Canon "nifty fifty" / "fantastic plastic" or bigger brother?

[LAV]

I've been wanting to play with this lens for some time, considering buying one (unless someone has one for me?)

Q: The cheapie 50mm f1.8 is R995 at Orms, it's bigger brother the 50mm f1.4 USM is R3200. I am not sure of how often I'd use a fixed 50mm, but I am curious to experiment. Is it worth spending the extra?

[Stereophreak]

This is just an idea, but why not get the cheap one, play with it for a while to see if 50mm is as useful as you think it is, and when/if you decide that even narrower dof and even faster shutter is what you need, get the big brother? I'm sure you could sell it on after a while, so you could work on R500 not R1000?

[LAV]

Yebo yes, thx, think that's what I'll do! 

[mahleu]

Get the 1.8. Way cheaper, as sharp. Only downside is focussing noise and speed although it's not bad at all.

Use the extra cash to get some extension tubes (to use with the 50 for macro, try the Kenko set), a hood and uv filter.

[Rodney_gold]

I would just get the 50 compact macro 2.5 , it's a hidden gem of a lens , diff tween 1.8 and 2.5 is minimal

[mahleu]

If you want something cheap to play with that's manual focus, I have a 50mm on Bidorbuy at the moment at R200. The AF won't lock on but it works normally when manually focussing.

The difference between 1.8 and 2.5 is a whole stop, it is quite a difference.

[Rodney_gold]

It's really not an issue with a 50mm , 1 stop will hardly affect DOF at that level and DOF at 1.8/2.5 is inches... you might get the shot with a 1.8 in terms of available light , but you sure as hell will not get much in focus,  if you 3.5 meters from the subject DOF is about 10cm.. the 1.6 crop factor will increse this to 16cm. Up closer , at 1.8 , lets say for a head shot and you 1.5 meters from a subject , DOF will be so shallow as to make getting eyes and nose etc all in focus almost impossible. You would HAVE to stop down in that case.
Apart from that , most lenses , including the 1.8 , do not do as well Image quality wise when used wide open , the 2.5 does better
Here is a good review of all of em http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm

[mahleu]

I think we need to return to the OP and ask what kind of playing around he wants to do. Macro, lowlight, non-zoom exercise....

[LAV]

The low-light possibilities fascinate me, but as stated there could be DOF issues. Still, it might be worth experimenting!

[Rodney_gold]

I've actually had all those lenses on a 5d Full frame and a 1.6 Cropped 7d (as well as the 60 macro - also a totally brilliant lens) and the 2.5 compact macro creamed all of them , pin sharp - no diffraction at small apertures .. was my "BEST" prime by far. However you also have to realise the 50mm is actually an 80mm on anything barring a Full Frame camera , and that is telephoto (80mm = best  portrait lens cos teles tend to flatten things , 80mm does it slightly ,  flattering to faces) if you want a 50mm "perspective" which is considered as the human eye sees it , then you need a 35mm lens on a cropped camera.

[LAV]

Thx guys. Rodney, this does have me wondering, since I am not using a camera with a full-frame sensor. I am aware of the 1.6 factor, but I'd need to play a bit to see if the effective 80mm will work for me.

[mahleu]

I had the 28mm f1.8 and 35mm f2.

The 28mm is much much nicer, both in build and focussing speed.

Have a play with a 50mm first though.

[chipwelder]

You will get to like primes once you start playing with it, could lead to big expenditure as you try to get zooms that are as nice, an old 50 practically lives on my camera

[sav]

I had the "nifty fifty" - okay lens for general use but it literally fell apart. The Canon 50mm 1.4 is very nice but not nearly as cheap.