Equipment New Lens: Nifty Fifty or a 28mm Wide Angle?

As much as everyone weighs up the advantages and disadvantages of the lens itself, it's probably worth thinking about whether you'd actually use it or not. OK, in comparison to a 600mm behemoth it's cheap, but it's still £70 you could quite easily have spent on something more useful.

Personally I liked 50mm as a focal length when I had my D50, it was handy to have the sharpness available with primes without being restricted to my 85mm, but it's still very awkward for most applications. That is, of course, unless you always get to plan the situation in, and distance at which, you're shooting.

Edit: And unless you really need the wide aperture for low-light or throwing the background of portraits out of focus, it's a bit of a gimmick as olv says.

 

I have the F4 version of that, and I still maintain that the 50mm is king.

If you want to contrast it with the F/2.8, here are some objective results:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...mp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=105&Camera=9&LensComp=242

 

I'd say get it if only to just play around with it for a while.

You'll be amazed at the difference that can be seen with regards to bokeh and sharpness that will redefine what you think is 'sharp'.

Until I got my 50mm F/1.4, I thought was the stock 17-55mm F/2.8 was kinda alright, but with no comparisons until that point I was basically clueless.

But the worse thing is seeing 'how sharp does sharp go' and hankering after something even better!

 

I don't understand why people insist on comparing sharpness & image quality between Zooms and Primes. You might aswell say that a 70-200 is actually 130 Primes combined in one lens... so zooms are bloody cheap! Only 5Euro per focal length, can't beat that!

 

Fair enough, I was quoting an old book, but as was said, 80mm is lovely for portraits.

Essentially, every reason you should atleast give the 50mm a shot is outlined here:
http://www.shutterbug.com/features/0899sb_rediscover/

 

The bokeh is rubbish on the nifty fifty.

 

In low light its not bad at all. I will admit though that in instances where a light source is in the photo and the shape of the bokeh becomes apparent, it becomes quite apparent, but this is to be attributed to the build quality of the lens, which is understandably cheap, I mean you can't ask for much at $75.

 

I couldn't disagree more. It's entirely subjective of course, but I find the bokeh to be quite nice.

-monkey

 

What do you mean by 'outdoors photography'? For landscape > save up for the EFS 10-22
For street photography save up for the 50mm f/1.4 or a Sigma 30mm F/1.4 EX DC HSM
One things for sure; a prime will make you a better photographer.

 

I think so too. It makes me think [more] before shooting

 

Two topics on the EF-50mm's, also Pbase.com camera database has zillions of real life lens examples. Bokeh is indeed subjective.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186207
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=139085

 

Ignoring all the arguments with regards to the nifty and in response to your original question; what do you feel you need right now? Are you buying something just to pad your collection or do you feel a need for one of the two lenses?

From what you posted, you seem to already have both the 50mm and 28mm angles covered in other zooms. Which do you find you use most, and from which of the new lenses do you think you would benefit most?

Are you using the 28mm end of your 28-80mm very much and are you that disappointed with the results that you feel a prime will serve you better? Googling, the 28-80 is f/3.5-5.6. Do you really feel you really think it's worth spending £150 on the f/2.8 just to gain half an f-stop?

Do you ever find that the 28mm isn't wide enough? I know you have the kit lens starting at 17mm, but do you ever feel the need for wider?

Same kinds of questions apply to the 50mm. Will you benefit from it? The results will undoubtedly be better than those at 50mm from the kit lens, but do you require the features it offers?

That said, I already had the 50mm range covered in the excellent 24-70L f/2.8 and went ahead with a 50mm f/1.4 anyway, and I'm glad I did, it's an excellent lens. It offers me a little more creativity when I require it, but I agree with olv that it is an awkward focal length on a 1.6 body.

I also like the fact that it's prime and makes me work a little more for my photos by thinking more about framing without simply twisting the zoom. I certainly think it helped and taught me a lot about photography, framing, and composition.

Think carefully about your needs, then re-address your lens requirements.

 

I agree that the 50mm is a nice lens. Though, I've only got the f/1.8 from Canon.
I got it because my kit lens covers 18-55, but has horrible sharpness at the long end. I find I need to stop down to f/9 or so before I get acceptable results.
At the wide end, the kit lens seems to do well in comparison to say the 17-40 F/4L. Though, the 17-40 F/4L is MUCH better. Stopping down to f/5 or so is roughly equivalent to stopping down to somewhere around f/9 on the kit.

Stopping down to F/4 gives tack sharp images with the 50mm F/1.8. I had the pleasure of using a friends Carl Zeiss 28mm full manual. Even though the lens is about as old as I am, it performed quite well and the manual only focus felt so smooth and soft. I'm considering grabbing one off of ebay in the near future. Of course I'll need a mount converter, but those are fairly cheap.

For now though, I have my beady little evil eyes on the 70-200 F/4L USM IS.