Falling out of love with my nifty

it's a corker don't worry naboo, just a pain to get a lock in low light, it still works in near dark gigs just needs some screwing around with. Tis a brilliantly useful bit of kit though
 
CSB said:
Since getting the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 I've hardly used the nifty fifty either.
Click to expand...

Same here. I believe the Tamron 17-50 is sharper too, but the winner for me is how close to the subject you can focus eliminating the need to crop in PP.
 
what's the point of comparing a 50/1.8 with the 17-55/2.8?
 
I'm in the hating camp... had a Canon one with my old Canon gear. I used it for a few days, just mucking around with f1.8... which was interesting but nothing wonderful.

Worth the 50 quid I paid for it? Well, I suppose only in that in was 300 quid cheaper than a Sigma 17-55 f2.8 but the short f2.8 zooms are far, far more useful.

Would I buy another? Nope!
 
Mangelwurzel said:
Same here. I believe the Tamron 17-50 is sharper too, but the winner for me is how close to the subject you can focus eliminating the need to crop in PP.
Click to expand...

Surely that's more to do with the specific minimum focus distance of a particular lens though? :thinking:
 
No your not mad at all.

I like you got a nifty in my early dSLR days, as you say everyone recommend getting one.

I sold mine a while back, and now believe it gets recommend because it's cheap and not because it's worth having in most cases.
 
fleaz said:
what's the point of comparing a 50/1.8 with the 17-55/2.8?
Click to expand...

Well, very simply, if you're not going to use the nifty at all, once you have a decent quality lens, why bother buying it at all?

If you want a fast 50mm lens then pass on the 50/1.8 and at least get the 50/1.4. Of course that's a dearer lens, but it's one that will last you years rather than being a 5 minute curiosity. f/1.8 with an AF motor that sucks is not a great recipe for stunning results.

I appreciate that the nifty suits some people very well, but it is not a lens that suits everybody. It's a step up the ladder in IQ from the old 18-55 non-IS kit lens but I started out with the 17-85, which has IS and USM and is pretty sharp at mid to long focal lengths. Almost everything about the 50 was a step backwards from even that humble lens, other than the fast aperture. Namely....

- AF was slower;
- AF was noisier;
- AF was less precise;
- MF very difficult to accomplish accurately;
- Build was poo;
- No IS;
- Huge gap in the focal length range;
- Horrible pentagonal bokeh when stopped down

There are two reasons to get the 50/1.8 - to cope with low light and/or to achieve shallow DOF. Well, since the AF is poor, especially in low light, the reasons for the lens to even exist start to diminish. Shallow DOF with missed focus is not much help either, if you don't have time to get the focus right, or to repeat shots until one has the focus where you need it.

The way to step forward from the 17-85 is with the 17-55 or the 50/1.4, not the 50/1.8. Thus, IMHO the comparison is relevant. People should understand what a short lifespan the nifty might have, should they buy one. If I knew two years ago what I know now I would never have bought it.
 
this all makes me feel better bout getting the 50mm 1.4 which im still very happy with and do still use:)
 
tdodd said:
Well, very simply, if you're not going to use the nifty at all, once you have a decent quality lens, why bother buying it at all?

If you want a fast 50mm lens then pass on the 50/1.8 and at least get the 50/1.4. Of course that's a dearer lens, but it's one that will last you years rather than being a 5 minute curiosity. f/1.8 with an AF motor that sucks is not a great recipe for stunning results.

I appreciate that the nifty suits some people very well, but it is not a lens that suits everybody. It's a step up the ladder in IQ from the old 18-55 non-IS kit lens but I started out with the 17-85, which has IS and USM and is pretty sharp at mid to long focal lengths. Almost everything about the 50 was a step backwards from even that humble lens, other than the fast aperture. Namely....

- AF was slower;
- AF was noisier;
- AF was less precise;
- MF very difficult to accomplish accurately;
- Build was poo;
- No IS;
- Huge gap in the focal length range;
- Horrible pentagonal bokeh when stopped down

There are two reasons to get the 50/1.8 - to cope with low light and/or to achieve shallow DOF. Well, since the AF is poor, especially in low light, the reasons for the lens to even exist start to diminish. Shallow DOF with missed focus is not much help either, if you don't have time to get the focus right, or to repeat shots until one has the focus where you need it.

The way to step forward from the 17-85 is with the 17-55 or the 50/1.4, not the 50/1.8. Thus, IMHO the comparison is relevant. People should understand what a short lifespan the nifty might have, should they buy one. If I knew two years ago what I know now I would never have bought it.
Click to expand...

Are you saying there's a reliability issue or a novelty issue that wears off (50 1.8)? For me neither are true and I find it complements my set up perfectly. Even though they are built out of the worst plastic ever (hense its low price) they are pretty much bullet proof as there are hardly any parts in it to go wrong!

I agree there are AF issues (speed and noise) but for what I use it for (landscape, portraits, close ups) thats not an issue as the subjects are almost always stationary - it all depends what you use it for.
 
tdodd said:
Well, very simply, if you're not going to use the nifty at all, once you have a decent quality lens, why bother buying it at all?

If you want a fast 50mm lens then pass on the 50/1.8 and at least get the 50/1.4. Of course that's a dearer lens, but it's one that will last you years rather than being a 5 minute curiosity. f/1.8 with an AF motor that sucks is not a great recipe for stunning results.

I appreciate that the nifty suits some people very well, but it is not a lens that suits everybody. It's a step up the ladder in IQ from the old 18-55 non-IS kit lens but I started out with the 17-85, which has IS and USM and is pretty sharp at mid to long focal lengths. Almost everything about the 50 was a step backwards from even that humble lens, other than the fast aperture. Namely....

- AF was slower;
- AF was noisier;
- AF was less precise;
- MF very difficult to accomplish accurately;
- Build was poo;
- No IS;
- Huge gap in the focal length range;
- Horrible pentagonal bokeh when stopped down

There are two reasons to get the 50/1.8 - to cope with low light and/or to achieve shallow DOF. Well, since the AF is poor, especially in low light, the reasons for the lens to even exist start to diminish. Shallow DOF with missed focus is not much help either, if you don't have time to get the focus right, or to repeat shots until one has the focus where you need it.

The way to step forward from the 17-85 is with the 17-55 or the 50/1.4, not the 50/1.8. Thus, IMHO the comparison is relevant. People should understand what a short lifespan the nifty might have, should they buy one. If I knew two years ago what I know now I would never have bought it.
Click to expand...

To use my favoutite rhyming slang, ^^^Rodney but Lionel.

I got a nifty because it was cheap and I need a fast lens now and then. But I hardly ever used it, well never actually, for all the reasons Tim says, but mainly because 50mm is a useless focal length (for me) on a crop camera.

I replaced it with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 :) I also have an EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. Does most things brilliantly. Use it for over half my pictures.

PS How often do we really want the extremely shallow depth of field you get at f/1.something? It's razor thin. If I had the choice between f/1.4 at ISO400, and f/2.8 at ISO1,600 with good quality, I honestly don't think my f/1.4 lens would get used much at all. F/2.8 gives me enough depth of field control for most things, even on a crop camera.
 
had to use f1.8 iso 1600 quite often (just to get shutters past 1/50th)

I could afford the 1.8 I couldn't afford the 1.4, especially considering I had no idea how useful a fast prime would be, when I have some cash I will get the 1.4 almost certainly for its better AF and Bokeh qualities
 
Not mad at all imo, its horses for courses. I sold mine with the D200 because I just wasn't using it after getting the 50-150/150macro/24-70 [all of which are fixed f2.8], and even when I did, I rarely used the wide open end, which defeated the object of having it in the first place. Its a lovely lens, IF you use it. If not, its no biggie, use what you are happy and comfortable with. :thumbs:
 
odd jim said:
Are you saying there's a reliability issue or a novelty issue that wears off (50 1.8)?
Click to expand...
No. I'm saying that if one is a photography enthusiast, rather than a casual hobbiest, it is easy to outgrow the limited abilities of the nifty, quite quickly. It would tend to be the case, I would think, that as one's own experience and skill levels increase, one might demand better performance from one's equipment, or require it to deliver results in more demanding conditions.

I bought mine specifically to address the demands of low light photography. Obvious low light uses might be weddings, parties, nightclubs, people outdoors at night - fireworks gathering - kids indoors, family pets indoors, restaurants etc. etc.. There are lots of potential low light uses.

Well I find that wide open in low lighting the AF is not dependable enough, even for static subjects. If you have to stop it down to mask the poor focus you instantly lose the advantage of the fast aperture. That then reveals poor bokeh, and you'll still have no IS and no zoom. For that reason the nifty does not meet my needs. Yes, it might be sharper than a wide open zoom, at equivalent apertures, but I find the 17-55 to be quite sharp enough and to have so many other advantages. One should also not forget that often you need more DOF than f/1.8 gives you, so more often than not the f/2.8 zoom makes more sense in any case.

To meet more serious demands for low light performance, for me, it's got to be the 50/1.4 as the nifty just doesn't cut it. For others, it might.

Here's the DPReview review summary for the 50/1.8....

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p8_ii_c16/page5.asp

and the 50/1.4....

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page6.asp
 
sdb123 said:
Surely that's more to do with the specific minimum focus distance of a particular lens though? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Err yeah. I'm saying the Tamron 17-50 will focus at a smaller distance than the nifty fifty:thinking:. I was shooting spring flowers a couple days ago and getting in so close with the Tamron compared to the nifty i just questioned why i should keep it. The nifty would get the same shot but i'd have to crop out 25% of the shot in PP to compare. When shooting stock for Alamy all those megapixels count!
 
I like my 1.4 50mm, much better than the 1.8 if you're demanding and need that low light performance.

I agree with it being a little long though, 50mm used to be the "standard lens" but on a 1.6x crop it's a bit long
I have the sigma 30mm 1.4 and really like it for general group stuff, really works in the pub :)

a quick additional for you
I sold my macro lens a while ago and have only what's leftin my siggy
I used the 17-50 tamron and some cheap 'macro' len additions from ebay.
great results for 15 quid.
no complaints for that money
they do bow a bit at wide angle though, probs amplifying the limits of the 17-50 at the wide end
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top