topic Re: Nifty Fifty in EF & RF Lenses

Nifty Fifty

cas1963 — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 15:46:49 GMT

I'm a beginner photographer and I want to add the EF 50mm f/1.8 lens to my bag - I am not intersted in doing video so should I get the older version or the new STM version. I've been online and read the reviews comparing the 2 but in my beginner world would I really notice the difference? I have been seeing some great deals on the older version and that is why I am asking! thanks in advance.

Re: Nifty Fifty

TCampbell — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:07:58 GMT

You want the "STM" version of the lens -- the new one. (Really the f/1.4 USM version is ideal but if money is a factor then go for the STM lens.)

There are four different 50mm lenses in the Canon lineup. These are:

50mm f/1.2L USM - the highest build quality and image quality. But very slow to focus. Designed more for careful and deliberate shooting -- not a good choice for quick shooting situations. 9 blade aperture.
50mm f/1.4 USM - great build quality and faster focusing. Much better for quick shooting situations. 8 blade aperture.
50mm f/1.8 STM - better build quality and reasonably fast focusing (very quiet). 7 blade aperture.
50mm f/1.8 II - poor build quality and very slow and very noisy focusing. 5 blade aperture.

Notice I mentioned the number of aperture blades... the 50mm f/1.8 II (about $100) with it's 5-blade aperture provides a very poor quality blur in the out-of-focus areas. So if you want a shot with a tack sharp subject and beautiful smoothly blurred background... this lens is not it.

The very best in the creamy background blur (of the 50mm choices) is the f/1.2L, but that lens is very expensive and not approprirate for quick shooting situations.

The 50mm f/1.8 STM is the new "nifty fifty" -- it's only $125 (which is the price that the "old" nifty-fifty used ot have before they introduced the "STM" version and lowered the price on the non-STM lens). But the 7-blade aperture provides a more well-rounded aperture opening and a very noticeable improvement to the quality and smoothness of the background blur (not as good as the f/1.4 or f/1.2L but a very noticeable and substantial improvement over the f/1.8 II version.

As of now, I would never consider nor recommend the 50mm f/1.8 II. The "STM" version of the lens is just so cheap that the price savings of the non-STM isn't worth it. Go for the STM version.

Re: Nifty Fifty

cas1963 — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 16:58:08 GMT

Well, I'm so glad I asked - I'll be getting the STM, thank you!!

I'm open to more opinions if they're out there!

Re: Nifty Fifty

Waddizzle — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 22:41:43 GMT

Unless you spend top dollars, a camera lens will always be a compromise on something. The first "nifty fifty" has an inferior build. It's connection to the camera is made of plastic. The 50mm STM lens has a metal connection to the camera, but it does not show up in the Canon software package Digital Photo Professional with lens correction data yet. The older model lens is there.

I would recommend the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM. While not as fast as the 50mm, it is still fast enough for the majority of outdoor, daytime shots. Even though it is only f/2.8, that is still pretty good performance, and it will give you a slightly wider view. This lens does show up in DPP, and it has a metal connection to the camera. It has been on sale for months, sellling for just a little bit more than the "nifty fifty".

Re: Nifty Fifty

ScottyP — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 01:46:27 GMT

Do you even use DPP though? They will eventually put it in there if you do.

I would go go for the 50 STM. Can't go wrong at that price. I had the older version and it was more cheaply made than the new STM and the focusing was so loud and jerky that I hated that lens, and I never shoot video so it must have been really loud. The images were very good and having that extra stop of aperture is really really nice.

Re: Nifty Fifty

ebiggs1 — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 14:19:03 GMT

"I'm a beginner photographer and I want to add the EF 50mm f/1.8 lens to my bag ..."

I am not impressed with either of the f1.8 offerings from Canon in the 50mm focal length. So I can't recommend you buy either or any of the various versions. Personally I would avoid the 40mm Pancake lens.

If you have to, save your money a little longer to get the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM do it. It is head and shoulders better that the others.

The EF 50mm f/1.2L USM is the best 50mm made, IMHO, of course. I love this lens. But, it is not a beginner lens. It is definitely not a beginner lens besides being several times the cost. There is just something about f1.2 that no other 50 can do.

If IQ, sharpness, is you big goal you may want to check out the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM Art. It is the sharpest 50mm lens made but it is around $900 bucks.

Re: Nifty Fifty

Waddizzle — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 18:21:08 GMT

I still say that if you want a good lens for under $200 US, then the 40mm STM is currently the best choice, especially for a crop sensor body.

Re: Nifty Fifty

Waddizzle — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 01:12:44 GMT

Okay, all of my previous posts are now moot.

Canon has, just this past week, added the 50mm STM to DPP. On that note, I'd have to declare the 50mm STM a best buy for under $200, although I still favor the 40mm, or even the 24mm, if you're using a cropped sensor camera body.

Re: Nifty Fifty

cas1963 — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:00:39 GMT

I tried a friend's 50 and really like it so now I just have to get my own this weekend, I already have the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, and the bundle when I bough the camera of the 18-55mm kit lens and 55-250mm lens. I was looking at the 24mm as a wide angle, or would a wide zoom be better?

Re: Nifty Fifty

Waddizzle — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:29:58 GMT

Which is the best lens to buy really depends upon what you will be photographing, and what result you want. If you're looking to do landscapes or cityscapes, then I'd consider a wider lens. Zooms are useful for me when I do not know ahead of time at what distances that I will be photographing, and I can simply dial in an ideal focal length. Primes cause me to pause and think about my shots, which helps me to take better shots.

The 50mm STM produces a better picture than the EF-S 17-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens can at 50mm. I would have expected that your f/2.8 can produce comparable picture quality to the budget primes, perhaps even better. But, there is something that gives me a thrill when I'm using a prime lens, though. I don't know what, but it's more fun for me.

On a full frame camera, many feel that that 50mm is the ideal focal length because it closely reproduces the field of view of the human eye, or at least what the brain pays most attention to. A 35mm lens captures what the 50mm at just a bit wider angle, usually without barrel distortion, or fisheye.

On a 1.6x cropped sensor you would need a 31.25mm lens in order to exactly reproduce 50mm, and 21.875mm to reproduce 35mm. As far as I know, no such lenses exist, but there are many that come close. You may also wish to consider whether or not the lens is EF or EF-S, when you are purchasing a lens, especially a wider one. Do you want a wide lens that produces a fisheye effect, or one that is more rectilinear.

For example, I have the Canon EF-S 10-22mm, which gives an effective range of 16-35,2 mm on my Rebel. As I vary the zoom from 22 down to 10, the field of view changes from rectilinear at 22mm to fisheye at 10mm. It is a great walk around lens for taking in the sights. I also have a 14mm for the EF mount. On a full frame body, the lens has pleasing fisheye effect, while on my Rebel, the image is far more rectilinear with just a trace of fisheye around the edge, which is almost ideal for shooting video, BTW, and how I plan to use it the most.

Again, which lens is best to buy depends upon what it is that you wish to photograph, and the result that you want. Somebody around here is always posting a link to a lens comparison tool, which I have found to be extremely useful for comparing different lenses. The distortion setting seems to be quite accurrate for comparing how rectilinear or fisheye a given lens is.

Re: Nifty Fifty

cas1963 — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:07:34 GMT

I haven’t found my “passion” yet for the type of photos I like to take, but I do like landscapes, cityscapes, people, not necessarily portraits. I also like to take close-up shots (not macro) of things in my garden and other people’s gardens, interesting pieces of inanimate objects, cars, buildings that sort of thing. So in the 50mm I would expect to be able to get somewhat close to subjects and with the 24mm I would expect to be able to see the whole landscape with sharpness that I do not get with my 18-55 kit lens, and not looking for a fisheye effect. Does that sound right? And I see your point about having the zoom on a wide lens if I’m not sure of the situation. Thanks again

Re: Nifty Fifty

ebiggs1 — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:54:10 GMT

Repeat Mr. Campbell's reply,

"You want the "STM" version of the lens -- the new one. (Really the f/1.4 USM version is ideal but if money is a factor then go for the STM lens.)"

"... with sharpness that I do not get with my 18-55 kit lens, ..."

You will get world's of difference in IQ, plus a super fast f1.4 aperture, with the f1.4 version compared to your kit lens.

".. not looking for a fisheye effect ..."

No lens mentioned yet gives a 'fisheye' effect.

Zoom lenses exhibit two kinds of distortion that some can see as fisheye. They are barrel and pincushion. Barrel distortion shows up at the wide and and pincushion at the tele end.

Re: Nifty Fifty

cas1963 — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:56:00 GMT

the previous post by Wadizzle mentioned a fish eye effect so I was just clarifying that I am not looking for that at this time

Re: Nifty Fifty

Waddizzle — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:17:38 GMT

You might be able to close to subjects using the 50mm. It would naturally depend upon the size of the subject, whether or not you are using an APS-C camera body, and exactly who close you're looking to get. Did you notice the link I posted to the lens comparison tool? Yes, a 50mm gives great shots on either a FF or an APS-C body, but ... ... compare the specs, too.

The EF 50mm on a Canon Rebel will give an equivalent 80mm focal length, which is almost ideal for portraits. With a field of view of about 46 degrees will not give you much "room" to take capture landscapes, although it could be ideal for using a tripod, turning your camera 90 degrees, and constructing a panorama out of 2-5 shots. It has a minimum focus distance of just over a foot, which is pretty decent.

The EF-S 24mm will give an equivalent focal length of 38.4mm, which is great for taking in the sights. It will give you an angle of 59 degrees, and a minimum focusing distance of about half a foot.

The EF-40mm has a misleading "diagonal angle of view" specification of 57 degrees, which is measured corner to corner, not side to side. It is nowhere near as wide as the 24mm. I have owned them both, and passed them on to my sons. The 40 also has a minimum focusing distance of just a hair under a foot.

How wide of lens do you want? Use your existing lens to do a crude comparison of field of view at different focal lengths. I have used the 17-55 kit lens with a set of closeup filters to capture some excellent pictures of garden flowers.

That shot was taken with a T5 and the 17-55mm kit lens with a 2x closeup filter attached to it. In other words, a poor man's way of testing the waters of macro photography. The closeup filter set was relatively inexpensive compared to a macro lens. Once you install them, you can no longer focus out to infinity, but who cares about that when you're shooting macro close-ups. Another thing with the filters is that they REDUCE the minimum focusing distance. I installed the 2x filter, and it cut my minimum distance by roughly one half. I took that shot with a tripod, and LOTS of sunlight.

I would have thought that your 17-55 f/2.8 should cover most walk around and shoot scenarios, though. I'd advise to explore a lower focal length, like the 10-22mm, which I think has far less barrel distortion than the 10-18mm. Use the lens comparison tool to compare them to another. Or, you go up to big telephoto zoom, like the Sigma 150-500, which has been discontinued and is on a deep discount until they run out of them.

Re: Nifty Fifty

ebiggs1 — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:09:05 GMT

"... a poor man's way of testing the waters of macro photography."

This is fine as long as you realize it isn't true macro photography. The filters you screw onto the front of a lens are simple diopters. No different than putting on a pair of eye glasses to help you see.

Re: Nifty Fifty

TCampbell — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 15:24:50 GMT

Since you have a camera body with an APS-C size sensor (I didn't see which camera model you have in the thread, but since you mentioned three different EF-S lenses that you use, you would have to own a camera with an APS-C size sensor to use those lenses) the 24mm lens isn't really very "wide".

A "normal" focal length for any camera is one for which the focal length of the lens matches the diagonal measurement of the imaging sensor (in millimeters).

For a camera with an APS-C size sensor, that's just fractionally over 27mm, but nobody makes a 27mm prime (any lens that does not "zoom" is a "prime") lens -- so a 28mm lens is as close to normal as it gets. But 24mm is only slightly wider than 24mm and you already own the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. There is the "L" series version of the 24mm f/1.4L II -- which is 2 full stops faster (4x more light is gathered) but the non-L version of the 24mm is no faster than the 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom that you already have.

If you want anything wider than your 17-55, then there are a few options... the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 (about $650) or the new EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM (about $300). The 10-22 is about 1 full stop faster through the zoom range (twice as much light gathering.) There's also the EF 11-24mm f/4L USM -- which works on full-frame bodies (should you ever decide to upgrade) and doesn't have a variable focal ratio (about $3k)

That 10-17mm ultra-wide range (since your 17mm is already "wide") will "stretch" the sense of depth or space (moderately distant objects will seem much farther away). Rooms will seem longer & larger. If you shoot down a long object (e.g. shooting down the side of a car from front to back) then that object will seem much longer than it really is.

You have to be careful with how level your lens is when you use these ultra-wide focal lengths. Objects that are actually vertically "plumb" will seem to lean either inward (if the lens is tilted slightly upward when you take the shot) or outward (if the lens is tilted slightly downward when you take the shot.) Vertical objects (think... lamp posts, doorways, etc.) will only remain "vertical" if the lens is perfectly level (nose-to-tail ... not side-to-side.)

I have an EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM ... I will sometimes shoot with it to stretch the sense of height (shooting deliberatley upward as if from a "worms-eye" view) or downward ("bird-eye" view) -- but if intending to shoot close to level then care must be taken to prevent having your vertical objects leaning. I use this lens rather sparingly.