Is 50mm too long for 300D everyday?

jennifer · August 1, 2007

I'm going on a trip in a couple months and as much as I'd love a good mid-range zoom to add to my collection, it's just not in the budget right now. I'm wondering if the 50mm 1.8 is a good compromise between 10-22 and 70-200? I feel it might be too long for the Rebel and I'd end up ignoring it in favor of the 10-22. Its price is extremely reasonable and might be a nice interim solution until I can get something better. Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks!

davev · August 1, 2007

jennifer wrote:

I'm going on a trip in a couple months and as much as I'd love a good mid-range zoom to add to my collection, it's just not in the budget right now. I'm wondering if the 50mm 1.8 is a good compromise between 10-22 and 70-200? I feel it might be too long for the Rebel and I'd end up ignoring it in favor of the 10-22. Its price is extremely reasonable and might be a nice interim solution until I can get something better. Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks!

The fact that it is very reasonable in price, is good in low light, is light in weight,
and if you don't use it much, can sell it for almost what you paid for it, I can't see why not give it a try.

gus · August 1, 2007

Do you have the canon kit lens ? The 18-55 ? Its cheap/light & for its value...it does a very good job repectively.

mr peas · August 1, 2007

Its the only thing youre missing in your arsenal of lenses. Its def a great buy. Try Amazon.com, I've seen prices there for around $80 shipped brand new for a 'Canon 50mm F1.8 MkII'. Lens its lots of fun, check out the reviews at FredMiranda.

LuckyBob · August 1, 2007

I think it really depends on what you shoot - 50mm would most likely be too long on a Rebel to do landscapes - but I find that the most common lenses I have on my 300D are my 17-40, 50, and 85. As of late I've been almost exclusively using my 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8. I still have my 50mm f/1.8, but decided to upgrade due to the marginally faster autofocus, larger aperature, and (most importantly) less frequent focus errors. In my experience which has been echoed by online reviews, the 50mm f/1.8 seems to front or back focus from time to time. Not to deter you from an overall fantastic lens, but this may be something worth taking into consideration.

jennifer · August 2, 2007

Thanks everyone for your replies. I think davev said it best.. for the price I may as well give it a try! I don't generally shoot landscapes, but if something caught my fancy I could always switch to the 10-22. I do have the 18-55 kit lens, but I'm just not happy with the quality of the pictures I get with it. I'm hoping the 50mm 1.8 yields better results. If anyone can claim otherwise, I'd love to hear it. It could save me 80 bucks (or more likely cost me $900).

sirsloop · August 2, 2007

IMHO you are going to want a 35mm lens... the 50 is gonna be too long. I sold my 50 for a 35/2 and have been very happy. For $80 bucks its not a real risk... but that could go towards the $225 of a 35/2. Its better built, a touch wider, and a great little lens!

Who says a 5 blade aperture has pentagon bokeh... its works great at f/2!!

ziggy53 · August 2, 2007

jennifer wrote:

Thanks everyone for your replies. I think davev said it best.. for the price I may as well give it a try! I don't generally shoot landscapes, but if something caught my fancy I could always switch to the 10-22. I do have the 18-55 kit lens, but I'm just not happy with the quality of the pictures I get with it. I'm hoping the 50mm 1.8 yields better results. If anyone can claim otherwise, I'd love to hear it. It could save me 80 bucks (or more likely cost me $900).

Jennifer,

Get the "nifty fifty" to be sure, but take the "kit" lens as well, if you have room. Used at f5.6-f8, on the wide side, and at f8-f11 from 35mm to 55mm or so, it can give acceptable results. That can give you considerable extra flexibility in your existing system for daylight stuff.

For low-light and night, and many interior shots, the EF 50mm, f1.8 is going to be pretty sweet used at f2.8-f8. It is true that wide open it can be a little soft, so reserve that for the very worst lighting situations.

I did a little comparison of the lens here:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=62165

... and here:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=37003

claudermilk · August 2, 2007

You cannot go wrong getting the nifty fifty. Even with my L arsenal, I still throw it on sometimes. On our 1.6 crop APS-C sensors it's more like an 82mm FOV, but that's not always bad. IMHO it is definitely superior to the kit lens optically & I'd rather foot zoom the 50 than use the kit zoom; case in point, the 50 gets into my bag as a maybe-I'll-use-it case, the kit lens is now a paperweight.

Now, indoors, the 50 can be a bit long and the Sigma 30/2 is a popular lens for that situation. There is also the Canon 35/2 (or if you feel spendy, the 35/1.4L). These approximate the 50mm "standard" FOV on the crop sensors.

brfuk · August 2, 2007

I can't really afford any other lenses so I pretty much exclusively use the 50mm 1.8. A fantastic littlel lens. The 350d is so small with it on I can fit the whole thing in my jacket pocket.

My only choice for wide angle at the moment is the kit lens which I always stop down to f8 when I can.

*wishes for 5d and 17-40mm lens*

colourbox · August 2, 2007

On a trip the 50mm can be good if you like to shoot people, because it's got a wide aperture and if you're doing street shots the mild tele can help there. However, if you want to get multiple people in the shot, you have to have room to back up a few feet. Not a huge problem outdoors, but potentially difficult in a small room.

On the 50mm, if you are shooting a building and you're across the street from it, you'll be able to fit about 3 or 4 stories in vertical orientation before you won't fit any more in the frame.

jennifer · August 2, 2007

This trip consists mostly of big cities, big buildings, streets and people and also includes a 2-day road trip down Route 66 from Chicago to St. Louis. I imagine myself using the 10-22 for the most part, but I was just worried I might want something in between 22 and 70 at some point. For $80 I don't think I can go wrong with the 50. I will likely bring the kit lens if I can fit it in my bag. The 35/2 is a little more than I wanted to spend on an interim lens that may or may not get a lot of use once I get the 24-70L. I appreciate everyone's thoughtful tips and suggestions!

sirsloop · August 2, 2007

Why not sell your 75-300 IS and free up some money for a medium length lens? Plop a 1.4x teleconverter on your 70-200/2.8L IS and you're at 280mm f/4. Its a redundant lens and probably worth somewhere around $350. Add that to your $80 for the nifty and you're a heck of a lot closer to a 24-70L. In fact, thats DAMN close to a 17-40L which will hold its value VERY nicely. Buy a used one and you'll probably not even lose money on a resale.

jennifer · August 2, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

Why not sell your 75-300 IS and free up some money for a medium length lens? Plop a 1.4x teleconverter on your 70-200/2.8L IS and you're at 280mm f/4. Its a redundant lens and probably worth somewhere around $350. Add that to your $80 for the nifty and you're a heck of a lot closer to a 24-70L. In fact, thats DAMN close to a 17-40L which will hold its value VERY nicely. Buy a used one and you'll probably not even lose money on a resale.

I haven't sold my 75-300IS out of sheer laziness. The lens is well over 10 years old and my understanding is a newer version has come out since then. I'm not sure how much resale value this old one has, or honestly what the differences are between the two. I do know it's a great lens and served me well during its tenure. But of course it's got nothing on the 70-200 f/2.8

sirsloop · August 2, 2007

jennifer wrote:

I haven't sold my 75-300IS out of sheer laziness. The lens is well over 10 years old and my understanding is a newer version has come out since then. I'm not sure how much resale value this old one has, or honestly what the differences are between the two. I do know it's a great lens and served me well during its tenure. But of course it's got nothing on the 70-200 f/2.8

Well I've recently sold the newer version, 70-300IS, and it landed $541 shipped. Ive seen your lens, 75-300IS, sell for around $350 so thats what I would expect. There are a ton of used 17-40L lenses selling for $475-500 and will resale at that price idk... damn near indefinitly. Its not quite the same lens as the 24-70, but it'll serve as a good intermediary lens while you wait on funds for the 24-70.

jennifer · August 2, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

Well I've recently sold the newer version, 70-300IS, and it landed $541 shipped. Ive seen your lens, 75-300IS, sell for around $350 so thats what I would expect. There are a ton of used 17-40L lenses selling for $475-500 and will resale at that price idk... damn near indefinitly. Its not quite the same lens as the 24-70, but it'll serve as a good intermediary lens while you wait on funds for the 24-70.

Definitely food for thought! I will get off my behind one of these days and put some effort into listing it. Not this weekend, however, as I'll be in Vegas. So I will either come home with a 300mm f/2.8L or having hocked my entire collection.

mrcoons · October 8, 2007

Jennifer, did you end up getting a 50mm for your road trip? I was searching for posts about the 35mm f/2 and found this one and was curious.

sirsloop · October 8, 2007

If you have any specific questions regarding the 35/2 make a thread about it. I have used the lens a lot over the past few years and would probably be able to give some good input

mrcoons · October 8, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

If you have any specific questions regarding the 35/2 make a thread about it. I have used the lens a lot over the past few years and would probably be able to give some good input

Nothing specific was just searching. Thanks!

jennifer · October 8, 2007

mrcoons wrote:

Jennifer, did you end up getting a 50mm for your road trip? I was searching for posts about the 35mm f/2 and found this one and was curious.

Hi Mark,

I did get the 50, but it feels far too long for my needs. When shooting with it I'm constantly frustrated by how far away I have to be from the subject to get the shot I want. I'll still take it with me on the trip because it's small and may come in handy (though I can't think of anything off the top of my head!), but I'll likely end up using the 10-22 for the most part.

For the price, it really can't be beat and a lot of people who have it love it. Who knows, maybe after my trip I'll come back a convert

mrcoons · October 8, 2007

jennifer wrote:

Hi Mark,

I did get the 50, but it feels far too long for my needs. When shooting with it I'm constantly frustrated by how far away I have to be from the subject to get the shot I want. I'll still take it with me on the trip because it's small and may come in handy (though I can't think of anything off the top of my head!), but I'll likely end up using the 10-22 for the most part.

For the price, it really can't be beat and a lot of people who have it love it. Who knows, maybe after my trip I'll come back a convert

I'll be interested to hear if you change your mind. I had the 50 and sold it because I felt the same way that you described. My new 35mm f/2 just came today and I can't wait to start using it to see if it fills the need I have.

sirsloop · October 8, 2007

Same thing happened to me... I got the 50/1.8MK1, found it to be too long, replaced it with a 35/2 and have been using it ever since.

ulrikft · October 8, 2007

Kind of weird, after I got my 50 1.4, I have almost used it exclusively..

claudermilk · October 9, 2007

When to use the 50? Any time you need an 82mm FOV.

I've used mine for street shooting on several occasions; I've rarely felt it was too long. However, I do want to add a 35/2 for the "standard" 50mm FOV eventually. It all gets down to your own shooting style & what you want to do with the lens.

ulrikft · October 9, 2007

I'm kind of hijacking now, but I have to admit that I'm getting more and more tempted to just sell my 12-24 and my 18-50 and get a wide prime, a 30-35 somewhere prime and just use those two with my 50mm..

The problem is to find a wide, affordable prime for 1.6 crop... :P

sirsloop · October 9, 2007

idk... i'd keep that 12-24 around... its so nice having a zoom on a UWA like that. With a longer lens its easy to take a few steps back and get the FOV you are looking for. With a lens like 12-24... the difference between lets say 12 and 16mm is HUGE! Heck, the difference between 10 and 12 was big enough to get me into a ef10-22.

claudermilk · October 10, 2007

Agreed, hang on to that 12-24. It's a good one (not that I'm biased as a fellow owner...).

I'm exploring the wide primes myself. I would like to have an approximately 50mm FOV prime to play with. Canon has several options in 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm, then Sigma has their 30mm. However in looking at reviews they all have limitations. So now I'm taking a look at Zeiss glass. :help If I go with Canon, it'll be the 35/2 at about $190 (yeah the L is supposed to be really nice, but $1k is out of what I'm willing to spend here).

Yes, for those keeping score, I'm looking at a lot of options right now. Window shopping is fun, ok?

mrcoons · October 10, 2007

The 35/2 seems to be a nice lens for the price. I'll know more after I use it this weekend at an event I'm covering. It's not nearly as noisy as some had led me to believe and a lot quieter than the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

ulrikft · October 10, 2007

claudermilk wrote:

Agreed, hang on to that 12-24. It's a good one (not that I'm biased as a fellow owner...).

I'm exploring the wide primes myself. I would like to have an approximately 50mm FOV prime to play with. Canon has several options in 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm, then Sigma has their 30mm. However in looking at reviews they all have limitations. So now I'm taking a look at Zeiss glass. :help If I go with Canon, it'll be the 35/2 at about $190 (yeah the L is supposed to be really nice, but $1k is out of what I'm willing to spend here).

Yes, for those keeping score, I'm looking at a lot of options right now. Window shopping is fun, ok?

Is there a zeiss that does AF and aperture for canon?

sirsloop · October 10, 2007

idk... using zeiss glass for something like this is kinda silly IMHO when there are EF mount canon and sigma lenses that are good performers. Sounds more like a novelty purchase. If you REALLY want a balls out ~35-50mm lens just pony up the dough for a 35/1.4L or 50/1.4. I can understand getting an adapter for some funky fisheye, TSE, mirror lens, or something like that... but there's plenty of options for a short prime without having to resort to an adapter setup with zeiss lenses. Ya the grass always seems to be greener on the other side, but I think its snake oil in this case. I mean it would be like using an adapter for a zeiss 70-200/2.8 when both canon and sigma make excellent versions in the native lens mount.

claudermilk · October 11, 2007

Good points. No, the adapted lenses do not do AF or aperture. It's full manual. What I'm toying with (BGN rated lenses at KEH) puts the price about exactly the same as a 35/2. Hmmm...local shop has them in the rental stock at $10/day. I ought to grab one for a weekend to see for myself; I know I don't agree with the general consensus on my 12-24 and 24-70 a lot of the time.

But, playing with the oddball glass sounds like fun & I'm certainly not afraid to run my camera fully manual. Now adapting a 70-200 or 135 is definitely ridiculous since Canon does have the best glass in those lenses, it's just the general "Canon wide primes suck" attitude that even got me looking. Hey, even I am not completely immune from the lemming mentality.