topic 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different? in EF & RF Lenses

50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

mhinshaw — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 04:23:38 GMT

Greetings,

I am about a year into my DLSR experience with the Rebel T3i w/ EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens kit. Definitely an improvement over my Canon PowerShot point and shoot, but I am looking to get a bit more serious with my photos. I have found this forum and the reviews at the-digital-picture.com's website very helpful.

Situation: I have a first child on the way in 3.5 weeks, so I am not looking to spend more than $400 or so for my next step up lens. In conjunction with the child will be a need for quicker shots, low-lighting capabilities and a lens that can do solid portraits. I'm leaning towards the 50mm f/1.4 USM, but I have some questions/comments that I would appreciate some input on.

The 50mm f/1.4 will likely hold up far longer than the 50mm f/1.8 counterpart that also seems so popular? It should have a much better bokeh as well from the reviews I've seen.
I've looked at the 50mm focal length in my 18-135mm (to keep the crop factor in mind) and it seems workable in most situations for full-body portraits, although indoors could pose some challenges. Maybe the 40mm pancake is better in this respect, but will sacrificing about two stops (f/2.8) make for some tougher indoor/kids/motion photos? The cheaper price is nice though.
While probably out of my budget, any thoughts on cheaper, non-Canon alternatives with bigger max aperture such as the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens or Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens? Both could satisfy my desire for larger aperture and provide more versatility than a prime lens.
I want a lens that won't require much flash work in low-lighting situations as I am really a newbie on flash photography for now.

I know a lot of people are so satisfied with the 50mm f/1.4 that they just leave it on their camera as their general purpose lens. Does this seem about my most reasonable next step up for my budget and my goals? Surprisingly, my wedding photographer used L series lens everywhere else but then used the 50mm f/1.4 USM for many of the closer portrait type shots. I figured he would have the 1.2 L series for those, but maybe he forgot it that day or something. Viewing those photos is a great way to see what I may be able to get, even though he was using a full-frame 5D mark II and likely photoshopped many of the photos.

Thanks in advance for the help and the support I've found throughout the forum.

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 14:00:46 GMT

Absolutely buy the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens? It is fantastic but it is way more than $400 bucks.

Nix the idea of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens. Although it would be a nice enough lens for most people but not for me. I believe they are also a little more than $400 bucks.

And a big no to the 40mm "Pancake" and EF 50mm f1.8. Don't go there.

Now the EF 50mm f1.4 is a very fine lens and is your choice with the conditions you have set.

Just because somebody is a "professional" photographer dose not automatically mean they have to be using "L" series lenses. You use whatever gets the job done. Red ring or not. A 50mm has been a main stay lens since the beginning.

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

TCampbell — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:48:36 GMT

I noticed you're thinking of the low focal length as a way to capture more light. But keep in mind it does more than capture more light... it also decreases the depth of field.

Each full stop of difference (the kit lens at 50mm is f/5.6) doubles the light collection -- that much is true. So a 50mm f/1.4 lens is four full stops faster ... working out to 16 times more light. That's the good news.

But you can't forget that it also creates a shallow depth of field.

Suppose you're framing up a close shot at about 5' away. At 5' with a 50mm f/5.6 your depth of field is .64 feet. That's somewhat shallow but it is enough to get a nicely focused face of a person.

Now suppose you switch to an f/1.4 focal ratio at the same distance in order to capture more light. At the same 5' focusing distance but using 50mm f/1.4 the depth of field drops and is .16' (just shy of 2"). That's not very much wiggle room for focus.

(I have an application on my phone that calculates this data, but you can use the online website DOFmaster.com to look up this same info. Enter the camera body type, lens focal length, focal ratio, and focus distance and it will tell you the depth of field (range at which subjects will appear to be in acceptable focus) as well as the near and far limits.)

You've really got to be careful when using very low focal ratios because of the extremely shallow depth of field. It's possible to get a nose in good focus and have the eyes out of focus. Most people prefer to stay away from the extreme lower limits of what the lens can do. Nearly all of my lenses offer at least f/2.8 or faster and yet I tend to do most shooting at f/4 or higher and dip down to f/2.8 only when I know it's appropriate.

The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a much much better lens than the f/1.8 non-USM lens. The major appeal of the f/1.8 is it's affordability -- and that's great, but you do sacrifice quite a bit for that affordability. The 50mm f/1.4 has significantly better build quality, faster and quieter focusing motors, more aperture blades for a better aperture shape, a better quality to the background blur... I sometimes have to manually focus a lens and I appreciate that it has distance index marks on the lens barrel (the f/1.8 does not)..

For versatility, the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is _very_ attractive. That's going to provide you with a wide-angle to normal zoom range but no telephoto zoom. To shoot portraits with such a lens you'd probably prefer to keep it at the 35mm end because wide-angle lenses tend to create perspective distortions which aren't very flattering to the face. A 50mm focal length works very nicely for portraiture on an APS-C crop frame body like your T3i.

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

mhinshaw — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:05:57 GMT

Thanks for your response. Looking through my wedding photos, I definitely understand what you're describing. With the 50mm f/1.4, they shot many photos at 1.4 or 1.6 to get very specific things in focus (on the bride usually of course). Even some of their 3/4 body portraits with the both of us were shot at 1.4 though, which makes it look more "artsy" I suppose with the very narrow DOF. I like the bokeh it created. Example of f/1.4 from the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (credit: Matt Frye, One Tree Photography):

From looking at other photos from the same lens, looks like if I shoot the 50mm f/1.4 at f/2 or f/2.8 or higher, I should have an ability to get the DOF I am looking for for portraits. The f/1.4 should come in handy when doing some very close detail baby photos.

The Sigmas I looked at are out of my price range for now, but I figured I should at least investigate some other options other than Canon . On down the road I may look to them for my next lens to upgrade my 18-135mm kit lens.

I think the 50mm f/1.4 is what I will run with for now. Thanks.

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

mhinshaw — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:08:14 GMT

Also - any recommendations on lens hoods and filters for the 50mm f/1.4 USM? I haven't even used a lens hood for my 18-135mm kit lens... shame on me?

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 16:20:21 GMT

The EF 50mm f1.4 is for you. You will learn to use the DOF to your advantage with time. It is not quite as dire as Mr. Campbell makes it sound. DOF is not a line and once it is crossed it is OOF. It graduates slightly with each setting.

DSLR's do not require any filter like film cameras did. But a protective filter is a good idea. I use them most of the time.

But remember it comes off just like it went on. So if need be, take it off if the situation warrants it.

I encourage prople to use their lens' hood 95% of the time. It makes a huge difference in some pictures and at least some differenc in many.

However the biggest investment you can make to improve your photos is a post processing program. The best for the amatuers is Photoshop Elements.

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

cale_kat — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 00:08:21 GMT

@mhindshaw, ebiggs1 mentions that the 50 has been a staple in photography for a long time but that was only true in the context of 35mm or FF photography. With an effective "capture area" of ~85mm, the fifty is an excellent portrait lens but gives on some of its versatility, IMHO. A 35mm would be closer to the 50 us film-shooters remember.

A 17-50 f/2.8 is a very versatile zoom range for the crop sensor group.

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

mhinshaw — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:32:29 GMT

cale_kat, I agree I would prefer the 35mm for my crop sensor, but I think those lenses are running a bit beyond my budget at the moment.

The 17-50 f/2.8 you reference, do you mean the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM?

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 15:33:26 GMT

Agreed the 35mm focal length is closer to "normal" on a crop body, does not deny the fact that even when there were no FF DSLR's the 50mm still reigns as king of lenses.

More lens makers past and present make at least one 50mm. Most make several variations.

No matter it is a inexpensive most versitle lens. Remember your feet are not fixed to the ground when you put a lens on your camera.

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

cale_kat — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:26:04 GMT

To the OP, I'm not going to aggressively promote 3rd party lenses on Canon's site. They are very kind hosts and it would not be polite to test their generousity.

I was given a Nikkormat with an 50mm f/2 lens for high school graduation. The 50mm was the normal lens and served me well. It came with "pedal" zoom. Ha ha.

But feet can't control composition beyond the obvious distinction that the forground subject will get larger or smaller. If you want to control for the background in your composition, scale it to a natural size while keeping the enlarged foreground subject, you're going to need some increase in focal length. Feet can't give you that. This is where the 17-50mm zoom holds an advantage.

It isn't always a question of zoom vs prime as they both have their strengths and weaknesses. Try one and then the other, composing a picture as you would for your next shooting assignment. It's a very personal thing that will help you define your style

Edited to add, the Canon 35mm f/2 IS USM looks like a steal of a lens at a street price of ~$550. (A note concerning my role in spending other people's money... IT'S FUN! But YMMV.)

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

ebiggs1 — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:51:59 GMT

"But feet can't control composition beyond the obvious distinction that the forground subject will get larger or smaller"

This is simply wrong. When the angle of acceptence is the same all other specs are also the same. You have a point if you can not back up far enough but not if you can.

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

cale_kat — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 01:18:02 GMT

I like this Matt Granger video for demonstrating my point. http://youtu.be/cj7mVjBym7A

Let's let the OP draw his own conclusions.

Re: 50mm f/1.4 USM, 40mm f/2.8 STM or something different?

amfoto1 — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:23:40 GMT

I would heartily recommend the EF 50/1.4 for your purposes. You seem to be aware, on your crop sensor camera it will act as a short telephoto prime (not a "standard" lens as it would on a full frame 5D camera).

The EF 50/1.8 II is also quite capable of making a very nice image, the background blur or bokeh isn't quite as nice, but you really have to look closely to tell the difference. It also doesn't seem to have as good light baffling or coatings, so has a bit lower contrast and less color saturation than the more expensive EF 50/1.4. But, again, you almost have to compare images from each of them side by side to see the differences. Optically, the 50/1.8 II is a real bargain. It's very low cost (Canon's cheapest lens), but it also is lightly built and doesn't have nearly as good auto focus performance as the USM of the EF 50/1.4. The 50/1.8's AF is be noisier, slower and less accurate. It particularly tends to slow down and hunt in low light situations.

Now, a 50/1.4 is a "short telephoto" on your camera. It's especially ideal for portraiture. A Canon EF 28/1.8 makes for a very nice "standard" lens on your crop camera. And an EF 85/1.8 makes for a top notch moderate telephoto/portrait lens that requires more working space, good for more candid shots, but it might be a bit long indoors, in tighter rooms. There is also the EF 100/2. All these are in your price range.

Personally I use the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. They are all within your budget. And it's nice that they all share 58mm filters.

This was shot with the EF 50/1.4 at f2.0 (I'm 3 or 4 feet from subject and the background is about 18" or 2 feet behind him)....

This was shot with the 85/1.8 at f2.0 (I was about 15 feet from subject, who was lit only with the modelling lamps in a large light box on the left, there's no background to consider, but notice how his ears, hands and the wine bottle are a bit out of focus. That's pretty shallow DOF, even from a distance.)...

I also am currently using the Tamron SP 60mm f2.0 Macro/Portrait lens. It takes the place of three lenses in my camera bag, when I don't want to carry a lot (I leave the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and my 100/2.8 macro at home). This lens is nice, but slower focusing than the Canon USM lenses. It's fine for most portraits and macro shots, just not usable for sports. The f2.0 aperture is large enough to render strong background blur in many cases. Oh, and this is a "crop only" lens, too (and uses 55mm filters).

There are some superb zooms you might consider... the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is a good example. A top notch zoom for your crop sensor camera. For portraiture with crop cameras, one of my favorite zooms is an EF 24-70/2.8L. However, to get f2.8 you will need to spend more (the 17-55 is more than double what you want to spend), you will get a smaller range of focal lengths, the lens itself will be larger and heavier, and it will "only" be f2.8. It would be more of a replacement your 18-135mm.

I have not used the Tamron or Sigma lenses you mention. I have and use or have had and have used some other Tamrons and most have been very fine lenses. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 "non-VC" is often touted as an excellent lens optically, at a budget price (the stabilized version is said to not be as sharp). The main complaint I hear about it is slower and more erratic auto focus. It's not got the "better" USD (similar to Canon's USM) that Tamron has started putting in their premium lenses.

I would be concerned about the focal length range of the Sigma 18-35/1.8 for portraiture. As some others have noted, with wider lenses you do get some perspective distortion (big noses, tiny ears) that can either be humorous or a problem for portraiture. Other types of photography, it might not matter much... But with portraits in particular you have to be very careful using a wide lens very close to your subject.

This is an example of perspective distortion (and this was a 24-70mm lens at 66mm, but on a full frame camera... so would be equivalent to using a 41mm lens on a 70D)...

Another form of wide angle distortion (I don't have a good example image to share)... It's anamorphic distortion, where a person's arm or leg near the edge of the image appears stretched and larger than the one that's farther away. It's the "Hellboy" or "elephant leg" look. Not very nice! It can be avoided by being careful to keep the subject well away from the edge of the frame, if using a wide lens for portraits.

So I would recommend you go with a nice prime lens instead of a zoom. A reasonably fast prime gives you up to two full stops larger aperture than any zoom, with good overall performance that complements your "walk-around" zoom (instead of replacing it), while remaining fairly affordable.

And if portraits of your newborn are your main concern, for use on your 70D I'd recommend something in the 50mm to 100mm focal length range. The EF 40mm f2.8 is a neat and ultra compact lens... nice price, too. But it will have the potential for perspective distortion like the above if used too close, and it's only f2.8. Heck, you have to be a little careful getting close with even a 50mm lens (on crop camera). I was sort of pushing the limit with the portrait at the top.

If you get the 50/1.4, definitely get the matching lens hood for it.... and use it!seems to protect it nicely. Many users think the 50/1.4's AF gets damaged when the lens gets a hard bump on the front barrel (that protrudes slightly when you focus closer)... or if the focus ring gets knocked about when the lens is stored. The hood helps in both situations. While some folks have had problems, my 50/1.4 was bought used more than 10 years ago and is still going strong. It doesn't get much special care, but is always used and stored with the hood (as are all my lenses).

A filter is up to you. I see you have a Hoya Pro 1 and that or their HD/HD2 are high qualiyt. Personally I don't see the point and don't leave a filter on any of my lenses all the time. I've been shooting for going on 40 years, have used hundreds of lenses and never damaged one in a way that might have been "saved" by a thin piece of glass up front. I do have "protection" filters, but I only install them when actually needed (out shooting in a sandstorm, for example). There are just way too many times I'm shooting in challenging lighting situations, where even the best filter can cause some issues with my images. So I leave them in my camera bag, until actually needed.

If you get the 50/1.4, you will find it's not at its sharpest wide open at f1.4. My copy of the lens is certainly usable at that aperture, but most of the time I set it to f2 minimum by default, which really sharpens it up nicely and still renders all the background blur I can possibly use in most situations. If needed, I'll open it up. This is fairly common... most lenses benefit from stopping down a little. Some feel the older Sigma 50/1.4 is sharper wide open. I didn't see enough difference to worry about, comparing the two side by side. The Sigma was more expensive at that time, and is a lot larger and heavier. So I stuck with my Canon lens. I have not compared with the new Sigma 50/1.4 "Art" now being offered... but that's a much more expensive lens.

Hope this helps with your decision.

***********
Alan Myers

San Jose, Calif., USA
"Walk softly and carry a big lens."
GEAR: 5DII, 7D(x2), 50D(x3), some other cameras, various lenses & accessories
FLICKR & PRINTROOM