Camera:
Canon Rebel T6 EOS
Current lens: whatever came with it ef-s 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
She wants a 50mm f/1.4 lens
Does the first lens not achieve what the second lens does?
What is the benefit?
Use:
She likes to take pics and will take a photography class in HS next semester.
Thanks!
In a nutshell, a fixed aperture lens will generally have better optical quality and will be able to shoot crisply with less available light (low light conditions) as compared to a variable aperture lens like the one that came with the camera.
Minor terminology correction to the above: a fixed focal length lens, or prime, will generally outperform a zoom, or variable focal length lens; apertures are variable on both.
Primes are also generally better as learning tools, as seeing in a particular focal length helps to build understanding of how to see photographically. The typical "nifty 50" is usually the cheapest way to do this. Plus primes tend to separate the serious from the "look at my new DSLR!"
In reply to 02Pilot :
Thanks for the clarification, my brain has a tired. 
That will be an excellent portrait lens for her. Great in low light, as well. I bought a similar lens for my old Nikon D90, and it opened up a whole new world for me.
Yes, she needs it. The kit lens won't touch it.
It's likely also more compact, which makes the camera easier to carry around - and a camera you have is always better than a camera you don't. I got a prime "pancake" lens for my micro 4/3 and it makes the camera pocket size.
To add on to what's been shared already, a nice prime lens will generally render out of focus areas in the image smoother / "nicer" than a zoom. Doubly so when the zoom is an inexpensive kit zoom like the 18-55 you've got now.
That said, I think I'd start with a 50 1.8 as they can perform quite well for lower cost, weight, and size vs. their 1.4 brethren. It will still be a big step up from the kit zoom. If buying new, the 1.8 will be about 1/2 the cost of the 1.4.
As a bonus, you'll get to hear her use the word "bokeh" about fifteen times a day!
Get the 50mm f1.8. It's nearly as good for a fraction of the price. Especially while she's still learning.
On the upside, if she does talk you into the 1.4, good Canon glass holds its value pretty well. Buy used, take care of it, and sell it for what you paid for it if you ever get tired of it.
Oh, and for the love of all that is holy, please make her promise not to shoot it wide open all the time. Dear Lord, I am so tired of that look. f/4 will be so much more interesting....
JG Pasterjak said:Get the 50mm f1.8. It's nearly as good for a fraction of the price. Especially while she's still learning.
On the upside, if she does talk you into the 1.4, good Canon glass holds its value pretty well. Buy used, take care of it, and sell it for what you paid for it if you ever get tired of it.
I'm going to disagree on the 50/1.8. Yes it's cheap, but the purple and green fringing will drive you mad.
I am going to agree on the utility of a prime, picking up a "standard" prime is the normal recommendation for someone who's just starting out in trying to learn photography. That said, 50mm used to be a "standard" lens because with 35mm film it produced an image that was fairly similar in "zoom" level to normal human vision at the range at which the photo was taken. This is somewhat outdated because most inexpensive cameras these days are "APS-C", and the effect of this is that you only see the center of the image produced by the lens. A 50mm lens on an APS-C camera is useful for portraits or headshots, but it's a bit too long for general "walkaround" use IMHO. If her goal is to have a general purpose "learning to use a real camera" lens, I'd recommend a 30mm lens instead of a 50mm. This is one of those oddball focal length ranges that (for whatever reason) Canon hasn't chosen to address very well in their lens lineup. Fortunately, Sigma isn't quite as blind, and they've had a couple of quality offerings over the years.
So my suggestion is to look for a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 in a Canon EF mount. They've had two -- one is an "DC EX" lens, which is decent middle-of-the-road quality, and intended for use with the APS-C crop cameras. I have one of these, it's my go-to walkaround lens for when I'm at Disneyland with the kids or something. Unfortunately you can't get it new any more, but they're often available used for around $200. That's roughly twice what the 50/1.8 will set you back, but it's a much, much better lens. Here's one on ebay: https://www.ebay.com/itm/123387871395 (I don't know anything about the seller, just found this with search).
(The other Sigma 30/1.4 is an "Art" series lens. That's their version of the Canon "L" lens, and it's a very high quality piece of glass. It works with both APS-C and full frame cameras, but it's bigger and heavier than the DC EX lens, and it has an MSRP of $500).
Walkaround at Disneyland:
Will weird autofocus issues with the Sigma 30's be more of a challenge to deal with vs. fringing with a nifty fifty? I kept wanting either of the 30 1.4's and the reputation they have for AF issues kept me away.
I think I'd go for the EX version for improved center sharpness wide open if that path makes sense.
pres589 said:Will weird autofocus issues with the Sigma 30's be more of a challenge to deal with vs. fringing with a nifty fifty? I kept wanting either of the 30 1.4's and the reputation they have for AF issues kept me away.
FWIW, I have not encountered any AF issues with my Sigma, either on my current 7Dmk2 or my previous 50D.
Thanks for all the replies!
When I was in photo class back in high school, we *had* to use a 50mm lens for many assignments--at least the early ones. Why? It forces you to compose in the viewfinder without using zoom. Too far away from the subject? Move up. Too close? Step back.
The fixed length lens will have better optical quality, but I suspect she is looking primarily at the f1.4. That is a big aperture and will pull in a lot of light and give her some serious choices with depth of field. Wider apertures compress the focal length. Great for certain photography. If you're shooting something like a landscape where you want everything crisply in focus, use a smaller aperture (higher f number). If you're shooting something like a portrait where you want the subject to be in focus and the background fuzzy, use a larger aperture.
This photo was shot at f1.8. Notice how the background kinda disappears. My nose and glasses are sharp, but by the time you get to my ears and shoulders they're already a little fuzzy. If that same photo were taken at f22, everything would be sharp and in focus including those trees a quarter mile behind me.
In reply to Curtis :
Exactly. Like I said, great portrait lens.
Cooter said:In reply to Curtis :
Exactly. Like I said, great portrait lens.
I'm old school. I like to compress space a little with about 70mm lens for portaiture, but you're right. Fantastic portrait lens.
The other thing to think about... Depending on the size of the CMOS in the camera, DSLR doesn't always follow the same rules with focal length. Whereas 52mm on my 35mm film camera is about the same as normal human vision, the sensor in my Nikon D3200 is smaller than 35mm. 52mm in that DSLR is slightly telephoto.
.... which I actually prefer for portraiture. Most of the headshots I do at the theater are at about 65mm length to prevent making noses look big.
Curtis said:The other thing to think about... Depending on the size of the CMOS in the camera, DSLR doesn't always follow the same rules with focal length. Whereas 52mm on my 35mm film camera is about the same as normal human vision, the sensor in my Nikon D3200 is smaller than 35mm. 52mm in that DSLR is slightly telephoto.
.... which I actually prefer for portraiture. Most of the headshots I do at the theater are at about 65mm length to prevent making noses look big.
This. I'm not overly familiar with the Canon, but if it is what a standard eye sees, 50 is NOT a good portrait lens. I always used a 70 or above for portraits when I owned a studio, but again, digital SLRs can differ. There is definitely a quality difference between a good fixed length and a zoom, and a fixed length teaches you about composition in a way a zoom lens masks over.
Canon crop camera sensors like the Rebels are 1/1.6 the size of a full frame. Effectively it's like taking the focal length of a lens, in this case 50mm, and taking it times the reduction in sensor size, to get a feel for what the field of view would be like on a full frame camera. So the 50 here is like an 80mm as far as field of view is concern. It's a great portrait solution. This is also why trying to get an ultra-wide solution for a crop Canon isn't as profitable as on most other makes of interchangable lens camera.
Short version: A 50 on a camera like the Canon Rebel is a great portrait lens. The folks above are thinking about full frame / film cameras.
Curtis said:Cooter said:In reply to Curtis :
Exactly. Like I said, great portrait lens.
I'm old school. I like to compress space a little with about 70mm lens for portaiture, but you're right. Fantastic portrait lens.
Heh. I like to shoot portraits at > 100mm, on a crop sensor. :)
codrus said:Curtis said:Cooter said:In reply to Curtis :
Exactly. Like I said, great portrait lens.
I'm old school. I like to compress space a little with about 70mm lens for portaiture, but you're right. Fantastic portrait lens.
Heh. I like to shoot portraits at > 100mm, on a crop sensor. :)
I do that too for some headshots at the theater depending on the shape of the person's face. I also carry an 80-200 when I'm doing an outdoor shoot of people.
Renting is also an option you may want to consider before purchase.
There are a lot of online camera equipment rental services and I bet you have one local to you where you could pick-up versus shipping.
kabel said:Renting is also an option you may want to consider before purchase.
There are a lot of online camera equipment rental services and I bet you have one local to you where you could pick-up versus shipping.
I've tried renting lenses once or twice and I'm not impressed. By the time you add up rental fees, shipping to/from, insurance, etc you've generally spent around a quarter of the price of the lens just to have it for a couple weeks. Lenses do not depreciate much, you're far better off buying a used one and then selling it six months later for the same price if you don't like it, IMHO.
You'll need to log in to post.
