Options
First Prime - 35mm or 50mm
I'm looking to buy my first prime lens. I have a 40D (1.6 crop), and I'm trying to decide between the Canon 50mm F1.4 ($400) or the 35mm F2 ($300). I actually found a local 35mm for $250 - slightly used. I hear that the 50mm f1.4 is a better overall lens, but the 35mm may work better indoors with my camera body since it is really a 56mm after accounting for the 1.6 crop factor.
Who has either, or both, of these and can help me decide.
I have small kids, who are very fast. This will be for portraits and candids - an all around lens.
- Jason
Who has either, or both, of these and can help me decide.
I have small kids, who are very fast. This will be for portraits and candids - an all around lens.
- Jason
0
Comments
Website
That said, I tried a 50/1.4 on my 40D. Didn't care for it. It was soft below F2 and showed a lot of fringing.
I wouldn't buy one. I'd almost rather take my chances with the Sigma.
From the samples I've seen of the 35 it seems to be sharper at F2 than the 50/1.4 at F2. I guess I'll see soon.
Gene
If so, go shoot setting the FL at 35 mm for a session. Then shoot at 50 mm for a session. No using the zoom at all. That should help you make a decision.
Since you are on an APS-C camera, 35mm will be roughly standard (equivalent to 56mm FF), while 50 will be on the short end of the portrait range (equivalent to 80mm FF).
Other differences: the 35 f/2 has only five aperture blades, so bokeh is pentagonal, which can be kind of distracting. This won't be an issue if you shoot it wide open, but it becomes quite noticeable when you stop down. It also is not a USM lens; it's not too noisy when focusing (it's a small lens), but it's certainly not silent. The 50 f/1.4 has seven aperture blades and has USM, though it's the cheaper micro-USM variety, not the ring USM used in the 50mm f/1.2.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
All at ISO 800. The first mistakenly at 2.2, not that it makes much difference.
Gene
- Jason
- The 1.4 is better built than the current 1.8 II. The original 50mm f/1.8 (made in the late 1980s) was better built than the current one, but the optics were the same.
- The 1.4 is faster (obviously). On the other hand, the 1.8 is pretty sharp at 1.8, whereas the 1.4 isn't so sharp at 1.4. In practice, you might find that the extra third of a stop isn't all that important.
- The 1.4 has USM (but not ring USM, so you don't get full-time manual focus), whereas the 1.8 (either version) sounds like a bumblebee while focusing. (This is also true of the 35mm f/2.)
- The 1.4 has seven aperture blades, while the 1.8 (and the 35mm f/2) have only five.
The decision of which to buy comes down to whether USM and better build quality are worth the extra money to you, and whether you plan to shoot it stopped down in conditions where OOF highlights will be affected by the aperture blades.
I currently own the original version of the 50mm f/1.8 and it's been pretty good to me, but I do want to replace it with the 1.4 because I'm getting sick of lenses that make bumblebee noises and I'd like to stop worrying about whether OOF highlights are going to turn into pentagons on me.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
My assessment so far:
1.8
- Scary sharp and nice colours - I'd venture to say the iq is for sure as good as the 1.4 - possibly sharper wide open than its more expensive sibling.
- slow AF which often hunts, particularly when shooting something close in low light; at a distance, it often does just fine.
- noisy AF (this doesn't bother me except when it starts to hunt and then you get the flight of the bumblebees)
- plastic may mean less solid, but it also means ridiculously lightweight, which can often be an advantage. It's the easiest lens I know to carry all day.
- absurd quality for money
1.4
- much quieter af, which seems to hunt a bit less
- extra bit of light gathering (this is important for me in theater shoots, which is one of the main reasons I wanted one - I need every lumen when I'm shooting in the dark!)
- more robust build
I think you could do a lot worse than pick up a used nifty-fifty, see how you like it and then upgrade to the 1.4 if you feel you need what it offers. The 1.8 is easy to sell, so you're unlikely to lose much, if any, money on it.
Enjoy!
40D + 50mm f/1.4
http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=1&dc_model=42&iso1=0&iso2=0&len_id=28&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&num_focal_mm=0&B1=Query
40D + 35mm f/2
http://english.sellpower.net/modules/flickrorg/dlsr_index.php?id=1&dc_model=42&iso1=0&iso2=0&len_id=157&exposure1=0&exposure2=0&shutter1=0&shutter2=0&num_focal_mm=0&B1=Query
Jeff5897, welcome to the Digital Grin.
I was not aware of SellPower nor was I aware of how it may be used. Interesting.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I took a bunch of indoor photos at a kids birthday party yesterday with decent, but not spectacular, results. I had focusing problems in the f1.4-2.5 range mostly. I think that many of these photos were not out of focus, but focused on the wrong item since the DOF is so shallow at these wide open fstops that I am not used to.
I did have decent results using a bounce flash in M mode at 1/60 shutter speed. I'm trying to learn what opportunities I have with this lens for indoor photography with and without flash compared to the 28-135. I don't think that I'll be able to go completely sans flash, but perhaps I'll be able to use the faster lens to make some more creative shots.
- Jason
Congratulations on the new lens.
Yes, at f1.4 it has "very" short DOF and is not necessarily appropriate for many social events unless you are "very" careful about placing a suitable focus point on the proper subject point. Generally I use f4 and either bounce flash with a fill card or a scoop modifier, on an external flash.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums