Nifty Fifty - Should I, Shouldn't I?

subseasniper

subseasniper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
480
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all,

I have been toying with the idea of buying a nifty fifty for my 40D but have been holding back as I have a Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 lens.

Is it worth getting the fifty? I like the idea of the quality of the prime lens and the maximum aperture of f1.8 but I have kind of talked myself out of it as I would likely use the fifty stepped down a couple of stops to maintain good edge to edge sharpness.

I'm certainly not one of those zoom obsessed photographers but I am wondering if it is worth buying the lens when I have the focal length catered for already with a fairly decent lens.

Please feel free to correct me on this.

Cheers
 
Well... I have a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 as well as the nifty fifty. To be honest, the 50mm doesn't get VERY much use. In low light it doesn't make very much difference and I have no issue with the IQ on the Tamron. Having said that, when I do use the nifty fifty it produces lovely photos (well, as lovely as they can be with my input!) Basically it's a great lens and it's £50 which, by DSLR accessory standards, is cheap as it gets. I'd say get one (try Kerso for a good price!) then see if you use it and if not maybe flog it on.

EDIT: I am planning on taking it out for some street work. Two reasons for that: the fixed focal length will make me take more care composing (which I need to do!) and it's also very small and, even on a 40D, more discreet than most lenses.
 
I started out two years ago with a 30D and 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. Six months later I got a 50 f/1.8, based on loads of recommendations, and the fact that my 17-85 was pretty slow (aperture, not AF) for indoor use. I ended up never using the 50. The AF was slow, noisy and inaccurate, and using it in low light only compounded the problem with AF performance. In the real world the 17-85 gave me better results. Another six months on and I bought a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, which made the 50 even more redundant.

A year further on from that my 50 just sits in my bag as a paperweight. I sometimes stick it on the end of some macro tubes but that is the only use it gets and I really just use it for experimenting. I have not shot a single photos I want to keep with the nifty. I keep it just as an emergency backup, in case I get lens failure of my 17-55 during an important shoot. For me it was really a bit of a waste of money, but now I have it I may as well keep it.

I've run an analysis or my focal length use over the last couple of years and also my f/stop preferences and I have to say that 50mm is not an especially useful length for most of my shots. Also f/1.8 is a bit niche in terms of times I want that little DOF. Even though I have the 17-55 f/2.8 and also a 70-200 f/2.8 I don't often use either of them wide open. Out of ~2300 kept photos from my D-SLRs only 69 are at f/2.8 and only 17 of those are within +/- 10mm of 50mm. 10 of those were taken at a garden party at night and I question whether the nifty's focus would have been up to the job.

Have a look at this thread - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=473649

Sometimes, very briefly, I do consider going out for the day with my nifty mounted and then I think - what would be the point? I've got my 17-55. Why run the risk of missing a shot simply to give my nifty an outing?

I'm sure there are circumstances where the nifty would be quite a good choice of tool for the job, but a fixed 50mm focal length is very restrictive for every day walkabout photography, like vacation shooting. The iffy focus (especially if that narrow DOF is used unwisely) makes it a questionable choice for moving subjects like pets and kids, especially indoors, or in dim conditions such as weddings, or nightclubs and parties. If you want a cheap portrait lens for a crop body and can control subject and lighting then knock yourself out. There is no doubt it is cheap, but if it fails to deliver results reliably then it is as useful to your photography as a bicycle is to a fish. Being cheap does not automatically make it good value.
 
I am going to jump on the other side of this debate and say that it is worth every penny of the rather low price.

It is an excellent portrait lens for those times when you just can't use a larger lens and it is an excellent low-light lens.

Being a prime, you have to zoom with your feet and that turns a lot of people off. They are not as easy to use as an adjustable lens and require more thought to frame a good picture. No, the Nifty 50 is not great at everything, but what it does, it does well.

It IS a noisy lens... the autofocus sounds like there is sand in the gears when compared to a nice USM lens, but you get used to it. :)
 
Just bought the 50mm 1.4 version for £200.

I would highly recommend a 50mm 1.8 - 1.4 to anyone now :)
 
1DMARKII said:
Just bought the 50mm 1.4 version for £200.
Click to expand...

Me too (for £145, lucky me), I've just upgraded from the 1.8.

The 1.8 is noisy, and does 'seek' in low light. Also if you wouldn't use it wide open there's not much point in it with the setup you already have.

That said, I concur with the others who say it's a very good value lens, and pound for pound, probably the best on the market.
 
Maybe little used but always worth having ready just in case.
 
i have mine in the bag.

use it now and then, as i never use the kit lens, always use the 24mm, 50mm or the 70-200
 
50mm f/1.4 was my first lens and I absolutely love it! It's just a shame there isn't a nice wide angle with the same IQ otherwise I'd have that as well! It's far sharper than any of my other lenses!
 
I had a MK1 50mm 1.8 and loved it, but also hated the speed of the AF and the noise, at first it didnt really give me a gripe, but after a while it got to me, then I tried the 1.4, wow... loved it, so bought one second hand and sold the 1.8. Now I am in love, its an ace lens and brilliant results. Together with the 85 1.8 its a good pair.
 
I wouldn't be without a 50mm lens. The 1.4 version has nicer round oof highlights, but the 1.8 is a bargain.
 
what CT said. tend to use it any time i can. i have two other lenses covering 50mm, and if i know the shots fall round there, i will shift to the prime for iq and dof bonuses everytime
 
As its already been said, the 1.8 is too slow and hunts around too much and made worse under low light when you would resort to the lens most. The 1.4 variant is not that sharp wide open but really fast as its usm. I would love the 1.2 its the only version thats sharp wide open..
 
I did a test with the Nifty Fifty Vs my 1.2 L and the Nifty did well.
I love my 50mm F1.2 L though and shoot 90 percent of a wedding with it.

Canon 50mm F1.2 L wide open at F1.2 and 1/60th sec ISO 1000

wed.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top