Jump to content

Canon 50mm "Nifty 50"


AL3XCruise
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was curious on opinions regarding this lens.  My focus has been mainly on wildlife, and because of this my recent lens purchases have all been 100mm or more.  I have a Canon 28-135 kit lens, but was curious if the relatively inexpensive Cannon EF 50 STM would give me better performance.  I'm not opposed to borrowing or renting lenses when needed, and I ultimately want to invest in one or more lenses optimized for landscape and architecture, but I'm thinking the 50 would be a cheap way to have more options when unexpected opportunities arrive or I take smaller trips I don't want to spend money (or call in favors) on lenses for.  I just wanted to mention that background as I know renting a higher end lens is the answer for the best photos at the lowest cost.

 

So, the short version: given I have a fairly slow kit 28-135, would it be a worthwhile investment to get a 50 f/1.8?  It is faster wide open, but would I see improved quality overall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, yes and yes. Are you shooting aps-c or FF?

 

Either way:

When used wide open, you'll get narrower DOF than the 28-135 at 50mm, so if you want the background blur for artistic effect, you'll get it.

In low light, you'll also gain the ability to shoot at lower ISO (translating into less noise) and/or higher shutter speeds (translating into less motion blur)

Finally, if you stop down the 50mm to the same aperture as the 28-135, it's virtually guaranteed to be sharper than the 28-135.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use a full frame Nikon (D610) and have had one of them for years......I have probably attached it to my camera less than a half dozen times in the last 5 years.  Yes it is tiny, fast (f1.8) and cheap (I only paid about $125 new) but I don't really like the focal length. I don't find it wide enough for landscape stuff and not long enough for close up stuff. It is sort of in no mans land for me. I find my 24-120 f4 much more useful.  Only reason I still have it honestly is that it would prob cost me more to sell it than i would get by selling it. (a little hyperbole yes 😉).  It's not a bad lens, I just don't fid it very useful overall.   But, that is just my opinion, others love them. 🤷‍♂️

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, AL3XCruise said:

I was curious on opinions regarding this lens.  My focus has been mainly on wildlife, and because of this my recent lens purchases have all been 100mm or more.  I have a Canon 28-135 kit lens, but was curious if the relatively inexpensive Cannon EF 50 STM would give me better performance.  I'm not opposed to borrowing or renting lenses when needed, and I ultimately want to invest in one or more lenses optimized for landscape and architecture, but I'm thinking the 50 would be a cheap way to have more options when unexpected opportunities arrive or I take smaller trips I don't want to spend money (or call in favors) on lenses for.  I just wanted to mention that background as I know renting a higher end lens is the answer for the best photos at the lowest cost.

 

So, the short version: given I have a fairly slow kit 28-135, would it be a worthwhile investment to get a 50 f/1.8?  It is faster wide open, but would I see improved quality overall?

Had a 50 f/1.8 with my 40D, but gave it to DD when I bought the 5D III. Provided good results. Can comment on quality over the 28-135, as I use the 24-105 f/4 II, as a basic lens.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

as I use the 24-105 f/4 II, as a basic lens.

 

My 5D III was used and did not come with the original 24-105 that it sold with new as a kit; the seller threw in the 28-135 for free, but it is not the same caliber lens.  I've definitely considered purchasing one (possibly used).  But the 50mm is less than a quarter of the price of a used 24-105.  Plus, if I'm going to spend that kind of money, I start looking at some of the L-series wide angles (zooms and primes).  A few of them sell used for under $500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any half serious photographer should have a few fixed focal length lenses, the 50 is one of them, though I prefer the 1.4 to the nifty (technically only the 1.8 earns this title) but there is a massive $$$$ difference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AL3XCruise said:

 

My 5D III was used and did not come with the original 24-105 that it sold with new as a kit; the seller threw in the 28-135 for free, but it is not the same caliber lens.  I've definitely considered purchasing one (possibly used).  But the 50mm is less than a quarter of the price of a used 24-105.  Plus, if I'm going to spend that kind of money, I start looking at some of the L-series wide angles (zooms and primes).  A few of them sell used for under $500.

I also have the 16-35 f/2.8. Great lens, but pricey. If you can pick up a used one for $500, could be a great buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...