Looking for low f-stop fixed lens

Carl Zeiss Planar T 50mm f/1.7

04/25/2011 12:57:25 AM · #1

Hi All,

My current 'main' lens (Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM) is fantastic but I'm struggling with quite a few portrait shots. More and more I find myself in a situation where I don't want to use the flash and so have to ramp up the ISO to compensate. What fixed zoom lens would people recommend with a < 2 f-stop rating for my Canon 30D?

Thanks.

tryals15

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

04/25/2011 01:09:25 AM · #2

Any 50mm Canon makes will do the trick. The 1.8 MkII is cheap and it is sharp. I've owned the 50/1.8 MkI and MkII, and the 50/1.4. All great lenses.

mgarsteck

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/25/2011 01:15:24 AM · #3

85mm 1.8 is an amazing lens

curtpetguy

Canon EOS-50D

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon

04/25/2011 01:38:35 AM · #4

For a crop sensor you can't beat the nifty fifty 50mm 1.8 $100

jbpk11

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/25/2011 02:06:34 AM · #5

I love my 50mm 1.8, the good ole nifty fifty. Looking at the 85mm 1.8 right now. Heard great things about it!

dswann

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED

04/25/2011 02:18:54 AM · #6

Originally posted by curtpetguy:

For a crop sensor you can't beat the nifty fifty 50mm 1.8 $100

Even though I shoot Nikon, I would second this recommendation. Hard to beat, especially for the money.

04/25/2011 02:19:09 AM · #7

Thanks guys. Gonna pop into my local Jessops this morning and trial the 50mm f/1.8 MkII. Seems like a no-brainer, though.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark III

04/25/2011 02:24:50 AM · #8

He's technically asking for a zoom here with a constant aperture... but I don't know of a single sub F2.8 zoom currently made. I remember seeing some bizarro Canon mentioned somewhere that was 2-2.5 I think... don't remember much else though.

50 1.8 is cheap but poorly made. The 85 is a bit long for some portraiture on a crop sensor, but a very nice lens. Be careful though, as you start using 1.4 and 1.8 lenses, the DoF drops a ton and your shots require dead on focusing or they're much more out of focus.

RamblinR

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/25/2011 03:01:35 AM · #9

What sort of portrait shots are you shooting - indoors, outdoors?
Always a good idea to learn off-camera flash (visit the flickr strobist site strobist

Lens suggestions
Canon 50mm f1.4 usm (I don't have this lens but I did have the f1.8 and it's focusing was too inconsistent)
Canon 85mm f1.8 usm (but probably a bit long on a crop camera)
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 (a good lens on a crop camera - f2.8 all they way through the zoom - good focal length for portraiture - mine is sharp at 2.8 but really sharp from f3.2 onwards)
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (VC or nonVC available - also f2.8 all the way through the zoom)
Canon 17-55 f2.8 (sharp from f2.8 all the way through)

04/25/2011 03:09:38 AM · #10

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

I may have been a bit ambiguous in my original post. To clarify: I'm NOT looking for a zoom lens, but rather a fixed lens. Sorry for the confusion.

04/25/2011 03:13:05 AM · #11

Originally posted by RamblinR:

What sort of portrait shots are you shooting - indoors, outdoors?
Always a good idea to learn off-camera flash (visit the flickr strobist site strobist

I'm looking for something that will just get more light into the camera - mainly indoors. Family meals at restaurants are a specific example. I don't want to get thrown out for using a flash every 30 seconds :).

04/25/2011 03:44:40 AM · #12

Originally posted by jinjer:

Originally posted by RamblinR:
What sort of portrait shots are you shooting - indoors, outdoors?
Always a good idea to learn off-camera flash (visit the flickr strobist site strobist

I'm looking for something that will just get more light into the camera - mainly indoors. Family meals at restaurants are a specific example. I don't want to get thrown out for using a flash every 30 seconds :).

The zooms will be more "user friendly," of course, but they're 1 1/3 or 2 stops slower than a prime. Zoom vs prime is a decision you'll need to make, of course. The Tamron 28-75 is very sharp and has beautiful results but I hate the AF (but then it's much cheaper than the Canon equivalent). I don't mean to sound condescending since you note you've been shooting for awhile, but since you've got all zooms make sure you're not going to get pissed at having a prime. Some really hate them, I think they're fun.
For your sort of needs, I think you'd be super happy with a 1.4. Personally, on a crop, I feel like the 50 is a stupid focal length (many will disagree with me). I much prefer my Sigma 30 1.4 over the 50's focal length. My 30 and 85 both get much more time than the 50.
The other Sigma 1.4 primes have gotten good reviews, as well, to the extent that the 85 1.4 is said to rival Nikon's venerable edition. They're a bit more affordable than Canon/Nikon, have fast AF (ultrasonic, as well) and seem pretty sharp. It's only web-sized, but this is 100% straight from camera.

04/25/2011 03:53:08 AM · #13

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by jinjer:

Originally posted by RamblinR:
What sort of portrait shots are you shooting - indoors, outdoors?
Always a good idea to learn off-camera flash (visit the flickr strobist site strobist

I'm looking for something that will just get more light into the camera - mainly indoors. Family meals at restaurants are a specific example. I don't want to get thrown out for using a flash every 30 seconds :).

The zooms will be more "user friendly," of course, but they're 1 1/3 or 2 stops slower than a prime. Zoom vs prime is a decision you'll need to make, of course. The Tamron 28-75 is very sharp and has beautiful results but I hate the AF (but then it's much cheaper than the Canon equivalent). I don't mean to sound condescending since you note you've been shooting for awhile, but since you've got all zooms make sure you're not going to get pissed at having a prime. Some really hate them, I think they're fun.
For your sort of needs, I think you'd be super happy with a 1.4. Personally, on a crop, I feel like the 50 is a stupid focal length (many will disagree with me). I much prefer my Sigma 30 1.4 over the 50's focal length. My 30 and 85 both get much more time than the 50.
The other Sigma 1.4 primes have gotten good reviews, as well, to the extent that the 85 1.4 is said to rival Nikon's venerable edition. They're a bit more affordable than Canon/Nikon, have fast AF (ultrasonic, as well) and seem pretty sharp. It's only web-sized, but this is 100% straight from camera.

Thanks, lots of info there.

TBH I'd be happy with a completely manual lens. I only use AF when I'm doing sports photography. I really like the hands-on approach of manually focusing the subject. Also happy to move around rather than zoom if that's what it takes. None of the other lenses you mentioned are anywhere near the price-point of the Canon 50 though, are they?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/25/2011 04:23:27 AM · #14

The Canon 50 1.8 can be had new for around $130, the 1.4 for $450 85 1.8 is $419. Sigma 30 1.4 is $490, 85 1.4 is $970.
Tamron 28-75 2.8 is $474 (after $25 rebate), 17-50 2.8 is $434 after same rebate.

As far as manual lenses, I'm not up on the compatibility of older Canon lenses with new bodies, so I can't help you out there, unfortunately. Used is another option, to cut some money a little.
KEH is a reputable used dealer that I and many others have used with success, and Adorama and B&H do used as well (also E-bay/Craigslist).

I wouldn't go so far as to say the 50 is a bad lens, by any means, but it's got it's problems that come with the low price. Google "I broke my Canon 50mm 1.8" for instance. Or check out

Simms rant over in the thread "fixable lens." The way I view things, it's not right to ignore issues of a product just because it's cheap. So, I'm just sorta being a dissenting view on the overwhelming love that the lens gets (for both Canon and Nikon). Think about the focal length, as well, and see if you like it. Shoot with your 18-55 only at 50 and see what you think.

Message edited by author 2011-04-25 04:29:52.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/25/2011 06:31:32 AM · #15

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Google "I broke my Canon 50mm 1.8" for instance. Or check out Simms rant over in the thread "fixable lens." The way I view things, it's not right to ignore issues of a product just because it's cheap. So, I'm just sorta being a dissenting view on the overwhelming love that the lens gets (for both Canon and Nikon).

At first I read the previous statement as "The way I view things, it's not right to ignore a product just because it's cheap." and was going to agree with you. The canon 50mm 1.8 is nicknamed the "plastic fantastic". If you drop it it will not go in for repair, it will be trash. The 50mm 1.4 is heavy, well constructed and metal, if you drop it hard enough to kill the 1.8 it will need to go in for repairs to Canon. Since the minimum repair charge is higher than the purchase price of the 50mm 1.8, very few 1.8's get repaired.

If you have decided to buy a Bentley, you are unlikely to have a lot of kind things to say about Toyotas.

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Think about the focal length, as well, and see if you like it. Shoot with your 18-55 only at 50 and see what you think.

Concur, look at what you shoot at now and buy the best prime you can afford in the range you shoot at the most. If you see that your favorite shots are all taken near 30mm, you might not like being forced to shoot at 50mm no matter how cheap the lens is, everyone has an ideal shooting range.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/25/2011 06:54:48 AM · #16

Yeah, I mean... I don't want it to sound like it's worthless or terrible or something, but the way that lens is lauded you'd think it sprayed rainbows and money at you. All I'm saying is that along with the things people always say are good, there's a lot that's glossed over with the excuse being "it's cheap, what do you expect?" or "that's acceptable considering the price." Well, as somebody buying the thing, it's worth knowing such things. I don't see the same umbrage when the AF of a Tamron or the sharpness of a Sigma is questioned, which is really the same thing (yeah, they're cheaper... go figure they aren't exactly the same). You don't need to look far to find the Pros of the 50 1.8 lauded, but people kinda gloss over the negatives. Even representation is all I'm saying. Yeah, it does have a lot of bang for buck, but so do a lot of other options.

Personally, I would rather have put the money I spent on my 50 towards the 30. Admittedly, it was my fault and my purchase, but the fact that everybody says you'll love it you'll love it buy it cause it's so damn cheap who cares blah blah blah. You often hear the mantra "every photographer should have one."

For somebody on a budget, it's more critical to find what really fits the need, not what is the lowest bottom line. Over time, you often end up spending more if that's the main justification (especially in tripods, for instance).

Message edited by author 2011-04-25 06:55:10.

bjoern

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/25/2011 08:06:38 AM · #17

I own a 50mm/1.8 and I would not buy it again. It's really wobbly now, meaning that you can move the front part of the lens up and down about 1 mm, and lots of pictures I took with it had the focus not nearly where I intended it to be. That lens is certainly a case of you get what you pay for. Even if other alternatives (like the 1.4) may cost more money you will most likely get much more value for it.

Message edited by author 2011-04-25 08:08:02.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/25/2011 08:16:00 AM · #18

Went into Jessops with my 2yo this morning for a test of the 50mm 1.8. Yep, it feels plasticy. Yep, it feels cheap. Yep, you gotta search to find the manual focus! But, the test shots were pretty damned good. Bought it and plan to give it a good thrashing this afternoon.

Thanks for all the advice, guys. I feel as though I've made a purchase with eyes wide open.

bjoern

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/25/2011 08:55:32 AM · #19

I agree, when it hits the focus right the image quality is quite good, just be prepared to have a few misses.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

04/25/2011 12:56:32 PM · #20

It's not just the shoddy construction and iffy AF that got the Canon 50mm f1.8 booted from my camera bag in favor of the f1.4 version, it's also the quality of the bokeh...or lack of quality. With the f1.4, the bokeh is creamy and smooth while the bokeh on the 1.8 is chunky and unpleasant. The f1.8 is a good lens if you you're on a tight budget, and need a fast lens, but I much prefer the f1.4 version. As always, YMMV.

fotomann_forever

04/25/2011 02:19:25 PM · #21

Originally posted by jinjer:

I may have been a bit ambiguous in my original post. To clarify: I'm NOT looking for a zoom lens, but rather a fixed lens. Sorry for the confusion.

For portrait work a prime lens you can't go wrong with is the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM.

04/25/2011 05:06:23 PM · #22

Had great fun playing with this lens this afternoon. Submitted an entry to the Open Challenge "Queen Song/Lyrics". Please go vote :).