Fast Lens

[Forrest]

It really depends what you want to do. I love my 50/1.4, and I shoot it at f/1.4 a lot. It's got a bad reputation here, and if the focus is off even a hair, it lives up to it. But there's a hint of magic at full aperture, a dreamy look. If you're not going for that, it's maybe one strike against the more expensive version...?

Do you have any idea how often you hope to use the lens at any given aperture? The brighter one should in theory be sharper and contrastier at f/2, because it's already closed down a full stop. By f/2.8, it should be a lot harder to tell the difference. So unless you plan to use it wide open, or close to, most of the time, you probably won't appreciate the benefits a lot of people are paying for in the f/1.4 lens.

That said ... it's absolutely worth trading a zoom for a prime, especially if it doesn't cost much to try. You'll get a sharper lens with better contrast. ( Some people would dispute that, pointing to a lens with a comma in its price that compares to the $100 prime. ) You get a superb background blur when you want one, and a lot more control over it. And you get the opportunity to shoot flashless in a lot of situations that wouldn't be possible mor than a stop down at f/2.8 with a fairly expensive zoom. All these things together don't necessarily mean you'll love yours, but it's easier to get it wrong with a 50/1.8 than a 200/2!

[ljh34465]

Forrest,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply - you bring up many valid considerations and have certainly given me more to think about

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Forrest

...but it's easier to get it wrong with a 50/1.8 than a 200/2!

so true!!



Max@Home

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by ljh34465

Is the "hassle" of a non-zoom worth the trade off for speed?

To the contrary. Personally, I find using primes a lot more fun and satisfying than zooms. There is something special about primes, which I can't put my finger on.

[E-Man]

Originally Posted by Forrest

...it's easier to get it wrong with a 50/1.8 than a 200/2!

I'm not sure I got the point here, could someone please elaborate on this concept?

Thanks!

[cyclohexane]

I'm not sure I got the point here, could someone please elaborate on this concept?

Buying a $100 lens and not liking it is much less of a problem than buying a $4000 lens and discovering you don't like it.

[E-Man]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

Buying a $100 lens and not liking it is much less of a problem than buying a $4000 lens and discovering you don't like it.

Got it! Thanks!

[richardpcrowe]

I have been a photographer for over fifty years and a professional a goodly part of that. I spent years as a combat cameraman in Vietnam and have necessarily put my gear through some pretty harsh trials and tribulations.

During all that time, I have destroyed only one lens - the Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mark-II; and that was from a relatively gentle tap on a doorframe as I was entering a room. The front element ended up spinning on the floor.

I replaced that lens with a 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I, which has a metal lens mount and which includes a focus scale. The build of this lens is much better than the Mark-II which is an inferior version of the Mark-I designed to allow Canon to sell 35mm film Rebels at a cheap price.

I paid more for the used Mark-I than a new Mark-II sold for and the prices of the original Mark-I lenses are still going up. However, based on build alone, the Mark-I is well worth the extra money. I like two piece bathing suits on ladies but, I have absolutely no use for a two piece lens.

That said, since I received my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, I seldom use the Mark-I. The f/2.8 and IS of the 17-55mm make it a pretty fine lower light level lens. I would, however, be interested in acquiring a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens for very low light work.

[williamkazak]

I have the 50mm F1.4 AFD. It flares more than my 35mm F2 AFD and 85mm F1.8 AFD. It does not seem so important a focal length on digital to me.

[fire_photog]

I have the 50 f1.8 for my Canon. I love this little prime and I will say that at f1.8 the DOF is so thin that you have to be careful. I actually took a shot of my son that had his nose and eyes in focus and his ear OOF because of the thin DOF.

I can't see NEEDING the f1.4 for the difference in price. Hope that is helpful.

[williamkazak]

I just tried the new 60mm AFS F2.8 Nikon Micro. I would get that if I was looking for a lens around 50mm.

[ljh34465]

Hey, people - thanks for all the input, I appreciate you taking the time.

I have lived in the world of zooms for several years but have a 28mm, f 2.8 from my film days. Think I will play with that and try to decide four things:

do I like a prime that will give me approximately the focal length of 42 mm,
do I like that focal length as opposed to what would be a 75,
do I like a prime at all
and do I really need faster than f2.8

You have all brought up such good points, you obviously have me thinking - thanks

[jfrancho]

Stop thinking in terms of "focal length" and start thinking in terms of "field of view" and "working distance." When you divorce yourself from the math, you'll find it easier to choose a few primes that will serve you well. Save the FL designations as a starting point for your decision. As in, I shoot many pictures at 30-40mm, so maybe a 35mm lens is the one for me. Get it?