon period (that included two 50mm lenses)I got rid of them all and now only have one lens, a 17-40.

I find that once you get over the "wow look at what it can do" factor you find out truly what your needs/desires are.

Because of what "I" shoot, the 17-40 was the best fit for a reasonable price, and that's all there was to it. Assess your needs, look at the budget, then decide. Sometimes your only option is to buy it and then discover later you don't actually need it. It took me two cropped bodies and several lenses to find that.
Click to expand...

interesting, I'd like to think you're right. I dropped my 50mm last night, and it broke in two pieces. Nearly cried. Before it broke was thinking of getting 17-40. Maybe, i'll consign my 50mm to history and get the 17-40 instead. if i'm really honest did find it's limitations when shooting video, though it isn't meant to be a workhorse lens
 
I'm coming around to the fact that it's all I need for anything other than my 400mm wildlife.

It's been the constant in my camera bag, and the lens I shoot with more than any other. For family and 'pop' shots, it's still king.

Now, that 50 'lux.......
 
JerrardM said:
I use my 50mm on my 40D for portrait work in my studio and I love it. For the cheapest lens going the quality is incredible. Buy it!!
Click to expand...

Same set up here and I find it excellent.
 
I think it's good to have a fast prime in your bag, personally I found 50mm too long on a 1.6x crop, but it works great on full frame, even if you do have the range covered by other lenses there will still be times when you want the shallower DoF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top