Canon 50mm?
HI guys, i had a question.
My current lenses are:
Canon 85mm f1.8
Canon 24-105 mm f4
Canon 17-40mm f4
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8
Well i'm always using my 24-105mm and my 17-40mm when im travelling (and i usually take photo's only when i travel).
But i heard a lot of good reviews about Canon 50mm, so now i was wondering if i need it (while travelling)? I have an 85mm, but i use it sometimes as a portrait lens and i dont see the benefits of it in travel photo's. But i've seen a lot of professiona photographers using 50mm for almost everything.. So im confused, can you please tell me the benefits of an 50mm lens while travelling? (because im also used to zoomlenses). I believe i read somewhere that 50mm is perfect for shooting in dark churches without a tripod, is it true?
And i've looked it up and there are a few different 50mm lenses you can get, with various f, so which one is the best?
cheers
My current lenses are:
Canon 85mm f1.8
Canon 24-105 mm f4
Canon 17-40mm f4
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8
Well i'm always using my 24-105mm and my 17-40mm when im travelling (and i usually take photo's only when i travel).
But i heard a lot of good reviews about Canon 50mm, so now i was wondering if i need it (while travelling)? I have an 85mm, but i use it sometimes as a portrait lens and i dont see the benefits of it in travel photo's. But i've seen a lot of professiona photographers using 50mm for almost everything.. So im confused, can you please tell me the benefits of an 50mm lens while travelling? (because im also used to zoomlenses). I believe i read somewhere that 50mm is perfect for shooting in dark churches without a tripod, is it true?
And i've looked it up and there are a few different 50mm lenses you can get, with various f, so which one is the best?
cheers
Hi Karina,
You really have to ask yourself what the main topic you want to use the lens for. In your other post you wanted to make macro photo's of flowers and products mostly and this lens would work fine, but not sure if it would be better than the 85 f1.8 you already own.
I just purchased a 50mm f1.8 for my Nikon with the intent for using it indoors for low light situations. I used the lens for my father-in-laws birthday inside and found that it gave me too tight of a crop, I could not get the composition I wanted and could not move farther back because of the walls. I have since purchased a 35mm f1.8 ( the 24mm f1.4 was just to expensive for me to justify ) and find that it might be better for indoor family celebrations, pub scene's or other close low light situations where you don't want to use flash. The 50mm might be better suited for a concert when you are close to the stage, the church situation since you should have plenty of room to move forward or back and your flower and product bokeh.
I recently came back from a trip and I took the 35mm f1.8 and my 55-200mm lens with me. The 35mm outdoors can cover the same distance as my kit lens 18-55mm ( by moving in closer or stepping farther back ) but the 35mm gives me the low light capabilities. The fixed lenses are supposed to be sharper than the zooms, but that is another debate. I did use the 35mm inside a church. I want to travel light and don't want to be carrying a bunch of different lenses and then trying to decide what lens I want to have on the camera to capture an image. While I am trying to decide on a lens the situation is gone.
The 50mm f1.4 is supposed to be better than the 50mm f1.8 but as an amateur it really would not make much difference in my photography so I went with the cheaper f1.8.
You stated:
My current lenses are:
Canon 85mm f1.8
Canon 24-105 mm f4
Canon 17-40mm f4
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8
”Well i'm always using my 24-105mm and my 17-40mm when im travelling (and i usually take photo's only when i travel).”
The 24-105mm and 17-40mm are for the most part covering the same focal length and both are f4. You may want to consider taking the Sigma 24-70mm instead for the f2.8 low light capabilities. You should test it out inside a church near you and see if the f2.8 can give you the results you want before spending money on a f1.8.
Hope I didn't confuse the situation more for you.
Post Edited (16:06)
You really have to ask yourself what the main topic you want to use the lens for. In your other post you wanted to make macro photo's of flowers and products mostly and this lens would work fine, but not sure if it would be better than the 85 f1.8 you already own.
I just purchased a 50mm f1.8 for my Nikon with the intent for using it indoors for low light situations. I used the lens for my father-in-laws birthday inside and found that it gave me too tight of a crop, I could not get the composition I wanted and could not move farther back because of the walls. I have since purchased a 35mm f1.8 ( the 24mm f1.4 was just to expensive for me to justify ) and find that it might be better for indoor family celebrations, pub scene's or other close low light situations where you don't want to use flash. The 50mm might be better suited for a concert when you are close to the stage, the church situation since you should have plenty of room to move forward or back and your flower and product bokeh.
I recently came back from a trip and I took the 35mm f1.8 and my 55-200mm lens with me. The 35mm outdoors can cover the same distance as my kit lens 18-55mm ( by moving in closer or stepping farther back ) but the 35mm gives me the low light capabilities. The fixed lenses are supposed to be sharper than the zooms, but that is another debate. I did use the 35mm inside a church. I want to travel light and don't want to be carrying a bunch of different lenses and then trying to decide what lens I want to have on the camera to capture an image. While I am trying to decide on a lens the situation is gone.
The 50mm f1.4 is supposed to be better than the 50mm f1.8 but as an amateur it really would not make much difference in my photography so I went with the cheaper f1.8.
You stated:
My current lenses are:
Canon 85mm f1.8
Canon 24-105 mm f4
Canon 17-40mm f4
Sigma 24-70mm f2.8
”Well i'm always using my 24-105mm and my 17-40mm when im travelling (and i usually take photo's only when i travel).”
The 24-105mm and 17-40mm are for the most part covering the same focal length and both are f4. You may want to consider taking the Sigma 24-70mm instead for the f2.8 low light capabilities. You should test it out inside a church near you and see if the f2.8 can give you the results you want before spending money on a f1.8.
Hope I didn't confuse the situation more for you.
Post Edited (16:06)
The 50mm are the cheapest, lightest lenses with the fastest apertures you can get. At f/4 and f/5.6 they are also usually some of the sharpest lenses around.
The "slow" ones, like the Canon EF 1.8/50mm cost about 100€, is very cheaply made, but very good if you are past f/2.8.
But only you can answer the question if you need it.
Do you use the 50mm setting quite often with your lenses?
Do you need fast apertures?
Mine is always on my camera (D700), but a lot of people find the 50mm a boring lens on full format cameras (like your 5D).
The "slow" ones, like the Canon EF 1.8/50mm cost about 100€, is very cheaply made, but very good if you are past f/2.8.
But only you can answer the question if you need it.
Do you use the 50mm setting quite often with your lenses?
Do you need fast apertures?
Mine is always on my camera (D700), but a lot of people find the 50mm a boring lens on full format cameras (like your 5D).
Hi,
omg Ken you are a genius, it has never occured to me before that indeed my 17-40 and 24-105 are very close in focal length. A bit stupid, but i just never thought of it. I always took my 17-40 for snapping Vulcano's and Valley's and my 24-105 for everything else. But i can easily use 24-105 vor valleys too. Lol, it means i can sell 17-40 for another lens. Since i do not want to carry to many lenses with me when im travelling, two lenses with the most difference would make more sense, right?
My sigma 24-70 used to be my main about 2-3 years ago, until i got 24-105 for my birthday. So im indeed going to test it in a nearby church to see the results in lowlight situations. But if the results would be not that different, i guess i can easily sell this lens too?
So if i am to sell my 17-40 and my sigma 24-70, which would you recommend to buy?
I mean i clearly need one for lowlight churches/temples/concerts and one for macro with bokeh.
Marc yes indeed 50mm seemed boring to me, but after taking a lot of unsharp blurry pictures in Rome (heaven of churches and temples) i am desperate for a lowlight lens that doesnt need a tripod. Maybe you know a better alternative?
omg Ken you are a genius, it has never occured to me before that indeed my 17-40 and 24-105 are very close in focal length. A bit stupid, but i just never thought of it. I always took my 17-40 for snapping Vulcano's and Valley's and my 24-105 for everything else. But i can easily use 24-105 vor valleys too. Lol, it means i can sell 17-40 for another lens. Since i do not want to carry to many lenses with me when im travelling, two lenses with the most difference would make more sense, right?
My sigma 24-70 used to be my main about 2-3 years ago, until i got 24-105 for my birthday. So im indeed going to test it in a nearby church to see the results in lowlight situations. But if the results would be not that different, i guess i can easily sell this lens too?
So if i am to sell my 17-40 and my sigma 24-70, which would you recommend to buy?
I mean i clearly need one for lowlight churches/temples/concerts and one for macro with bokeh.
Marc yes indeed 50mm seemed boring to me, but after taking a lot of unsharp blurry pictures in Rome (heaven of churches and temples) i am desperate for a lowlight lens that doesnt need a tripod. Maybe you know a better alternative?
Let me tell you a story, I have two camera bodies, D40X and D50.
1. I purchased a 50mm AF-D lens that works perfect on the D50 but it will not auto-focus on the D40. I find out the D40 requires AF-S lens. The AF-S lens will work on both my camera bodies.
2. I should have taken my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and set the focal length to 35mm and checked the crop through the viewfinder while in my house, then change it to 50mm and check the crop again. I could then determine what focal length would work be best.
A genius would have figured out the AF-D lens would not work on the D40 and determined what focal length would work best before he spent the money on the 50mm. So as you can see I have made plenty of mistakes, learned from them and moved on.
Which lens should you get? When you take your 24-70mm f2.8 to the church to see what results the 2.8 will give you set your focal length to 35mm and check the crop at various points inside the church, then set it to 50mm and check them again, which focal length gives you your vision of the crop you are looking for? Go with that one. But just remember your vision could be influenced by your wallet.
Canon ( A quick search )
50mm f1.8 = $90
35mm f2.0 = $280
28mm f1.8 = $459
35mm f1.4 = $1300
Before selling anything make sure you won’t miss it. It may not be one of the lenses that you take with you all the time when you travel but there may be special situations that you wished you still had the option to swap it for one of the other lenses.
Your 17-40mm f4 is your widest angel lens you have, you may miss the 17mm end of that lens especially when photographing in a city with narrow streets.
( I have never been to Rome but I have been to Europe several times, Heidelberg, Rothenburg, Salzburg and Vienna and old European areas tend to have tall buildings and narrow streets. The 35mm works fine in the US where our streets are much larger so you have room to back up but the 17mm may work better in Europe. You will have to anticipate your needs or carry more. )
My Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 like your Sigma, is a good mid-range street zoom with decent low light capabilities that I use 90% of the time on my D50 as a general walk around lens when I am not traveling.
Again, I hope I didn't cause more confusion.
Lucas Theatre / S…
Ken Piros
03.05.10
7
[fc-foto:21015293]
St. John's 2 / Sa…
Ken Piros
03.05.10
4
Post Edited (3:20)
1. I purchased a 50mm AF-D lens that works perfect on the D50 but it will not auto-focus on the D40. I find out the D40 requires AF-S lens. The AF-S lens will work on both my camera bodies.
2. I should have taken my Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and set the focal length to 35mm and checked the crop through the viewfinder while in my house, then change it to 50mm and check the crop again. I could then determine what focal length would work be best.
A genius would have figured out the AF-D lens would not work on the D40 and determined what focal length would work best before he spent the money on the 50mm. So as you can see I have made plenty of mistakes, learned from them and moved on.
Which lens should you get? When you take your 24-70mm f2.8 to the church to see what results the 2.8 will give you set your focal length to 35mm and check the crop at various points inside the church, then set it to 50mm and check them again, which focal length gives you your vision of the crop you are looking for? Go with that one. But just remember your vision could be influenced by your wallet.
Canon ( A quick search )
50mm f1.8 = $90
35mm f2.0 = $280
28mm f1.8 = $459
35mm f1.4 = $1300
Before selling anything make sure you won’t miss it. It may not be one of the lenses that you take with you all the time when you travel but there may be special situations that you wished you still had the option to swap it for one of the other lenses.
Your 17-40mm f4 is your widest angel lens you have, you may miss the 17mm end of that lens especially when photographing in a city with narrow streets.
( I have never been to Rome but I have been to Europe several times, Heidelberg, Rothenburg, Salzburg and Vienna and old European areas tend to have tall buildings and narrow streets. The 35mm works fine in the US where our streets are much larger so you have room to back up but the 17mm may work better in Europe. You will have to anticipate your needs or carry more. )
My Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 like your Sigma, is a good mid-range street zoom with decent low light capabilities that I use 90% of the time on my D50 as a general walk around lens when I am not traveling.
Again, I hope I didn't cause more confusion.
Lucas Theatre / S…
Ken Piros
03.05.10
7
[fc-foto:21015293]
St. John's 2 / Sa…
Ken Piros
03.05.10
4
Post Edited (3:20)
Karina Zantinge wrote:
Quote:
Canon has some impressive fast lenses in there lineup:
- EF 1.4/24mm L II
- EF 1.4/35mm L (actually a lens I would kill for, but it would not fit my Nikon)
Way cheaper, but less good is the EF 1.8/28mm.
All come with some kind of "penalty".
First is the price, and second the very narrow range of focus if you use them wide open for landscape or architecture.
I love fast lenses, because I can play with that narrow sharp focus at wide apertures, as you can see in some of my pictures. But it depends a little about what you do shoot.
Some examples:
A Nikkor AF 1.4/28mm closed down to f/2.8 just to get enough in focus at that close range (about 1m)
Worker
Marc Schlueter
01.04.09
9
Here a Nikkor 1.2/50mm at f1.2
50 years apart
Marc Schlueter
07.01.10
4
Maybe the best thing for you is to keep the EF 4/17-40mm and EF 4/24-105 and supplement them with a EF 1.8/50mm.
THEN you can find out if 50mm is ok for you or you need to go wider.
I normally carry now a 1.4/28mm, 1.4/50mm and 1.8/85mm (+ a 2/135mm) with me.
Quote:
Canon has some impressive fast lenses in there lineup:
- EF 1.4/24mm L II
- EF 1.4/35mm L (actually a lens I would kill for, but it would not fit my Nikon)
Way cheaper, but less good is the EF 1.8/28mm.
All come with some kind of "penalty".
First is the price, and second the very narrow range of focus if you use them wide open for landscape or architecture.
I love fast lenses, because I can play with that narrow sharp focus at wide apertures, as you can see in some of my pictures. But it depends a little about what you do shoot.
Some examples:
A Nikkor AF 1.4/28mm closed down to f/2.8 just to get enough in focus at that close range (about 1m)
Worker
Marc Schlueter
01.04.09
9
Here a Nikkor 1.2/50mm at f1.2
50 years apart
Marc Schlueter
07.01.10
4
Maybe the best thing for you is to keep the EF 4/17-40mm and EF 4/24-105 and supplement them with a EF 1.8/50mm.
THEN you can find out if 50mm is ok for you or you need to go wider.
I normally carry now a 1.4/28mm, 1.4/50mm and 1.8/85mm (+ a 2/135mm) with me.
The images I posted above are just to show you what the f1.8 lenses are capable of, mine just happens to be a 35mm. Like Marc states adding the 50mm to what you already have might be the best and cheapest way to start with fixed lenses. Besides you have a lot of portrait images in your portfolio and a lot of people swear by the 50mm for portraits.
In case you haven't read enough on this topic !
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... +35mm&qf=m
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=33693735
Post Edited (12:18)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... +35mm&qf=m
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=33693735
Post Edited (12:18)
50mm f1.8 review from Ken Rockwell.
http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f18.htm
http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f18.htm
I like the 50mm 1.8 II lens on my 5D. I call it "Baby lens" since I used it for the first pictures of new borns at hospital with little light only.
For churches the focal distance might be too long. It's more like a close up lens then.
You would more like a Tokina 11-16 2.8 if you want to shoot a dome in completely without using a tripod.
For churches the focal distance might be too long. It's more like a close up lens then.
You would more like a Tokina 11-16 2.8 if you want to shoot a dome in completely without using a tripod.