Canon 50mm f1.8

[PhotoSnapper]

Hello all - i'm toying with the idea of purchasing the above lens. Does anyone know if this will give me anything extra, above and beyond my current Canon 60mm 2.8 macro.

I have a lot of weddings and parties at the moment and need something which will perform better in low light situations. Oh and by the way i'm a guest, not the wedding photographer

 

[Musicman]

Does anyone know if this will give me anything extra, above and beyond my current Canon 60mm 2.8 macro.

1 and 1/3 stops, the ability to use it on a full frame body and a little extra width.

You lose two aperture blades with the 50mm - it only has five. My experience with it on full frame is that its performance starts to dip noticeably below f/2.8, but if you need f/1.8 to get a shot, it's there.

I've not used the 60mm macro, but it has a very good reputation.

Might be worth a look at this comparison at the-digital-picture.com.

If you're looking for a 50mm for low light, the EF f/1.4 is a better bet (and I hear plenty of people saying the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is better still) but it's considerably more expensive.

For indoor use at parties, you may be better off looking at the Canon 35 f/2 or Sigma 30 f/1.4, though, and it will give you a different perspective to the 60mm.

 

[funky_sam]

The 50 1.8MkII is really nice for the price but it has drawbacks, plastic build, bad af in low light, will fall apart if you drop it, but on the plus side its cheap and the images are SHARP and I mean HOLY COW sharp if you are going from a kit lens.
The 1.4 is awsome, colours are bright and sometimes even alittle over saturated (on mine anyway), good build, good af but then again its 3-4 x the cost.
Try out the 1.8 and if you dont like it you can sell it for a fiver less than you bought it but its so cheap everyone should have one in their bag anyway.

 

[MatBin]

The 60mm macro ef-s lens has great build quality the 50 1.8 doesnt, its fragile but good value for money. The 50 is sharp from 2.8 onwards, so is the 60mm e.g. wide open. As has been said a 1.4 would be worthwhile or even an 85 1.8 but its a bit "long" on a crop body for w/a shots but great for portraits or group shots if you can get some distance, so good for candids etc.

Matt

 

[aerobandit]

Im using mine on 5D2 and im very happy. Initially I thought its very soft wide open but it was only front focusing. After microadjusting I find it sharp enough even wide open. Its great in low light (but if too dark it can hunt sometimes) and focusing is faster and quieter than I thought. Go for it. Its cheap as chips and if you won't like it you'll sell it here instantly.

 

[Byker28i]

I've got both the 1.8 and the 1.4 on a 50D. I'd spend the little bit more money and get the 1.4 as it's a little more solid and is very crisp. Both mine are sharp wide open.

Don't forget depth of field. At wide open it's really not far. 6 feet at f1.4 gives you about 3 inches depth of field (or less), which you can use creatively.

 

[Han5y]

I got a 50mm 1.8 from my girlfriend a week ago, and i like it a lot