Another nifty-fifty thread...

willbaroo

willbaroo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,214
Name
William
Edit My Images
Yes
Got some money burning a hole in my pocket.

Current equip:

Canon EOS 400D
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM

Have been tempted into the world of a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II however I wouldn't mind the IS version of my kit lens, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Both cost around the same on eGay atm.

What would you do in my shoes?
 
I would suggest the 50mm.... I can't see any massive benefit to IS on the standard kit lens... where as the 50mm is a quick way to get some experience playing with small depth of fields
 
I have the 400d, 70-300 IS, and kit 18-55 non-IS
(28-135 IS+recently 50mm)

I went the 50,, f/1.8 route, as it was cheap. It allowed me to play with really shallow depth of field, something I hadn't been able to do before. It is something quite different.

I don't believe that the 18-55 IS is meant to be that great above the kit lens we have. I believe that the 17-55 IS is meant to be in a completely new world of IQ. It is in a somewhat different league in terms of cost though. That is what I would be saving up for if I wanted wider+better (28 can do me)
 
coldpenguin said:
I have the 400d, 70-300 IS, and kit 18-55 non-IS
(28-135 IS+recently 50mm)

I went the 50,, f/1.8 route, as it was cheap. It allowed me to play with really shallow depth of field, something I hadn't been able to do before. It is something quite different.

I don't believe that the 18-55 IS is meant to be that great above the kit lens we have. I believe that the 17-55 IS is meant to be in a completely new world of IQ. It is in a somewhat different league in terms of cost though. That is what I would be saving up for if I wanted wider+better (28 can do me)
Click to expand...

So are you saying, optically, the 18-55mm non is and 18-55mm is are worlds apart and the IS version of our kit lens is heaps better?
 
willbaroo said:
So are you saying, optically, the 18-55mm non is and 18-55mm is are worlds apart and the IS version of our kit lens is heaps better?
Click to expand...

My understanding was that the 18-55 IS and the 18-55 non IS are not that different IQ wise.
I think that I have seen that the 17-55 IS is much much better than both, but for the price you would expect so.

However, this is from memory, and was when I was considering whether to get the 18-55 IS as an upgrade to the 18-55 non IS. I could have mis-read the results.
Perhaps someone could post up the test chart thingy where you mouse-over to see the right-hand lens (can't remember the site)
 
Looking at the 'All round lens' thread, some people are rating the 18-55 so it is possible I am comletely wrong
 
coldpenguin said:
Looking at the 'All round lens' thread, some people are rating the 18-55 so it is possible I am comletely wrong
Click to expand...

See what you mean - b****r.

Thats torn me...

Could always get both :shrug: then sell my non IS lens...somehow lol!
 
As was said, depends what you wanna do with it. That said, I bought a nifty-fifty, and I love it - it's brilliant for indoor events, as that wide aperture is great for indoor shots [although watch out - I have been caught out by the DoF - two people standing next to each other - I take the shot, and one of them is sharp as a whistle, the other is completely blurred :lol:]

It's also a good portrait lens for precisely the reason mentioned above!

Hope that helps! :thumbs:
 
Snap_Happy said:
As was said, depends what you wanna do with it. That said, I bought a nifty-fifty, and I love it - it's brilliant for indoor events, as that wide aperture is great for indoor shots [although watch out - I have been caught out by the DoF - two people standing next to each other - I take the shot, and one of them is sharp as a whistle, the other is completely blurred :lol:]

It's also a good portrait lens for precisely the reason mentioned above!

Hope that helps! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Thanks that man there, very helpfull indeed!

Richard.T said:
"eGay" how childish...
Click to expand...

Do I look bovverd?!?
 
willbaroo said:
Do I look bovverd?!?
Click to expand...

Dunno,I lack the ability to see users expressions on forums :lol:

Was just pointing it out,Seems odd if you browse it,and yet you call it "Gay" :cuckoo:
 
willbaroo said:
What would you do in my shoes?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't buy the 18-55 IS. I'd go for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Incredibly sharp and i picked mine up 2nd hand for £140.

Do you need the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM? I'm guessing you have it for the little extra reach over your 70-200mmL.

The 50mmf/1.8 is good for the money. I recently bought my second one because i sold my original after getting the 17-50mm thinking i didn't need it but i was wrong. It's ok for bokeh and shallow DoF abstract stuff but if you don't need that sort of thing then don't bother :)
 
Richard.T said:
Dunno,I lack the ability to see users expressions on forums :lol:

Was just pointing it out,Seems odd if you browse it,and yet you call it "Gay" :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

See: for your answer just a play on words...nothing more, nothing less.

Mangelwurzel said:
I wouldn't buy the 18-55 IS. I'd go for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Incredibly sharp and i picked mine up 2nd hand for £140.

Do you need the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM? I'm guessing you have it for the little extra reach over your 70-200mmL.

The 50mmf/1.8 is good for the money. I recently bought my second one because i sold my original after getting the 17-50mm thinking i didn't need it but i was wrong. It's ok for bokeh and shallow DoF abstract stuff but if you don't need that sort of thing then don't bother :)
Click to expand...

Deffo food for thought there I suppose...cheers wurzel!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top