Is there any benefits to owning a 50mm lens when I already own a 24 to 105 mm?

[sotann]

I'm just perusing the storefront for lenses as I have just acquired a Canon R8. I'm looking at the Canon official lenses there's a 50 mm f 1.8 and a 24 to 105 mm f4 to 7.

Technically the 24 to 105 lens has 50 somewhere in its range, so is there any point in getting the 50 mm?

[kvbarkley]

You get the extra stop or so of light gathering, with today's ISO performance, that might not matter much, though you can get thin DOF's.

[wq9nsc]

If you are frequently shooting in dark locations and need a 50mm lens, the 50mm f1.8 will be beneficial.  According to the specs, the 24-105 f4-f7.1 stm is at f5.6 "best" aperture by 50mm which is a bit over 3 full stops worse than the 50mm f1.8.  But if you are primarily shooting in good lighting or using artificial light, then as kv states the other major advantage is the wider aperture of the 50mm fixed is the ability to reduce depth of field often allowing you to blur an undesired background.

I don't necessarily like low light photography but I find myself doing so frequently and have 50 and 85mm f1.2 primes to back up my narrower aperture "zoom" lenses.

Rodger

[Tronhard]

Yes, absolutely, a 24-105 includes the 50mm focal range. The difference is the f/stop.

Really it depends on two things:
What light you shoot in.  The f/1.8 will give you a couple of stops of performance improvement in low light - so you can use a lower ISO for less noise, or a higher shutter speed, or a combination of those.

How shallow a DoF you need.  The f/1.8 on the 50mm prime will allow you to gain the shallower depth of field that comes with a more open aperture - which might be beneficial for portraits, but the same effect can be achieved by using a longer focal length within the 24-105 range.
There are three things that impact DoF:
The closer the subject, the shallower the DoF
The longer the focal length, the shallower the DoF
The smaller the f/stop value the shallower the DoF.
So, if you change one (like the f/stop) you can compensate by using a different focal length. There are limits to that, of course.

[zakslm]

sotann,

If you have not used a fast(er) prime lens before, you may enjoy the experience of using a prime lens as well as enjoy the results.

In composition and framing, you “zoom with your feet”. For me it’s a different process and mindset when I use a prime lens and I enjoy that. I also find my consumer (non L) prime lenses are sharper at comparable apertures vs. my consumer zoom lenses and often try to exploit the shallower depth of field I get with larger aperture prime lenses.  In other words, I use my prime lens differently than I do zooms even though the focal lengths overlap. 

A 50mm f1.8 lens is a relatively inexpensive entry point into prime lenses. Although I have the EF version of that lens, I assume the R version is similar and just as good as the EF version.  You may want to give it a try to see for yourself. 

Good luck!

LZ

[Tronhard]

I agree!  There is a different mind space when using a prime lens and a whole different experience.  Nothing wrong with having both. 😊 👍

[kvbarkley]

Mike Johnston of the Online Photographer suggests a "One Lens, One Camera, One Year " exercise where you use the same camera and lens every day for a year. It is to get you to pre-visualize what the camera sees.

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/11/one-camera-one-lens-one-ye...

[ebiggs1]

"... the 24-105 f4-f7.1 stm is at f5.6 "best" aperture by 50mm which is a bit over 3 full stops worse than the 50mm f1.8"

That's assuming that the 50mm f1.8 is best at its widest aperture of f1.8 which it is not.

[ebiggs1]

"... the 24 to 105 lens has 50 somewhere in its range, so is there any point in getting the 50 mm?"

OK now here is the real story. In spite of all the arguments for or against the bottom line is, really do you have a specific need for what a 50mm f1.8 prime lens has to offer or do you just have the hots for a new lens (I know that feeling!)

Personally I would advise you to not buy the 50mm prime and spend your money on a FL you don't already have. Perhaps a UWA or a tele zoom lens. Zoom lenses are way more friendly than a prime.

[zakslm]

Ernie,

I agree with you.

I just re-read the question and title of the thread is, "Is there any benefits to owning a 50mm lens when I already own a 24 to 105 mm?"  I think the benefits were covered thoroughly by those who responded including you.  I tried to list what I see as the benefits (with a bias toward my experience) of owning a f1.8 50mm lens. 

Now sotann will have to do sort through what we've said and make a decison.  Your advice is good and a reasonable counterbalance summed up as "...ok that's all well and good, but do you really need an f1.8 50mm or would something else be better for you?"  Always a good question to ask one's self out loud if necessary!

I am guessing that some of us - particularly those of us who's first "real camera" came with a 50mm "standard" lens (like a breach lock FD 50mm 1.8 SC or FD 50mm f1.4 SSC) might have a nostalgic bias and maybe some muscle memory for that focal length.  I know I do.

All the best,

LZ