IS or Fast Lens

Strangways

Strangways

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,195
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
I am new here and new to DSLR photography, but I just responded to another thread where somebody was asking whether to buy a 50mm f/1.8 or a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 for low light photography.

I feel the answer is straightforward but I have not noticed any threads or comments related to it. Am I correct in saying that if the subject is moving then the 50mm f/1.8 is a good choice, but if he/she is photographing landscapes or cityscapes the better choice would be the 18-55mm IS.

I would be pleased to hear other peoples comments
 
I would have thought for landscapes/cityscapes a tripod would be employed so IS is not a necessity. The 18-55mm IS has some outstanding reviews so it's what I would go for over a nifty fifty every time.
 
Strangways said:
I feel the answer is straightforward but I have not noticed any threads or comments related to it. Am I correct in saying that if the subject is moving then the 50mm f/1.8 is a good choice, but if he/she is photographing landscapes or cityscapes the better choice would be the 18-55mm IS.
Click to expand...

Yep, you answered it pretty well there! :)
 
The 50 isn't wide enough (on a crop certainly) for landscapes apart from anything else :)
 
Here is how I see it.

If your subject is going to be moving, you need faster glass - end of.

If however your subject is not going to be moving then that changes things - you then have to make some choices and trade offs. You can have fast glass, but you sacrifice depth of field when you open up your aperture.

Or you choose IS. You lens has a slower max aperture so right away your depth of field is improved - and you have IS which can change the shutter speed at which you can hand hold by a minimum 2 stops.
Now lets take that a bit further - you have an IS zoom you can hand hold to a degree - but you also have a wider focal range to use when you buy a tripod (FOr night type shots, you will).

I will personally always buy the fastest glass I can afford, but if I wanted to shoot scenery rather than stuff that moves, IS wins.
 
mid_gen said:
The 50 isn't wide enough (on a crop certainly) for landscapes apart from anything else :)
Click to expand...

That isn't always the case, some of my favourite landscape shots were with my 70-200 on a cropped sensor camera!

If it was to be your only lens, the zoom is more flexible, but the image quality of the prime will be better, especially in low light. Another option is to get a second hand 18-55 non IS version, IS isn't as important for shorter focal lengths and those lenses can be had for pretty cheap now.
 
Strangways said:
I am new here and new to DSLR photography, but I just responded to another thread where somebody was asking whether to buy a 50mm f/1.8 or a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 for low light photography.

I feel the answer is straightforward but I have not noticed any threads or comments related to it. Am I correct in saying that if the subject is moving then the 50mm f/1.8 is a good choice, but if he/she is photographing landscapes or cityscapes the better choice would be the 18-55mm IS.

I would be pleased to hear other peoples comments
Click to expand...

As already said, you've given yourself a good answer. And if you want to freeze a moving subject then you can always raise the ISO. The latest cameras are pretty good at high ISO and I would rather have a bit of noise than lose depth of field by shooting at f/1.8.

Shallow depth of field is great as a creative technique, but when shooting in low light just to get the correct exposure, I find it's usually an unwanted side effect and a pain in the neck. If flash is an option, I usually find slow-sync gives the best results.
 
If the subject is moving and you plan on using continuous focus (ai-servo in canon speak) to track it and take photos, then the aperture of your lens is not the problem, its the speed of the focus motor!

The "iffy-fifty" is as slow as a hippo on mogadons, don't make the mistake of assuming "f" numbers are about speed of focus - they are talking about aperture sizes. Its "fast glass" as in with a large aperture you can keep your shutter speeds up (typically from the good old days of film when you wouldn't go changing ISO (or ASA as it was then) from one shot to another).

Neither lens is really great stuff, but if I had to choose one, I'd take the zoom as the 50mm is a pretty naff length, the zoom gives you much more.
 
To be fair, I think the original thread was looking for something to use in low light for under £100.

Given the low light requirement I suspect the 1.8 scores over the IS - But of course it depends on the subject. For landscapes (which are typically fairly slow moving ;-) ) then the field of view is a bigger deal, and if you were doing landscapes in the dark then you;d use some of that £100 on a tripod, even a cheapy.

I'm sure that a lot of people buy the nifty as a one trick pony for the DOF effect.
 
A 50mm is certainly a trick little lens but I always think they're overrated and no way as versatile as a mid-size zoom.
 
I'd go for the nifty without a moments hesitation. Using a prime like that from the outset will make you develop composition skills from the very beginning. Big, big advantage skill wise. Plus, it's cheap, SUPER sharp and great in low light (not to mention DoF effects).

You'll have far more fun with the nifty :)

Edit: Another bonus, when you upgrade your camera, the nifty will still be great. You'll drop the 18-55 in a heartbeat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top