Sigma 50 or Canon Nifty?

Sausages

Sausages

Messages
307
Name
Damian
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been offered a Sigma 50mm f2.8 EX DG Macro lens for £150 (its only a few months old and hardly used), Im struggling to raise the funds at the moment.

BUT is it better than Canons cheaper EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens?

What should I go for?

I have been asked to shoot my next doors wedding (aaagh) I was told the nifty 50 would be a good lens to use.

I only possess a kit lens EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
 
depends if you want to do macro, the 50/1.8 is a stop faster but not a macro lens

pays ya money takes ya choices
 
I assume I am being dumb, I thought as they were both 50mm lenses I could use either for the wedding shots as everyone says the nifty fifty is realy good, I thought the Sigma would be good also and being an EX lens nearly new was worth the £150 investment
 
Don't know the siggy lens but the nifty 1.8 is an absolute corker, especially as new it is around £80...
 
You can use either as a general purpose 50mm but the Sigma is a macro lens which means it'll focus much closer than the Canon 50mm will.

The advantage of the Canon is that it has a wider aperture, and I suppose that it has two disadvantages...1. It isn't a macro and 2. It has a reputation for falling apart :lol: Only kidding there, I'm sure only a tiny percentage fall apart.

The Sigma has the advantage of being a macro lens, the disadvantages are...1. It costs more and 2. It's not as fast.

As has been said...choices choices...

As there are choices I have a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and a Canon 50mm f2.5 "macro." In fact the Canon lens is what I've been using today.

Good luck choosing but if f2.8 is fast enough for you I'd stretch for the macro if at all possibe.
 
Last edited:
The nifty-fifty is the 50mm f/1.8. You already have the 50mm focal length covered in your 18-55 kit lens.

The reason why the nifty is favoured is because it goes to f/1.8 for shallow depth of field, and that's quite a nice effect for portraits, and 50mm is also a good focal length for that on a crop format camera. F/1.8 is also good in low light. The Sigma can't go lower than f/2.8, so not really the same thing.

Unless you're going to use it at very low f/numbers, you will likely find the lack of zoom a drawback compared to the kit lens.
 
But the Sigma does do something that neither the kit lens or Canon f1.8 can do, macro, and f2.8 isn't too shabby either.
 
woof woof said:
But the Sigma does do something that neither the kit lens or Canon f1.8 can do, macro, and f2.8 isn't too shabby either.
Click to expand...

I think the OP is seeing the 50mm part (which he already has covered) and missing the point of the f/1.8 bit.

Unless he needs a macro for the wedding.
 
Last edited:
I have only just started photography since last September when my lad started Rugby, I was using a Lumix TZ3 and saw the excuse I could use with the wife to buy something better and get back into something I enjoyed at colage all those years ago.

Anyway my nutty next door neighbour has seen my new camera and now thinks (coz I have a good camera I must be so I can shoot his wedding next August (no preasure lol). So I have been reading though everything in here to do with weddings, looking for tips and advice on everything including lenses. Thanks to all for advice given so far.
 
Last edited:
To be fair bud, weddings are much more about people management and sound technique than they are about kit.

Although pros have loads of gear, and know how to use it, you can do a pretty reasonable basic job with a kit zoom and a flash. The fancy gear is for the frills, but the meat and potatoes of the key set pieces can be done with modest equipment.

Do you have a decent flash gun? One of those, with a Stofen or similar, plus a bit of practise with bounce-fill technique, might be a priority ;)
 
Last edited:
Not got a flash but I am hoping to borrow one, until I can afford one. I know I will need practice, so any tips would be appreciated.
My friend has both 430 and 580 EXII
 
Sausages said:
Not got a flash but I am hoping to borrow one, until I can afford one. I know I will need practice, so any tips would be appreciated.
My friend has both 430 and 580 EXII
Click to expand...

If you just want to point and shoot, take the 580 flash, fit a Stofen diffuser, angle it at 45 degrees, and switch to High Speed Sync. Camera on Av, f/5.6 at ISO400.

That's as foolproof as it gets, and will give a pretty good result, indoors and out - automatic fill-flash and bounce-fill.

You can of course do lots more but you've got a lot of technology working for you there and it will sort out the basics pretty well :thumbs:
 
Cheers HoppyUK, I've made notes.

I,ve seen in other threads people saying you don't need a 50mm get a 35mm

but what are the pros and cons?
The nifty is cheapest but is the better?
 
I can not understand why every one wants a 50mm lens? this is a hang on from the old days when you bought a camera it had a 50mm lens but everyone wanted a zoom why Cost the 50mm is cheap. a zoom cost more,
Also if you have anything other then a FF sensor its the wrong lens any how to match it you want around the 30mm.
One advantage is you can get fast glass cheap, but with today cameras is one stop much?
 
I agree Chas, the yearning for a 50mm should translate into a yearning for a 30mm on an APS-C body but many seem to go for a 50mm as a "portrait" lens or a macro.
 
Sausages said:
Cheers HoppyUK, I've made notes.

I,ve seen in other threads people saying you don't need a 50mm get a 35mm

but what are the pros and cons?
The nifty is cheapest but is the better?
Click to expand...

The reason why the nifty-fifty is popular is because it has a low f/number and is very cheap. As stated above, it's cheap because it's a quite simple lens that was made by the million for film cameras (and it's quite poorly constructed of plastic).

Also, it just happens that 50mm is quite a good focal length for portraits on a crop camera, and f/1.8 gives very shallow depth of field which sometimes suits some portraits. All good :thumbs:

That's pretty much it, and frankly a quite narrow sphere of application if you ask me, but for £80 it's still a bargain. You can do other things with it, like playing about with shallow DoF and low light work, but more often than not you'd be better off with a different focal length than 50mm. Which is where the 30-35mm options with low f/numbers come in, or 85-100mm - but they're not £80!
 
Last edited:
I think I have been reading too much and overloaded and lost the plot a bit :shrug:

So a 30 or 35 mm on my 550D will produce the same as a 50mm on a full frame body, and a 50mm on a crop will produce good portraits:bonk:

50mm f/1.8 = £60ish
35mm f/2.0 = £220ish


I'll use my EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS lens but will it be OK for the night do with the 580 flash (if I can borrow one)I have a couple of friends localy that have them

I can afford to by the 50 but not the 35 at the moment, I assume this would be better at night
 
Hi, I don't know anything about the Sigma, but I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 and I can tell you that it's a very sharp lens, especially for the price.

Like you I also have the Canon 18-55mm IS, and although it's a good lens, it doesn't come close to the nifty fifty in terms of aperture or sharpness.

Remember though that the nifty fifty will actually be a 80mm on your APS-C Canon so will be great for portraits, but useless for group shots.
:)
 
Everyone raves over the 50mm, but on a crop its a 80mm which makes it no good for group shots

I tried the Sigma 50 and can't get use to not needing to zoom lol

I have taken group shots of the rugby team with my 70-300 but was stood back a bit

Will I get away with the kit lens throughout the wedding?

whats a good cheap lens to fill the gap I may have with what I have
 
My first 50mm 1.8 had serious focusing issues, exchanged it and that jammed when focusing.

Gave up and bought the Canon 50mm 1.4.

The 1.8 looks cheap and feels cheap, therefore I would prob choose the Sigma 2.8.

Sure others may disagree??
 
Oxford_Matt said:
My first 50mm 1.8 had serious focusing issues, exchanged it and that jammed when focusing.

Gave up and bought the Canon 50mm 1.4.

The 1.8 looks cheap and feels cheap, therefore I would prob choose the Sigma 2.8.

Sure others may disagree??
Click to expand...

I have heard the nifty gives crackin shots, but are they that flimsy. I'm seriously thinking of saving up for one of these - Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 SP AF Di

any thoughts? and would it cover a wedding?
 
When i looked at the 1.8 in Jacobs i thought it was cheap feeling but apparently has some rave reviews!
 
the nifty fifty is a corker of a lens for the price - even though the build is plastic. I have had some stunning shots off it.
 
I don't think the nifty either looks or feels cheap. I think it's a perfectly solid construction given what it is! It's tiny, so it doesn't need the rigidity of larger lenses, as it is short enough for that not to matter, and I think the funniest thing about the nifty is seeing it on some of the larger bodies where it is utterly dwarfed by the body :)
 
They're two very different lenses really, the only similarity is that they have the same focal length.

If you need the lens for Macro, go for the Sigma - if you need the lens for Portraits* then go for the Canon - simply because it's a stop faster which means you have the option of playing around with the DoF a bit more which can really make portraits come alive.

* (on a crop sensor this will be headshots + head/shoulders or even stepping back a few extra feet and getting a bit more of the body in provided you have space)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top