18-55 or Nifty 50

easylife

easylife

Suspended / Banned
Messages
391
Edit My Images
No
Noticed allot of threads about the Nifty 50, as I have the canon kit 18-55 is lens, would I benefit form having one, as I use that range quite regular... sorry still learning
 
Can't really help you out here, but i did get a 500d a few weeks back and got a nifty 50 along with the kit after reading about them on here. I've used it a few times in low light and got some pretty good results. Not great but i'm still learning. Seem to be have a few problems getting sharp images at f1.8.
 
i'm sure guys with way more experience than myself will chime in, but FWIW:

1. the fixed-50 will be much more use in low light than a zoom anyday, so for that reason alone a good idea... doesn't weigh much either, so travels with you quite easily.

2. optical quality on fixed-50s tends to be quite stellar (compared to kit-zooms), since in the pre-digital days, this was the 'standard/kit' lens that everyone would buy. so a lot of work went into making these lenses perform well, and a lot of them still do (e.g. Nikon's screw-drive 50s).

but perhaps most importantly:

3. if you've been given (or lent) kit by someone more experienced than youself for the first time, quite often (again - pre-digital times) they'd give you the fixed-50 and say 'you go learn photography using that and then upgrade'... part of the 'lesson' was that since you've got only one fixed focal length to play with, it would get you thinking harder about framing, angles, aperture (since you've got a big range to choose from) etc.


that's my 0.03 £, and i think you can tell i'd recommend getting one. they're not expensive, and if you find out you don't like it, you'll not lose much on re-selling.
 
It also depends what you shoot. If you prefer landscape and shoot between 18 and 55 then a 35mm prime may be a better option. You can get the same fast performance as with the 1.8 50mm.

They have an easy zoom function too. walk forward, zoom in, walk backwards, zoom out:)

I always here a good suggestion on here on this subject. Take your camera out and spend a session shooting with the lens fixed on 50mm or 35mm. You will see then how a fixed lens will suit you.

I have taken some good portrait shots with my 50 and as suggested before, it gives you great options with depth of field.
 
another option would be something like a tamron 17-50 f2.8
 
I have the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a while back bought the nifty fifty....found I never really used it.

I know it seems cheap but if you never use......

I wonder how a poll on here would go if it were to ask 'who bought a nifty fifty then sold it'?

Is that why they keep popping up in the for sale section??
 
I love my nifty fifty. It's razor sharp and very fast for the money.
 
p1tse said:
but would you use it as much if you had a 17-59 f2.8?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. The 17-50 is a cracking lens...but it doesn't do f1.8, does it? ;)
 
Probably should keep my nose out as a Nikon user but for what its worth:

I had the Nikon 18-55 kit lens with my D60 and it was a really nice lens.

I went out and purchased the 50mm F1.8 for my D90 and its hardly been off the camera body. I love it.

The 18-50mm range is obviously not covered with the 50mm but I have the 18-105 which does that for me. If you got the 50mm then you too would be covered in that range with your 18-55mm.

To answer your question, in my humble inexperienced opinion I would say definately get a 50mm. The F1.4 if you can afford it if not the F1.8 is fine.
 
If you can stretch to it go for the Carl Zeiss 50/1.4 it's possibly the nicest 50mm lens ever
 
You really can't beat a "Niffy 50", specially the 1.8/f spots. There affordable, lightweight, and highly addictive for those that like to get down and dirty creative style!

- You'll normally find them for new around £99, give or take, and second hand a hell of a lot cheaper.
- The weight allows for easy use when carrying more than one lens (if as if the 50mm was never there)
- And finally, creatively they're really nice, making full use of the 1.8/f stop is great to capture some truly amazing depths of field, but be aware the 1.8/f isn't the sweet spot in the lens, that lies normally at 5-8/f


There is a hidden excitement to using the 50mm's, and that does lye within the fact that the lens doesn't have a zoom. Not only does that greatly increase the sharpness of the lens (and it does, certainly compared to the 18-55mm), but it also means you have to move backwards and forwards to get the right crop. To me that is just simply one of those feeling that brings me right back to my film cameras.
 
Nifty > Kit for IQ
Nifty > Kit for Speed

I use mine all the time and I really cannot tell the difference in IQ between that and my 24-105 L.
@£75 from Kerso it deserves a place in most bags.

I like prime lenses, they make you think about composition so much more and this, imo, improves you as a tog.
 
The big problem with the lens is that it will make you want other fast lenses - in my case the 85mm f1.8 and then worse still the 70-200 2.8 - so it's not really such a cheap lens after all :D
 
pearce_jj said:
The big problem with the lens is that it will make you want other fast lenses - in my case the 85mm f1.8 and then worse still the 70-200 2.8 - so it's not really such a cheap lens after all :D
Click to expand...

It's a dangerous lens .....

First lens was the Kit...

Bought a Tamron 28-300 zoom, very nice lens but useless in low light

Got the Nifty, ooooooohhhhh baby

then came the 70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8.....

Don't buy the Nifty, your bank balance will suffer :D
 
pearce_jj said:
The big problem with the lens is that it will make you want other fast lenses - in my case the 85mm f1.8 and then worse still the 70-200 2.8 - so it's not really such a cheap lens after all :D
Click to expand...

mrgubby said:
It's a dangerous lens .....

First lens was the Kit...

Bought a Tamron 28-300 zoom, very nice lens but useless in low light

Got the Nifty, ooooooohhhhh baby

then came the 70-200 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8.....

Don't buy the Nifty, your bank balance will suffer :D
Click to expand...

Thanks guy's, good to know I'm not alone, well done Canon, I've been suckered too :lol:

Because of this cheap baby I got the 24-70 and will be swapping my 70-200 f/4 for the f/2.8, looking also at the 85 f/1.8.

My wife is going to kill me :exit:
 
In answer to the OP's original question, yes, you will benefit from getting a 50mm prime. The image quality will be better than those from the kit 18-55, especially when the prime is stopped down to the maximum aperture available from the kit lens at 50mm (probably just wider than f/5.6) and the limited DoF at wider apertures simply can't be achieved with the kit lens.
However, the kit lens does have 2 advantages over the prime, the zoom and IS. OK, in many cases, footzooming is possible but there are plenty of times when it isn't - there may be a building/road/drop behind you and you may not be able to get closer for similar reasons. And IS isn't any use against subject movement but it can (and does) give extra stops of low shutter speeds if needed - say you have a slight essential tremor for example (Google it if you don't know what ETs are).
By all means get a 50mm (f/1.8 50mm lenses are probably the best value you can get) but keep the kit lens as well, it does have a place in your kit bag.
 
i agree with nod, i purchased a minolta 50mm f1.7 and then i was going to sell the 18-70mm kit, i shot a wedding saturday and im glad i never got rid of it. it was a small assembly room with cramped space so i stuck on the kit zoom and off i went. kit zooms can also be needed in desperate needs.
 
mastertrinity said:
i agree with nod, i purchased a minolta 50mm f1.7 and then i was going to sell the 18-70mm kit, i shot a wedding saturday and im glad i never got rid of it. it was a small assembly room with cramped space so i stuck on the kit zoom and off i went. kit zooms can also be needed in desperate needs.
Click to expand...


what you need is something like a tamron 17-50 f2.8 as i find my 28-75 f2.8 good at low light
 
LOL at the few people that are calling the Nifty fifty "razer sharp", how about shwoing us some unedited picts of these picts.

btw i am assuming people are talkin about this lens
 
jackbauer said:
LOL at the few people that are calling the Nifty fifty "razer sharp", how about shwoing us some unedited picts of these picts.

btw i am assuming people are talkin about this lens
Click to expand...

It's too well documented to pander to your requests.

You'll blow smoke up it's arse too when you own one, assuming you know what your doing :thinking:
 
jackbauer said:
LOL at the few people that are calling the Nifty fifty "razer sharp", how about shwoing us some unedited picts of these picts.

btw i am assuming people are talkin about this lens
Click to expand...

As said a billion times before it's easy to make a 50mm lens because of the design of the 35mm (derived) format. It's compromises for the price are horrid construction, noisy AF, absense of FTM, no distance scale, and distracting pentagon aperture.

That said I don't find mine particularly sharp either.
 
It's not brilliant wide open, but then few lenses are. Close it down a couple of stops, and it's fantastically sharp.
 
clud17 said:
It also depends what you shoot. If you prefer landscape and shoot between 18 and 55 then a 35mm prime may be a better option. You can get the same fast performance as with the 1.8 50mm.
Click to expand...

The 35mm is a much better option for a crop sensor than a 50mm, in terms of usefulness.

50mm on a crop = 75mm on a full frame, which is a short tele, or portrait length; a bit long for general purpose use.

35mm is really what you want if you're looking for the equivalent of the traditional characteristics of a 50mm lens but on a crop sensor.

Unfortunately there's not as much scope for cheesy rhyming slang with the words "thirty-five". Maybe we could call it "flirty thirty" or "dirty thirty" to prolong the amusement.
 
Some mixed opinions, I think for the price (under £100) I'll invest in one, thank to all
 
p1tse said:
what you need is something like a tamron 17-50 f2.8 as i find my 28-75 f2.8 good at low light
Click to expand...

i am tempted to buy myself a 17-50mm f2.8 but its the fact of my 50mm does most jos its just no good for wide angle, im looking in the area of 17-40mm but sony doesnt make one, might plunge for a new sony 30mm macro or the sony 28mm.
 
jackbauer said:
LOL at the few people that are calling the Nifty fifty "razer sharp", how about shwoing us some unedited picts of these picts.

btw i am assuming people are talkin about this lens
Click to expand...

Have a look at this comparison:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

The Canon EF 50 f/1.8 is as sharp as the the Canon EF 24 105 IS USM L in the center and is *sharper* in the corners on a 1DSMkIII at f/4.0 in this test.

Primes are ofter sharper than zooms, even "L" zooms. The main benefit of "L" zooms is convenience and rock-solid build quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top