EF 50mm f/1.8 II VS. EF-S 18-55mm f/3,5-5,6 USM

[Zoinac]

Granted I know these two lenses will never compare to the glorious L series. But, sadly, I'm on a student budget, where the gas costs to go to the camera store is a challange all on its own. (I'm sure everyone's been there...)

Anyway, I'm shooting face portraits right now with my EF-S 18-55mm kit lens. It's alright, I'm not running out and setting up a studio though... But, since I live in Vancouver Canada, I get rain about 98% of the year. Being zoomed in to 50mm, or 55 even, I'm at F5-5.6..

The problem I have, is that A) I'm not getting a quick enough SS, and B) I would like to in some situations lower my depth of field (to seperate from teh background) without having to resort to my telephoto. (especially with limited covered area... it gets wet here lol)

How much more flexability will I be able to gain from going to f1.8? Is it $129(CND) worth of flexability? or should I just suffer until down the road (maybe a rich uncle's death or something lol)

Also, I have to shoot at an important (50th anniversary) dinner in november, so this will be all indoor lighting.. how much more flexability will I get in this senario?

Anyway, hopefully some of you out there have the two lenses to compare too...

[coldrain]

What is "SS"?

[Rex914]

Shutter Speed

[TenD]

Shutter Speed.
The 50mm f/1.8 is a very good lens, the 1.4 is better. I went after the older and better(metal mount, better build, same optics, distance scale)Mark I. They are kind of sought after, but few know you can pick one up buy purchasing an EOS 650 used on Ebay, the 50mm f/1.8 MkI was the kit lens for that camera, you can get the body and lens for less than the what the lens itself goes for in a lot of cases and you'll have the body to sell or keep as a film backup.
The 50mm makes a pretty good portrait lens, and has pretty good bokeh. For the price of a Mark II or buying a Mark I on ebay it's a good investment.

[ReF]

i also use the 50mm f1.8 mk I, though it was bought new waaaay back. i also think it might be worthwhile buying it on ebay for the same price as the cheaply built mk II version. the F1.8 will gain you lots of flexibility, though you might not have enough DOF at the smaller apertures if your subjects move. are you using a flash that can be bounced? cuz that will improve your indoor pics of moving subjects more than anything.

concerning the 50mm vs the kit lens, i have some recent experience with the kit lens and boy is it soft at 55mm. since the 50 is a prime, it kills the kit lens, and is even better with sharpness and contrast than my two "L" lenses. you'll get a nice amount of blur from the 50mm, but the bokeh isn't the best (blur has an angular look instead of being round).

[coldrain]

Shutter Speed
haha thanks, I could not figure it out last night although it was so obvious!
You will not only gain in sharpness and speed/shallow depth of field, but also get rid of the CA from the 18-55. I believe the motor is rather loud though.

[24Peter]

Don't even think twice: the 50mm f1.8 (whether you get the new II or the older one) will be a great lens for what you want to do. I've tried maybe 15 different lenses on my XT (and currently own 6 or 7 - can't remember right now:( ) and the 50mm f1.8 is probably the best value for the money for shooting portraits. At f3.5 or above it is tack sharp and actually focuses better than most of my other lenses. The build quality on the II series sucks, but man can it take pictures. I'll be posting a bunch of new photos from a shoot I did last week later today or tomorrow and my 50 f1.8 really made the shoot.

[TheObiJuan]

the 50 is a prime, get it.
Dont get the kit lens, its as worthless as a toilet paper roll with saran wrap on either end.

[Vich]

the 50 is a prime, get it.
Dont get the kit lens, its as worthless as a toilet paper roll with saran wrap on either end.LOL! Good one Juan. Would that be an empty roll?

Actually; I had to search out old 18-55 kit photos to show how "its not sooo bad". Each time looking them over it gets worse, as my standards rise.

The 50 f1.8 shots however remain very nice. A silky smooth bokeh (blur), like you might get on the 50 f1.4, would add a professional touch, but if you just remove shiny objects from behind the subject it nobody will know but you.

50mm apearently is the easiest length for them to make on the 35mm format, so you get a lot for your money. Going rate on EBAY is $55 US.

[lucky8]

Don't mean to hijack but one of my friends has been nice enough and let me use his Tamron 28-75 for these couple of days to take some outdoor pics and I really like it. He also would like to sell it to me for a good price and really thinking about buying my first used lens. But I also like the 50mm f/1.4 lens and it's probably more than enough for what I do.
So here's the question:
If I get that Tamron 28-75 from him, would it be useless to get this 50mm f/1.4 later on in the future since the range will be overlaping? Can the Tamron 28-75 take good indoor low-light potraits?
Should I just get the 50mm f/1.4 and forget about the Tamron 28-75?
Thanks in advance.

[coldrain]

You can not seriously compare a zoom lens and a 50mm lens. They both are very different beasts and have their own pro's and cons. Just get both, or get a 50mm f1.8. A zoom of course gives you flexibility a prime can not give uyou in most circumstances, and a prime can give you at times a better picture, also because you are forced to look instead of zooming along.

[lucky8]

So by having both the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 50mm, I won't be overlapping? I mean 50mm range is covered in the 28-75 Tamron, right? I guess I could use the 50mm f/1.4 in low light only.
Does the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 performs as good as the Canon 50mm f/1.4 in low light?
Thank you all again... ;)

[Vich]

Don't mean to hijack but one of my friends has been nice enough and let me use his Tamron 28-75 for these couple of days to take some outdoor pics and I really like it. He also would like to sell it to me for a good price and really thinking about buying my first used lens. But I also like the 50mm f/1.4 lens and it's probably more than enough for what I do.
So here's the question:
If I get that Tamron 28-75 from him, would it be useless to get this 50mm f/1.4 later on in the future since the range will be overlaping? Can the Tamron 28-75 take good indoor low-light potraits?
Should I just get the 50mm f/1.4 and forget about the Tamron 28-75?
Thanks in advance.
Those are both similar quality lenses. Pro images in most cases, neither up to the "L" build quality or AF capability but well regarded lenses.

The prime's probably capable of superior images and is regarded by some as "the lense of choice if it were the only one I could have" (see this thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=105191), b others as merely very good albiet old components. You could see for yourself:

PBASE Links -

Tamron sample images:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_28-75_28_xr_di_ld_if

Canon 50mm f1.4 sample images:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_50_14u

All Canon samples index:
http://www.pbase.com/image/48877262

f-stops go 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, each successively double the light.

At 50mm, f1.4 apeture has an area of 1,002 mm, where f2.8 has an area of 250mm. That's 4 times the light!

Other image aspects get good reports (bohek, sharpness, contrast, etc.) on both - the 50 probably slightly better on all. The zoom of course offers flexibility.

I have a 50mm f1.8 and Tamron 28-75. If I were a portriat photog I'd get the 50mm f1.4. I use my Tamron most of the time and the 50mm when I feel like a change. The extra 1.5 f stops allow more DOF creativity and help in some low light situations, but those are rare (for me).

Its a question of "should I ever get a prime with all the zoom posibilities"? The prime offers that extra 5% (or 200% for DOF and natural light) that a zoom can't. So, it depends.

[Zoinac]

Well, I couldn't wait for the dead uncle. So I bought the lense, or more appropriatly speaking, my awsome g/f bought if for me. I've only really have about 10min to pay with it, but the difference between the 1.8 and the kit lense is awsome! I was honestly expecting less of the lense than I got, shooting it wide open in medium light I was able to hit ss's of above 2000, the depth of field can be made very small.. all in all, I'm a happy camper.
I was even impresed by how crisp it was wide open, I thought for sure I would only be able to shoot wide open as a last resort, but it seems pretty clear throughout! Thanks for all the tips on it!

[D70FAN]

Those are both similar quality lenses. Pro images in most cases, neither up to the "L" build quality or AF capability but well regarded lenses.

The prime's probably capable of superior images and is regarded by some as "the lense of choice if it were the only one I could have" (see this thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=105191), b others as merely very good albiet old components. You could see for yourself:

PBASE Links -

Tamron sample images:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/tamron/sp_af_28-75_28_xr_di_ld_if

Canon 50mm f1.4 sample images:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_50_14u

All Canon samples index:
http://www.pbase.com/image/48877262

f-stops go 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, each successively double the light.

At 50mm, f1.4 apeture has an area of 1,002 mm, where f2.8 has an area of 250mm. That's 4 times the light!

Other image aspects get good reports (bohek, sharpness, contrast, etc.) on both - the 50 probably slightly better on all. The zoom of course offers flexibility.

I have a 50mm f1.8 and Tamron 28-75. If I were a portriat photog I'd get the 50mm f1.4. I use my Tamron most of the time and the 50mm when I feel like a change. The extra 1.5 f stops allow more DOF creativity and help in some low light situations, but those are rare (for me).

Its a question of "should I ever get a prime with all the zoom posibilities"? The prime offers that extra 5% (or 200% for DOF and natural light) that a zoom can't. So, it depends.

Sorry, I don't want to be a butt-in-ski, but:

You might want to recalculate, as the fomula is fl/aperture (fl is focal length). 50mm divided by 1.4 is 35.71mm and is the diameter of the aperture diaphram opening. The actual notation is written f/1.4, but most people just write it f1.4.

Consider that 1002mm is about 39 inches and that most 28, 35 and 50mm lenses are about 52mm in diameter. A pretty hefty lens indeed. Also f/2.8 yields half the light at around 17.85mm.

[Balrog]

Sorry, I don't want to be a butt-in-ski, but:

You might want to recalculate, as the fomula is fl/aperture (fl is focal length). 50mm divided by 1.4 is 35.71mm and is the diameter of the aperture diaphram opening. The actual notation is written f/1.4, but most people just write it f1.4.

Consider that 1002mm is about 39 inches and that most 28, 35 and 50mm lenses are about 52mm in diameter. A pretty hefty lens indeed. Also f/2.8 yields half the light at around 17.85mm.

No, he's actually right. He was referring to aperture area, in square millimeters .. not diameter.
pi * ( ( 50 / 1.4 ) / 2 ) ^ 2 = approx. 1001 mm^2 (1.55 sq. in.)
pi * ( ( 50 / 2.8 ) / 2 ) ^ 2 = approx. 250 mm^2 (0.39 sq. in.)
And f/2.8 is two stops less than f/1.4, which means a quarter of the light, not half.

[D70FAN]

No, he's actually right. He was referring to aperture area, in square millimeters .. not diameter.
pi * ( ( 50 / 1.4 ) / 2 ) ^ 2 = approx. 1001 mm^2 (1.55 sq. in.)
pi * ( ( 50 / 2.8 ) / 2 ) ^ 2 = approx. 250 mm^2 (0.39 sq. in.)
And f/2.8 is two stops less than f/1.4, which means a quarter of the light, not half.

Musta missed the area statement as it was stated as 1002mm.

Musta also been asleep when reading this as well.:o

Sorry Vich...

Thanks.

[Balrog]

np, it happens :)