How to make best use of 50mm f/1.8mm lens

timbo_bobcat

timbo_bobcat

Suspended / Banned
Messages
10
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
TYPO IN TITLE - SHOULD SAY f/1.4 not f/1.8mm !

Hi everyone, this is my first post since joining (apart from Welcome).

This question follows on from reading the current thread on Shallow Depth of Field.

A while back I bought a prime 50mm f/1.4 Canon lens to go with my two zooms (17-85 and 55-250). My camera is a Canon 40D. I was attracted by praise for this as a portrait lens and as one with almost universal application, plus in particular as it is so much faster than my zoom lenses which only go down to f/4-5.6.

I expected to try this lens and love it. However, whenever I try and make use of the very wide aperture, for instance for indoor portraits without flash, I hit trouble with the extremely shallow DOF so that a lot of the shot, even parts of the subject's face, are out of focus. I see mention of avoiding the widest aperture as the focus becomes a bit soft.

In short, given it is a prime and hence less versatile for use for general photograhy on a typical day out, and I don't seem to get decent results at low f-nos, I've largely stopped using it in favour of sticking with the 17-85.

I'd love some advice on when and how I can get the best out of this lens. Can anyone help?

Most of my photography is general family days out, holidays, etc, ie general stuff, though I do try and take special photos whenever I can and not just point and shoot, and don't mind carrying the 50mm lens as a spare.

Some examples of my work are on www.timpindar.com, though you won't find much there using the 50mm for the reasons stated above.

Thanks for any advice!
 
Last edited:
FWIW I started out with a 30D and 17-85, which served me well for a year before I started upgrading seriously. I did buy a 50/1.8 after about six months, expecting fabulous things, especially being under the impression that lenses of f/2.8 and faster had outstanding focusing. I have to say I was disappointed. I took only a couple of "real" shots, as opposed to test shots and mucking about and both were poor. I stuck with the 17-85 for another six months and when I bought the 17-55/2.8 the 50/1.8 was sidelined for good.

I've since sold the 50/1.8, but I have replaced it with the 50/1.4. My copy is soft/dreamy wide open, and the AF is only a little better than the 50/1.8. I was expecting more. I've taken around 40 "proper" shots with the 50/1.4, some because I was shooting in theatre lighting and needed the fast aperture, and a few because I forced myself to use the lens. I keep it for low light shooting, but as far as its creative talents lay, I don't make use of them at all. I prefer my fast, stabilised zooms. If I want a fast prime then I prefer the 85/1.8 to the 50/1.4.

Now, with all that said, there is a series of videos on YouTube showing a photographer shooting with the 50/1.4 for fifty days. It may well inspire. Here is the first in the series....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQ7d-EKa35k&p=E0C9F7F3796248C7&playnext=1&index=4
 
when i first got my 500D about a year and a half ago, the nifty 50 was the only lens i used and i soon learned using a lens with an aperture that wide takes practise. lots of practise.

At first I had lots of out of focus photos, but as I got to know the lens, worked out the best distances vs apertures to use, my results improved.

Shooting portraits (or anything else) close up and handheld at f2 and below is hard.

The smallest movement of you or the subject will render an out of focus image.

A few things you can try is improve your results:

1) even though you might be shooting a portrait, try using servo focussing and see if that improves your results

2) stand back a bit to get a bit more DOF.

3) there is no harm in stopping down to f2 or f2.8 if you need more dof.

i was in the same place as you only a few short months ago. my keeper rate has improved considerably and i can now shoot a lot of kids running around randomly and still get 7/10 of my shots in focus at f2 or f2.8

keep practising. keep that lens on your body and only that lens for a few weeks and see how you get on.
 
Last edited:
one other thing i'll add is that if you use the focus-recompose method at f2 or below you will often have an out of focus image if you are not careful. again, focus recompose takes time to learn and get right.

One thing i have discovered is that many websites say 'use the centre point' with wide aperture lenses and recompose.

that's all well and good, but if the area you want to focus on is closer to one of the other focus points, use that instead.

the more you've got to move your camera to get the composition right, the more chance you've got to get an out of focus photo.
 
Another point to add to Mark's comments..... Since you have a 40D you don't have the option for AF microadjustment, so if you are deliberately pursuing shallow DOF shots you need to make sure that your lens and body are working in perfect harmony. If not, and you can't work around the problem you may need to send both in to Canon for accurate calibration.
 
Agree with the above really.

The nifty-fifty is overrated I think, and the 50 1.4 is more or less a rather more expensive version of it. It's 50mm, obviously, which is good for portraits on a crop body, and very little else IMHO. And of course there is the very shallow DoF which is wonderful a) when you want it, and b) put the skill/effort into getting it right. To my mind, the main application for that is also portraits. Most of the time, very shallow DoF is a PITA if you're shooting a general low light scene, and I prefer to raise the ISO or to use flash, and get a decent working aperture that way.

So, a 50mm lens with a low f/number is basically good for shallow DoF portraits, and not much else :thumbsdown: It's main virtue is it's cheap. End of story, at least for me.
 
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I'll keep practising - I did find the YouTube 50 in 50 quite inspiring.

Perhaps I should try to avoid using the widest apertures for now, just get used to the lens and the fixed focal length by leaving it on the camera, and gradually try using wider apertures as time goes on.

I was trying focus recompose, based on centre point focusing, but the subjects weren't staying still so it was probably too difficult to make it work at f/1.4.

I'm hoping the prime lens will, for non-extreme settings, give a better sharper result than the non-L zooms I otherwise use.
 
Before I bought this lens I picked up a lot of encouragement (not here) to the effect that the glass is so much better than the zoom, and the lens small and lightweight, and the need to "compose with your feet" makes you think harder about your photography.

For these reasons everyone seemed to love using the lens and use it more than their zoom.

I'm a little discouraged to hear now that it's not good for much other than shallow DOF portraits, and a PITA otherwise!
 
It rather depends on which zoom you are comparing to. Compared to a kit lens, be it the 17-85, 18-55 or something else it should be a fair leap forward in both IQ and aperture. Against a 17-55/2.8 IS it's not such a leap. The thing is, there is no point buying a lens just because others recommend it. You should buy a lens because you want a lens of that type.

In the Canon camp you have a choice of three 50mm primes. One is hideously expensive and not without faults. One is ridiculously cheap, and delivers really rather well, for the price, but has awful build, poor AF and iffy bokeh when stopped down. The one you and I have sits somewhere in between. It gives the 50/1.2 a run for its money on IQ, but at significantly lower cost. It also does have superior build, a faster aperture, slightly better AF and much better MF compared to the nifty.

The Sigma 50/1.4 might well be the better lens, if the AF is calibrated correctly, but it comes with a higher price tag. I guess the Canon 50/1.4 is fairly priced amongst the alternatives and performance is commensurate with price. It can be used wide open, but the caveats already noted need to be applied. You may need to take some safety shots if you are pushing to the edge on DOF.

Here are a couple of examples from mine at f/1.4....

No edits :

20090924_102813_2985_LR.jpg


Small edits but no sharpening adjustments :
20090923_125947_2897_LR.jpg
 
timbo_bobcat said:
Before I bought this lens I picked up a lot of encouragement (not here) to the effect that the glass is so much better than the zoom, and the lens small and lightweight, and the need to "compose with your feet" makes you think harder about your photography.

For these reasons everyone seemed to love using the lens and use it more than their zoom.

I'm a little discouraged to hear now that it's not good for much other than shallow DOF portraits, and a PITA otherwise!
Click to expand...

Haha! Sorry, maybe that's just me, but there's no denying that 50mm is not a generally very useful focal length on a crop camera, and very shallow DoF is not often desirable. But when you do want those things, there is no other way of getting super-shallow DoF so there is a value there for sure. It's just not the wonderful and total indispensable lens that some nifty-50 rave threads would have you believe.

I also think the foot-zoom 'compose with your feet' thing is rubbish. While disicpline is sometimes good for learning if you're too lazy (just tape up the zoom ring) a zoom will get you better images.

Ideally, the picture talking process should involve a survey of the scene and selection of the right viewpoint, then movement forwards or backwards to get the best perspective, and finally zooming in/out for optimum framing. You just can't do that with a fixed focal length lens.

Get yourself a 17-55 2.8. Great range, f/2.8 is generally all you need, it has IS and is sharper than any nifty-50 :D

(It also costs ten times as much :( )
 
I use my 50 1.4 at F4 most of the time for portraits with a bounce flash. In that situation nothing comes close as the lens is stopped down to a very sweet point of sharpness.

However using it at 1.4 is for circumstances other than portrait IMHO. I tend to use that to achieve more "arty shots" where playing with DOF becomes part of the effect.
 
First lens I bought after getting the EOS450D and kit lens was the nifty-50 1.8, primarily because i'd spent the first 10-15 years of shooting on 35mm film using a fast fixed focus 50mm lens. I soon realised that with the crop factor, the 1.8 was more of a portrait lens than anything else, and as I'm not a people shooter, it pretty much became a special effect lens until I got the EOS-3 Film body. On a full-frame body, I enjoy using it... maybe I should pick up a fast 28mm for the 450D :shrug:
 
I have a 50 f/1.4 in the bag as well and TBH it gets even less use than the 85 f/1.4, which at least does get some mileage...
For almost everything else I'll use the 24-70 f/2.8 or if I'm 'going light', the 35mm f/2.

The fifty one-four is a useful tool, but only if you actually have a use for it... mine just gets fitted for those specific occasions that I want a half-body portrait with shallow DoF - then it goes back in the bag again...
 
I love my 50 f/1.4. Apart from the afromentioned portraits, mine is my main street photography lens. It's such a nice piece of kit in front of a FF sensor.

I use the 24-70 for everything else. It's a beautiful beast to work with.
 
I learned everything I know about photography through books and lots and lots of photos taken down a 50mm 1.8. Now I (pretty much) know what I'm doing I've got a proper set-up one of my lenses is a 50mm 1.4 (Sigma...I prefer it). It gets used a lot more rarely than the 24-105mm...but I wouldn't want to be without it.

They're fun. They give you options. They're sometimes a bit of a pain. Just go out and take lots of photos with it!
 
The thing to remember about poor performance wide open is that while you may need to stop a f1.4 lens down to f2.8 to get good performance, it's still worth it over an f2.8 lens because you're now stopped down and the f2.8 lens will still be wide open.
 
silverJON said:
The thing to remember about poor performance wide open is that while you may need to stop a f1.4 lens down to f2.8 to get good performance, it's still worth it over an f2.8 lens because you're now stopped down and the f2.8 lens will still be wide open.
Click to expand...

Not always true and in fact technically the reverse is true in theory. The reason why it is often the case that a lower f/number lens will outperform a higher f/number lens at equivalent apertures, is because the lower f/number lens is just designed and built to a higher and more expensive spec.

Here are two approximately similar lenses in terms of spec and cost, where the lower f/number lens is better at all apertures - Canon 100mm f/2 and 100mm f/2.8 macro http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0 There's not much in it though ;)
 
intresting thread, very imformative... thanks to the op for asking a question that im sure i will be asking myself and refering to here when my nikon prime arrives!
 
People think the 50 1.4 is overrated just like the cheaper 50 1.8, but try shooting indoor basketball with dim lighting and you will see one of its usefullness. The 50 1.8 is very slow focusing, the 1.4 is faster. The 85 1.8 is faster focusing but it maybe too long when used with a cropper.
People won't know a lens' worth when they don't utilise it to its full potential. At f1.4, its not sharp when you pixel peep, but used as a portrait lens with a crop camera, its great.
I had no trouble using mine with my then 40D and now 50D.
 
I'm going back to the 50mm f1.8 as I found the f1.4 to be aesthetically superior and more costly but for my simple portraiture usage I couldn't tell the difference in images.

Btw, really glad I found this thread as it gives me more confidence in my decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top