Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MK2

Sko77y

Sko77y

Suspended / Banned
Messages
897
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking for some advice on my next lens purchase, currently owning my Canon Eos 450D kit lens and a 80mm-200mm zoom lens.

I want to try my hand at macro and landscape shots with a more adaptable lens and have stumbled across this:

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/12878/show.html

I have read the reviews and they seem pretty good, as well as it being in the right price bracket for myself (I am still learning and cannot justify spending a larger sum of money at present)

Question is, is this lens up to standards for macro shots as well as landscape?

Thank you in advance for any help provided

Scott :)
 
It's a good lens for the money (though I think you should be able to find it cheaper), but at 50mm on a 450D it is really not the focal length that many would choose for landscape photography. It's far too long. Something in the 10mm to 22mm range would be a more obvious choice.

As for macro, many people cut their teeth on macro photography with this lens, but to do it you will need to buy some macro tubes (or possibly a lens reversing adapter or close up filter). I only have experience of tubes, which as a set cost about the same as the lens itself.
 
At that price you haven't got any choice anyway, but that said the 50 1.8 is a bargain if you want what it does. Which is mainly the fact that it's f/1.8, and that's not what you want for macro when you'll be at f/8 or f/11 most of the time to get enough depth of field. Also, you'll need to spend as much again on a set of extension tubes for macro.

So unless you need f/1.8 for other things, get a set of tubes for your kit lens, or a Raynox DCR-250 macro adapter is a very good way of getting into macro - £40 from Amazon.

Edit: forgot the landscape bit - not a great choice for landscape at all, as Tim says. But the price is actually very good. You won't get it much cheaper delivered, even Kerso is now charging £80. On a crop format camera like yours, the main use for a 50 1.8 is shallow depth of field portraits; great for that, but quite restricting for other things..
 
Last edited:
If you want a good cheap macro lens try to find a 100mm cosina F3.5 its a true 1 to 1 and is about £70 second hand on Ebay. The auto focus is SLOW, the build is plasticy but the IQ is great.

The 50mm is a great walk about and portrait lens but as Tim says isnt really suited to macro (without tubes) or a convensional landscape shot.
 
Thanks Tim for the reply, is it a good lens for starting with though? trying to get the best of both worlds so to speak.

would this be better as a macro lens? http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/66320/show.html

its more the macro route I am trying at the minute, if as you suggest a smaller focal length for landscape, another lens shall be purchased at a later date.
 
True macro means shooting at a magnification factor of 1:1 or greater. In other words, if your subject is 1" long (e.g. a watch face) then the image recorded on your sensor will also be 1" long (which won't quite fit onto the sensor of your camera). Of course, a macro lens does not require you to shoot at 1:1 size, You can move further back to fit the image in if you need to.

The zoom lens you have linked to will go to 1:2 magnification, so not true macro, but probably a decent part of the way there for many people. I haven't got a clue what the IQ would be like.

It might be worth a browse of the macro forum and landscape forum to see what people are using to get the results they do.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
At that price you haven't got any choice anyway, but that said the 50 1.8 is a bargain if you want what it does. Which is mainly the fact that it's f/1.8, and that's not what you want for macro when you'll be at f/8 or f/11 most of the time to get enough depth of field. Also, you'll need to spend as much again on a set of extension tubes for macro.

So unless you need f/1.8 for other things, get a set of tubes for your kit lens, or a Raynox DCR-250 macro adapter is a very good way of getting into macro - £40 from Amazon.

Edit: forgot the landscape bit - not a great choice for landscape at all, as Tim says. But the price is actually very good. You won't get it much cheaper delivered, even Kerso is now charging £80. On a crop format camera like yours, the main use for a 50 1.8 is shallow depth of field portraits; great for that, but quite restricting for other things..
Click to expand...

Cheers for the reply Richard, portraiture is another avenue I want to experiment with so it might come down to whatever I can afford at the time. The Raynox seems like a definite purchase, so thanks for the recommendation, try my hand with that then consider forking out for a macro lens.

As for the lens in my first post, I think I shall purchase also. For that price it seems a fair purchase, expanding my kit and all that jazz :)
 
Sko77y said:
Cheers for the reply Richard, portraiture is another avenue I want to experiment with so it might come down to whatever I can afford at the time. The Raynox seems like a definite purchase, so thanks for the recommendation, try my hand with that then consider forking out for a macro lens.

As for the lens in my first post, I think I shall purchase also. For that price it seems a fair purchase, expanding my kit and all that jazz :)
Click to expand...
I'd advise you to think hard about how much use you will get from it. Plenty of people have bought that lens, including me, because it comes recommended so often. For the money it is sharp and it is fast and it will allow you to get creative with shallow DOF. If you want to take advantage of that then fill your boots.

I bought mine mainly for low light photography, where I thought that at f/1.8 it would excel, but I found the AF to be rather inadequate and manual focus to be near impossible. I did dabble with it for macro but, while the results were good, I have not kept a single "macro" shot taken with that lens. After a year or two I sold it. I only have one decent shot from that lens that I have bothered keeping. There are a couple of duffers and some test shots. That's it.

YMMV. :)
 
tdodd said:
I'd advise you to think hard about how much use you will get from it. Plenty of people have bought that lens, including me, because it comes recommended so often. For the money it is sharp and it is fast and it will allow you to get creative with shallow DOF. If you want to take advantage of that then fill your boots.

I bought mine mainly for low light photography, where I thought that at f/1.8 it would excel, but I found the AF to be rather inadequate and manual focus to be near impossible. I did dabble with it for macro but, while the results were good, I have not kept a single "macro" shot taken with that lens. After a year or two I sold it. I only have one decent shot from that lens that I have bothered keeping. There are a couple of duffers and some test shots. That's it.

YMMV. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks again Tim, I am going to go have a play with the lens in Jessops and see if its what I'm after, a shallow depth of field does sound about rite. I'll be getting the Macro adapter as well, before I take the plunge with a dedicated lens. Cheers for the input, hopefully I'll manage some decent shots with it if I go ahead and purchase :)

What does "YMMV" mean?
 
As far as I know it isn't written in stone anywhere that any of us have to use a wide angle lens for landscape shots or aim for maximum depth of field. Using a longer lens and / or limited DoF are equally valid choices for anyone willing to be a bit more creative and at least try something other than wide angle + maximum DoF.

Use for macro is more difficult as it involves more expense but once all things are considered I'd say go for it.
 
tdodd said:
Your mileage may vary. i.e. your results/opinion/needs etc. might not agree with my own, so what's good for me might not tbe good for you etc. etc..

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=YMMV
Click to expand...

woof woof said:
As far as I know it isn't written in stone anywhere that any of us have to use a wide angle lens for landscape shots or aim for maximum depth of field. Using a longer lens and / or limited DoF are equally valid choices for anyone willing to be a bit more creative and at least try something other than wide angle + maximum DoF.

Use for macro is more difficult as it involves more expense but once all things are considered I'd say go for it.
Click to expand...

Ah cheers for the explanation, I'm from a car forum and had never heard that before. Like I said I'll have a play with the lens and see if its what I'm looking for. Cheers for all the input guys
 
Cheers for all of the advice guys, the Canon lens is awesome I'v never tried such a shallow DOF before and the Macro attachment has opened up a whole new set of options. Both awesome purchases

Thanks for the advice :)
 
I'm in a similar position to you Scott and got one of these 50mm lenses for £60 through AV Forums. I must say I'm really pleased with it and I've been getting some really nice shots with it. I'm going to be ordering a Raynox adapter on my next payday to dip my toes into Macro.
Glad your happy with you purchases.
 
I recently bought one of these EF 50mm f1.8 II for my 450D and it excels at low light/night shots without flash.
For landscape, I really want a Canon EF S 10-22.

In addition to the stock 18/55, my 55/250 zoom and the 50mm f1.8, the Canon 10-22 would just about cover all my needs, until the next must have comes along.


Fat.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top