Should I buy a 50mm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tlr
  • Start date Start date
tlr

tlr

Messages
222
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, first post and all that...

I am thinking of getting a 50mm prime, partly for an upcoming wedding (I'm only a guest not the photographer).

I have a 40d, Sigma 10-20 and 24-105L which I use for landscape, climbing and Mountain biking shots but the idea of a fast prime appeals to me.

My question is: will the image quality of the 50mm 1.8 be as good as the 24-105 at 50mm? Or should I get the 50mm 1.4? I know that the primes will be a lot faster than the f4.

Local shop has a 1.8 at £69 second hand which is what started me thinking, although they hardly break the bank new, but reviews are sort of mixed - sharp but slow focus and poor build.

Thanks in advance.

As an aside, I found the forum looking for second hand lenses, but only after I'd registered did I see the 100 posts rule for the classifieds. I can kind of see the reasoning behind it, but the interweb is full enough of rubbish with me having to find 100 things to say on subjects I know little about before I can buy anything!
 
Get it, try it, pass it on for pretty much what you paid for it and, if you liked it, get the 1.4.
 
If you can wait a month. There are rumour about new 50/1.4.

50/1.4 will be more accurate, and sharper than the zoom or f/1.8. Unfortunately the current 50/1.4 is really fragile.

50/1.8 is very sharp from f/2.8, but the rendering of background is not very pleasing. mk1 was far better in terms of build quality.

Hence I am waiting.
 
I may be wrong but does the 100 post rule stop you from buying? I know it stops you from advertising something for sale but assumed you could still actually buy something.

Anyway... the 50mm. I'm assuming for a Canon as you're comparing it to the 24-105mm. I've only got the metal mount f/1.8 mk1 (although never actually called the mk 1) but as this is optically pretty much the same I think it's fair to comment. It's OK at f/1.8 but much better by f/2.8 and well worth having. The mkII is built like crap and can fall apart if you handle it roughly, but it's capable of some quite amazing results. It's a noisy little b****r and can hunt a bit for focus in really low light but it should be in every Canon users bag. You can't really lose with this one.

cheers
 
tlr said:
As an aside, I found the forum looking for second hand lenses, but only after I'd registered did I see the 100 posts rule for the classifieds. I can kind of see the reasoning behind it, but the interweb is full enough of rubbish with me having to find 100 things to say on subjects I know little about before I can buy anything!
Click to expand...

:wave:

You can buy from the Sales forum, but not sell......:thumbs:
 
have a 50mm 1.8 which is capable of fantastic shots, even wide open, but as everyone has said, the build quality sucks. and the af is not so fantastic. I'd get a 50mm 1.4 but apart from the fact that i'm just a poor student, 50mm is also a slightly awkward focal length on the crop sensor. not quite wide enough, but at the same time not quite long enough. Well that’s my opinion anyway. If I could I'd get the Sigma 30mm 1.4 but of course that’s like easily thrice the price.

Btw, Kerso sells the 50mm 1.8 new for £70.

after all's said though, it’s a great lens to learn on since its so cheapy.
 
i think i'm going to start renting mine out £10 a go you pay pp and insurance :p

as said before cheap, fragile, does what it says on the box and most importantly a FUN lens if you have no prime experience
 
tlr said:
Hi, first post and all that...

I am thinking of getting a 50mm prime, partly for an upcoming wedding (I'm only a guest not the photographer).

I have a 40d, Sigma 10-20 and 24-105L which I use for landscape, climbing and Mountain biking shots but the idea of a fast prime appeals to me.

My question is: will the image quality of the 50mm 1.8 be as good as the 24-105 at 50mm? Or should I get the 50mm 1.4? I know that the primes will be a lot faster than the f4.

Local shop has a 1.8 at £69 second hand which is what started me thinking, although they hardly break the bank new, but reviews are sort of mixed - sharp but slow focus and poor build.

Thanks in advance.

As an aside, I found the forum looking for second hand lenses, but only after I'd registered did I see the 100 posts rule for the classifieds. I can kind of see the reasoning behind it, but the interweb is full enough of rubbish with me having to find 100 things to say on subjects I know little about before I can buy anything!
Click to expand...

Sounds like a no-brainer. Buy it, use it, keep it, or sell it for the same money near enough. (I think the latest Kerso price for it is £80 plus p+p.)
 
I have exactly the same set of kit 40d, 10-20 sig, 24-105 L and the 50

you can tell the 50mm is sharp! and much faster than the 24-105.

I've since upgraded to a 5dm2 and have a 35 L as well.

I shot my second wedding recently and again only used the 24-105 all day long.

the 50/1.8 is a great lens but the build quality is nothing compared to the 24-105 or even the 10-20 sig.

I tend to use it occasionally for low light in door photography, for the price who cares!
 
I think it'll be sharper than your 24-105mm at any equal aperture.
The main problems, like other members already told you, are the built quality and AF (noisy and slow). Generally AF lenses have bad focusing rings, but this one is almost impossible to use.
The bokeh produced by this lens is also very ugly and harsh.

People use to day that every Canon user should own one of these. Well, I don't agree. For those who need an AF lens and want something cheap and sharper than most of the zooms, it's more than ok.
Some people simply just shoot using wide angles, so they don't need it (especially on a APS-C camera), doesn't matter how cheap it is.
Other people - like me - can live without AF. Those can buy a 50mm sharper, with much better bokeh, much better built quality and better colour for less than the price of the Canon.

For example, you can get a Helios 44-2 58mm f/2.0 (the first version, which is the best one) for 10-15GBP. This lens is a clone of the Carl Zeiss Biotar 58mm f/2.0 and you can use it wide open with excellent center sharpness. In fact I compared it to the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM (I confess I'm a pixel peeper and like to do this kind of stuff) and found both to be equally sharp at f/2.0. This is amazing, since the Canon was already in the "safe" aperture area.
The bokeh also has a lot of character (8 blades diaphragm) and reminds of the old Leica lenses.

For example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21692757@N03/2459591067/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/karmagroovy/2656305538/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luluk/3566143679/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chopchops/2995086506/

This file is a crap, but take a look at those lights in the bokeh:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/5k313t0/2842735943/

Perfect circles!

You just have to be very careful with flare and almost all the photos will need some levels adjustment, since this is not multicoated. But if you want a multicoated lens, you still can get a cheap Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 for 20GBP, which is also better than the Canon.

Of course if you need AF and a fast/cheap 50mm, the Canon is the way to go. ;)
 
Thanks for the all thoughts, still slightly inconclusive, but I guess the only sensible thing to do is to suck it and see.

Phobic’s comments are interesting as he can compare the 50 with the 24-105, he makes it sound worthwhile.

I’ll use the 24-105 for the day of the wedding and then swop to the 50mm for the evening. Less to damage as the booze takes effect!

Oh, and the 100 post rule for the classifieds stops me replying to threads as well I think – obviously I can PM the sellers I guess.

Thanks again.
 
robbytherobot said:
Btw, Kerso sells the 50mm 1.8 new for £70.
Click to expand...

not any more he doesn't I asked last week and it was £80...

But I have had mine about 5 days now and love it, at 1.8 it's still really good but tricky to get the shot right due to the low depth of field, obviously that is not down to the lens... Focus is really noisy but you can easily live with it, it's just noticeably louder than the 18-55 kit lens....

It does struggle to find focus in some light conditions and effeminately isn't as quick as my two kit lens's for it.

The only thing I would say is that, yes I'm sure the 1.4 is brilliant and far better build quality, HOWEVER from my calculations on the site I bought my 1.8 from I could buy 3 1.8's and have nearly enough for a 4th left over for the price of the 1.4 so you would want it to be a damn sight better....

love it so far, set up a toy car (one of those free ones with shell V-power) on the dinning room table and took the same photo with same settings using both the 50mm and 18-55mm kit lens, Comparing the photo's side by side on a 40" screen in lightroom the 50mm was a little sharper


EDIT: just noticed you have the 24-105 L... so if you can afford that I would go for the 1.4
 
Oh sorry, didn't know kerso raised his prices :(

I have the helios 44-2 too! its cheap and if you can be bothered to MF capable of some splendid results :D
 
Love the 50mm - any of them. But I,ve found 24-105 much more useful for events like weddings.
 
nb62 said:
Love the 50mm - any of them. But I,ve found 24-105 much more useful for events like weddings.
Click to expand...

There speaks the voice of sanity. A fast prime is handy for odd occasions, especially for £69, but it's never a workhorse lens.

Why some people are all luvved up about old primes I really don't know. They are manual focus which is a pain when using a crop format viewfinder, and they are manual aperture which is a big pain, always, full stop.

I had a Helios 44 on my Zenith 3M in the 1960s. It was no great shakes then. Get the rose tints off fellas.
 
HoppyUK said:
There speaks the voice of sanity. A fast prime is handy for odd occasions, especially for £69, but it's never a workhorse lens.

Why some people are all luvved up about old primes I really don't know. They are manual focus which is a pain when using a crop format viewfinder, and they are manual aperture which is a big pain, always, full stop.

I had a Helios 44 on my Zenith 3M in the 1960s. It was no great shakes then. Get the rose tints off fellas.
Click to expand...

:shrug: i paid less than £12 for mine with hood and filter (iirc) so i think its at the very least excellent value for money!! so it’s a pain and demands a lot of patience: not always a bad thing! not for weddings and fast paced events, sure, but for a n00b like myself, a great tool to learn with.

gotta agree with your first sentence though ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top