Opinions on the Canon 50mm 1.8

dunesquirrel

dunesquirrel

Member
What do you think of the 50mm 1.8? I will be using it for mostly video. I already have a 18-55mm kit lens. Would this be a descent lens to add to my kit? Any other suggestions? thanks
 
It's an awesome lens for the value.

However, I would work on finding a lens to replace your 18-55 first. first lens i bought when i got my T2i was the canon 17-55mm f/2.8 to replace the 18-55. maybe you should consider the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC
 
well what i say is even more true then, since you have the money to buy the 17-50.

I have the 50mm 1.4, i like it a lot. very fun to film with. however, it has to be stabilized. 50mm on a crop sensor is pretty damn tight, so it really needs to be on a tripod or glidecam (unless you're going for the intentionally shaky look).
 
ok thanks for the help. I'll look into the tamron then for sure. what is the difference between vc and non-vc? Will 17mm with a 1.6 crop factor be wide enough for shooting follows on a glidecam? just curious
 
the 50mm 1.4 is amazing. the durable mount (unlike the plastic one on the 1.8) is beneficial and a necessity for an active camera. i'd also suggest, like stated earlier, to replace the kit lens. i have heard nothing but good reviews on the tamron 17-50, so i'd suggest looking into that. hope that helps!
 
and check out my vimeo link for a short edit with my 7d and 50 1.4! it was shot free hand so you'll get a feel of how it looks!
 
I've heard the non-vc is sharper. VC is basically image stabilization.

It is wide enough, yeah. I use my 17-55 at 17 for follows on my glidecam and it's perfect
 
Also have a look at the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. 30mm is more versatile than 50mm, though 50mm is awesome as well.

I am not convinced that you need to replace your kit lens. Mid-range zooms are boring, and I don't really see the benefit of a 17-50mm zoom over a 30mm prime. 17mm is not significantly wider than 30mm, and 50mm is not significantly longer than 30mm. (People feel free to correct me on this because I've been looking at the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 and Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 for a looooong time and I can't figure out if it's worth dropping money on those lenses if a 30-35mm prime pretty much does the same but better and smaller).

If it were me, I'd get a 30mm-ish prime now, and continue saving towards a wide angle or tele lens for the future.
 
For a crop sensor user, get the sigma 30mm f/1.4 it will shoot more like a 50mm on a full frame sensor
 
On a canon crop sensor: 17mm * 1.6 crop= 27.2mm equivalent. 30mm=48mm. 50=80

So on a crop body there is a big difference
 
yea i agree with you that mid-range zooms are kinda boring. I think the 30mm prime is a great idea. How sharp is it compared to the say the 50mm f1.4?
 
Olympus om zuiko 28mm f/3.5 is pretty nice, for very chep, nice and sharp, and adapts to canon well
 
If you're getting a 50mm just for video, id suggest buying an old nikon or pentax 50mm w/ adapter. If you want auto focus for photos, you'll want the canon 1.4 or 1.8 but if you're doing more than 75% video, get an older manual focus lens.
 
30mm and 17mm is a very big difference man, you want something wide not just for follows but if you post up next to a rail or jump, you'll want 17mm, 30mm will be almost too tight.
 
Guess I'm a minority here, but I absolutely hate the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4. The optics are good, but I have yet to use a Canon lens that doesn't have an awful housing for video. You can do better for less, like a Pentax SMC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top