Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Highlighted
Occasional Contributor
Posts: 17
Registered: ‎10-08-2015

Re: Nifty Fifty

[ Edited ]

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

Highlighted
VIP
Posts: 12,265
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Nifty Fifty

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.  

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!
Highlighted
Occasional Contributor
Posts: 17
Registered: ‎10-08-2015

Re: Nifty Fifty

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
Highlighted
VIP
Posts: 9,218
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Nifty Fifty

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.

 

Grandma's First Spring Rose

 

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.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Doctor told me to get out and walk, so I bought a Canon."
Highlighted
VIP
Posts: 12,265
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Nifty Fifty

"...  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.

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!
Highlighted
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 3,831
Registered: ‎06-11-2013

Re: Nifty Fifty

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.

 

 

Tim Campbell
5D III, 5D IV, 60Da
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement