wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #10 · looking at 50 mm lenses -- please help a noob out =) | |
hokuba wrote:
Hello all,
I just bought a canon 40d, marking my debut into the world of dslr photography. I’m now looking to buy a lens and was hoping for some feedback.
I was currently considering one of the following 3 lenses: canon 50mm/2.5 macro, sigma 50mm/2.8 and the canon 50mm/1.8
Some background: I was looking for a generally good all purpose lens that I can play around with as I get more comfortable using an slr. I mostly take portrait shots and close ups, and am looking to get into macro in particular. My plan was to buy a general purpose lens now and once I’m comfortable with my new camera and my wallet’s recovered, I’ll splurge on a lens dedicated to macro.
I prefer prime lenses—I’ve never used zoom much on any of my past p&s cameras, it just makes more sense to move closer or further from my target, especially since I’m never shooting anything particularly dangerous or hard to get to.
50mm seems like a good way to go. They can get close enough that I can do a little macro, but I can still use them for portrait etc.
That said, what kind of feedback do you have regarding the above (or if you have any other suggestions?). I’m on a bit of a budget (I’m still a student!), so I’d prefer staying under 300$. From what I’ve gathered, the 1.8 is great in terms of bang for your buck, but I wouldn’t mind spending just another couple hundred more for either the 2.5 or the 2.8, if they’re truly an improvement. In terms of the 2.5 and the 2.8, I understand that the main difference is that the sigma can go up to 1:1 where as the canon can only go to 1:2. Since I’ll eventually be getting a lens dedicated to macro, this isn’t such a big concern for me. Do they differ significantly in any other ways?
Thanks! I can’t wait to start taking some pictures!
...Show more →
There are numerous 50mm lenses available for the EF mount:
EF 50/1.8 II
EF 50/1.4 USM
EF 50/1.2L USM
EF 50/2.8 macro
Sigma 50/1.4
Sigma 50/2.8 macro
etc.
The 50/1.2L is definitely out based on price point. But if you want a dedicated macro lens, I strongly advise you to get one with focal length at least 100mm. (We won't discuss the MP-E 65/3.5 macro as this is in a class of its own.)
The reason for the longer focal length is simple: Longer focal length @ 1:1 magnification = greater working distance. This enables more comfortable shooting and more importantly, permits better lighting setup.
However, a dedicated macro lens is most certainly not required for macrophotography. In fact, good macro results can be obtained through a combination of extension tubes, close-up lenses, and reversing rings. If you buy a normal 50mm lens, you can reverse it on the end of a longer lens (e.g. 100mm) and instantly gain macro capability this way. The other day, I hand-held an old cheapo FD 50/1.8 in front of my EF 100/2.8L macro IS, and even though the FD mount design locks the aperture at around f/8 (causing strong vignetting), I could take the combo well above 3:1 magnification even though 1:1 is the maximum with the 100/2.8L alone. The results were impressive enough that it made me seriously contemplate buying an EF 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 just so I can play with higher magnifications.
So that covers what I want to say about macro. As for choosing a 50mm lens, I am of the school of thought that you should buy the best glass you can afford. In this case, the consensus is that the Sigma 50/1.4 generally outperforms the other non-L 50mm lenses--that is, if you get a sharp copy or have it recalibrated. But barring this approach, I think the next best approach is to go the complete opposite direction and buy the cheapest glass you can find, with the expectation that you will focus your monies on other more worthwhile acquisitions.
But now to confuse matters even further, since you're a prime shooter, if you are really seroius about your photos, then you will eventually get to the point where L glass is part of your collection. The most well-regarded (non-TS-E) L primes seem to be the 14/2.8L II, 24/1.4L II, 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, and 200/2L IS. That's a really expensive lineup, but note that the 50/1.2L in its present incarnation is not on that list, for the fact that it tends to be quite soft in the corners wide open, and exhibits focus shift from around f/1.4-4. What does all this mean? It means you can get the most bang for your buck with a mid-priced 50mm lens--and you'll want one as part of your prime collection, without worrying too much that you're going to miss out on L quality @ 50mm by "settling" for less.
In summary, we have two reasons to buy the Sigma 50/1.4 (or Canon EF 50/1.4 USM, though this is a somewhat less desirable choice), and one reason to buy the EF 50/1.8. At least we ruled out a macro at this time!
My final piece of advice is that you should strive to buy something that will last. The 50/1.8 is not such a lens, despite reports of people claiming they've had theirs for untold years, no problems, etc.
|
?? If you can bend your budget a hair, the Sigma 50/1.4 is phenomenal and would be my first suggestion barring the budget constraint.