Is there a dSLR equivalent of the great value canon 50mm f/1.8?

PoleStar

Hi everyone!

Ive kinda touched on this question before but having researched the question a bit more, I think I have decided that the best lens for me for portraits and candid shots of family etc would be a "normal" lens which is the 50mm on a full frame dSLR or film SLR.

The canon 50mm at the great price of 100 euro would suit however on my 1.6 cropped Canon eos400d I think I need something in the 28 to 25 mm range of prime lenses to give a "normal" equivalent.

Am I right on this one? or would the 50mm be fine for my needs. If not, what would people here recommend for me in terms of prime lenses around the 30mm range, bear in mind I want max aperture for indoor shooting! (plus not somthing which is gonna cost an arm and possibly 2 of my legs)

Thanks guys and gals!

rymus

to get something close to a 50mm on a 1.6x crop camera, you'll need to be looking at something like the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It is about three times the price of the canon 50mm though.

I'd get the 50mm anyway.. For the price, you can't really go wrong. I've got the 30mm Sigma and love it so if youre looking for something a little wider, you couldnt go wrong with that one either!

Hugh_C

PoleStar wrote:

Hi everyone!

I have the Nikon version of this lens (50mm f/1.8) and it is great for portraiture - with the crop factor it equates to about a 75mm which is about in the middle of the suggested range for portraits (~50 to 135mm in full frame).

You mention the 28 to 25 range which to my mind might be a little too wide - don't forget that the crop factor will change the field of view of the lens, but its characteristics (and thus distortion) will remain the same. So you might end getting bug-eyed portraits which no one will thank you for.

The Nikon 50mm is cheap and great fun to play with, pretty good for head-and-torso shots but maybe not wide enough for candid full body shots in confined areas.

The only question is you want to pay for the f/1.4 which is probably a lot more expensive, and to be honest the DOF is so shallow that aesthetically everything apperars out of focus when it's wide open.

Here's a search on flickr for the canon 50mm f/1.8.

Just go out and buy one!

You won't regret it.

Hugh

Valentia

I agree with Hugh. Unless you are into alternative portraits a wide angle is not what you need. A 50mm on a 1.6 crop is a good choice. The 50mm 1.8 would be an excellent choice indeed for what you mentioned.

thebaz

my head is a bit rustier than normal today

what do you mean by a 1.6 crop factor ?? .. i have been experimenty with my nikon 50

magicbastarder

hughchal wrote:

So you might end getting bug-eyed portraits which no one will thank you for.

surely this is a result of perspective, not of the lens?

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote:

surely this is a result of perspective, not of the lens?

And lens has nothing to do with perspective?? Wide angle lenses will distort perspective and, therefore, faces. If that's what a person wants fair enough. A telephoto will too, of course, but in what is generally considered a more flattering way for portraits.

Paulw

thebaz wrote:

what do you mean by a 1.6 crop factor ?? .. i have been experimenty with my nikon 50

Most of the prosumer DSLRs have a 1.6x crop factor.

Canon 20D/30D/40D/300D/350D/400D etc are all 1.6x
Canon 1D MkIII is a 1.3x
Canon 1Ds MKIII is full frame, as is Canon 5D.

I'm sure it's quite similar in the Nikon world, with most being 1.6x

Of course, the Olympus are a 2x factor.

These are compared to full frame 35mm cameras.

magicbastarder

Valentia wrote:

And lens has nothing to do with perspective??

as i understand it, perspective is purely a function of where you are standing in relation to the subject - lenses do not distort perspective, they distort the image because they're trying to fit a much wider field of view into frame.

the choice of lens affects perspective in that you may choose a different position from which to take the photo, but that's an indirect effect.

what distorts faces is your proximity to them when you're taking the photo, not the lens.

if i'm wrong on any of the above, i'm happy to be corrected.

Valentia

magicbastarder wrote:

as i understand it, perspective is purely a function of where you are standing in relation to the subject - lenses do not distort perspective, they distort the image because they're trying to fit a much wider field of view into frame.

the choice of lens affects perspective in that you may choose a different position from which to take the photo, but that's an indirect affect.

what distorts faces is your proximity to them when you're taking the photo, not the lens.

if i'm wrong on any of the above, i'm happy to be corrected.

Corrected then http://www.danheller.com/tech-persp.html

thebaz

Paulw wrote:

Most of the prosumer DSLRs have a 1.6x crop factor.

Canon 20D/30D/40D/300D/350D/400D etc are all 1.6x
Canon 1D MkIII is a 1.3x
Canon 1Ds MKIII is full frame, as is Canon 5D.

I'm sure it's quite similar in the Nikon world, with most being 1.6x

Of course, the Olympus are a 2x factor.

These are compared to full frame 35mm cameras.

thanks Paul -- so thats why a 50 mm on a dlslr is kind of equiv to an old school 35 mm i assume ?

yeah i think wiki answers my question too :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

DonkeyStyle \o/

It may be a stupid question, but can I judge the FOV a 50mm prime will give me by setting my 400D kit lens to 50mm?
I'm under the impression that canon makes lenses especially for cropped cameras... do their markings take this crop factor into account?

Hugh_C

magicbastarder wrote:

what distorts faces is your proximity to them when you're taking the photo, not the lens.

if i'm wrong on any of the above, i'm happy to be corrected.

Fisheye protraits anyone? Looks like a 10mm according to the exif:




by kaneda99 on flickr

Valentia

thebaz wrote:

thanks Paul -- so thats why a 50 mm on a dlslr is kind of equiv to an old school 35 mm i assume ?

The other way around Barry. 50mm on a 1.6 crop dslr is equivelantish to a 75mm on 35mm film camera or full frame digital.

Wez

Donkeystyle, that's where the crop factor of 1.6 is used.

50x1.6=80mm

Therefore the 50mm lense will be equiv. to an 80mm on a fullframe camera. It's a 50mm lens, but on the 400D it's equal to an 80, on a full frame it's equal to 50.

Basically, it changes depending on the camera you're using, so it can't have the final focal length equivalent written on the actual lens, it's to be worked out.

thebaz

Valentia wrote:

The other way around Barry. 50mm on a 1.6 crop dslr is equivelantish to a 75mm on 35mm film camera or full frame digital.

thanks Danny -- today isn't the day for me playing with numbers

Hugh_C

lotto anyone?

rahtkennades

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

It may be a stupid question, but can I judge the FOV a 50mm prime will give me by setting my 400D kit lens to 50mm?
I'm under the impression that canon makes lenses especially for cropped cameras... do their markings take this crop factor into account?

That's a good question to my mind. Using my 350D kit lens (EF-S 18-55mm), I'm set it to "50mm" and tested it by 'blinking' alternate eyes. At "35mm" it appears to be too wide angled (as in, objects appear small/far away), and at "50mm" it appears 'normal'.

I've looked on the Canon site at the lens description, and it gives no more info.

mathias

I'm under the impression that canon makes lenses especially for cropped cameras... do their markings take this crop factor into account?

No thats not the case , all lenses are marked up in terms of their actual focal length , you have to multiply by the crop factor to get the 35mm equivalent. So a standard 18 -55mm lens is roughly the same as the 28mm -90mm standard lens you get with a film camera.

I have a 300x canon film camera , If I open that up to its widest with the kit lens and put it beside the 20 D at its widest with the kit lens I get exactly the same composition / field of view.

Which confirms that 18 mm x 1.6 is approx the same as the 28mm on the film camera.

If you could put the 18 -55 on a film camera then the figures would tally , ie you would have a rather wide angle lens , almost the equivalent of the super wide 10 -22 for the digital. ( on the wide end only of course )

DonkeyStyle \o/

Aha, ok this clears up a lot for me, thanks all

PoleStar

Thanks for the help guys.

I guess what I will do is buy the 500mm canon lens which Im told is a steal at 100 euro! If this dont suit my needs I can always change, but I guess for the price I cant go wrong!

Roen

PoleStar wrote:

Thanks for the help guys.

I guess what I will do is buy the 500mm canon lens which Im told is a steal at 100 euro! If this dont suit my needs I can always change, but I guess for the price I cant go wrong!

If you pick up a 500mm at that price I want to know where!

Phaictan

Canon do a 35mm f/2 lens for about €340 - this would give a 56mm focal length in film equiv. Has anyone tried one of these lens?

I was thinking of the getting the 50mm f/1.8 myself. It is dirt cheap for the money but is it really as sharp as all the reviews say?

JMcL

rahtkennades wrote:

At "35mm" it appears to be too wide angled (as in, objects appear small/far away), and at "50mm" it appears 'normal'.

A "normal" lens is considered to be one where the focal length of a lens is roughly the same as the diagonal measurement of the media, and gives a field of view roughly equivalent to the human eye (Wikipedia here). It actually works out to about 43mm on 135/full frame, but for some reason, 50mm lenses are a lot more common than 45mm ones (I wonder why this is?), so these are generally considered normal on a 35mm camera. By this measure, something around 31mm equates to a normal lens on an APS-C DSLR, and going in the other direction, normal lenses for medium/large format are much longer, which is one of many reasons you don't tend to see birders out with 5x4 view cameras

Phaictan wrote:

I was thinking of the getting the 50mm f/1.8 myself. It is dirt cheap for the money but is it really as sharp as all the reviews say?

Yep, great little lens. It's only downsides are flimsy construction, so don't drop it too hard, and AF is on the slow side

thebaz

i actually recently sold my 18 - 70 lens , with the plan to buy a 18 - 200 IS Nikon lens , so the only lens i currently posess and use is the "nifty fifty" , i'm going to see how long i can get buy with this alone, as i only do urban / street stuff and a wee bit of portraiture stuff , i might save myself 7 big ones !

thebaz

wow this is prooving pretty challenging , restricing myself to only 50 mm , i think its good training , after a year with a 18 - 70 mm, but it forces me to be more creative , paticularly regarding different angles , as i miss the wide angle more than the zoom . I think Cartier only used single size lens , so if it was good eneogh for him ...

Calina

I shot 50mm only for a long time on an Olympus OM10. I don't know if I could go back to it because the type of photographs I take has changed quite a lot.