Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 24, 2005, 6:49 PM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 15

Actually everyone is recommending this lens as it is excellent, fast and cheap.

However, since the rebel has a 1.6 factor, isn't it better to get a 28mm or 35mm lens ? I'm willing to pay a little more. 'cos from what I read the 50mm lens is designed as an approximate to human vision. So it is convenient to take a picture of what you see with your eye.

Are the canon 28mm/1.8USM or 28mm/2.8 or 35mm/2.0 outstanding lenses ? Is USM any use at these wide angles. Thanks for advice.
konei is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 24, 2005, 10:10 PM   #2
Super Moderator
Hards80's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046

i'd still go with the 50 1.8... its a great value.. and with the multiplier added it makes it a wonderful 80 mm portait lens and just good all around normal fixed lens...

save the money you would spend on a fixed 28 or 35 and buy a nice wide zoom such as canon's 17-40 F4.0 L..

enjoy, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2005, 2:21 AM   #3
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,598

I've recently got the 50mm f1.8 and it's a fantastic portrait lens and generally useful. But you're quite right I'm thinking that I could really use a "normal" focal length lens that's nice and fast.

Actually with a fixed prime as a street lens I prefer something a little wider than 50mm (/1.6) = 31mm.

Canon's 35mm is fast, quite reasonably priced but of a very old design and apparently has fairly slow AF and is quite noisy.

They also do a nice 28mm f1.8 but it's starting to get a bit pricey.

Sigma do a very nice range of 20mm f1.8, 24mm f1.8, 28mm f1.8 lenses for reasonable prices.


But I'm really waiting until the new Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC hits the shops. It's digital only but may be a very nice lens at a reasonable price - we shall have to wait and see.


If I had to make a selection from the currently available lenses I would go for the Sigma 24mm (*1.6 = 38mm) f1.8 EX DG.

peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2005, 3:46 AM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 157

I recently bought the Canon 50mm f1.8 and think it was well worth the money.

The 80mm equivalent the lens becomes on a DSLR is still a very usefull focal length. And the lens easily beats the Canon 28-135 IS lens I normally use in terms of sharpness. Also as an f1.8 it's easier to use it in indoor and low-light conditions without resorting to flash.

A lot complain about cheap build quality in the lens. Yes, it is made of plastic, but I have never thought of it as being a shoddy build. It feels sturdy enough to handle anything I would use it for and the AF isn't as slow as some reviewers would make you believe.

If you buy a half-decent Close-up filter set with the money you saved on this lens then you will find yourself with a competent stand-in Macro lens!
redundo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2005, 8:43 AM   #5
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 56

The 50mm/1.8 is only about $70 so it's hard to beat. I find the picture quality is the same as my 17-40L.
hkrautter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2005, 8:54 AM   #6
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 74

It's true that a 50mm lens approximates a normal field of view on full frame 35mm. But your brainselects the importantpart in that field of view andpays less attentionto the rest. WhenI shot film with a "normal" 50mm lens, I often found myself cropping the final photo just a bit to emphasize the subject. Iused a 90mm lens as my normal for a while and I really likedits tighter perspective. Try the 50mm 1.8. With an effective length of 80mm on your digital camera, you may find ita good walking around lensas well as anice short portrait lens.
ADSchiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2005, 7:30 AM   #7
dougsmit's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 90

The big point is that at the price, the only reason not to add a 50 f/1.8 is that you already have the f/1.4. It is too long to be an only lens but the ability to change lenses is a big reason to buy the camera. It is not the best lens in the Canon line; it is the best lens dollar for dollar if you only consider image quality at its best apertures. Many are better built, better quality wide open, faster, have more features but they range from twice to 100 times the price.

I'm waiting with interest to see how reviews and early owners like the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It sounds like what you say you want but we can't recommend it until it is shipping and we find out if it is a winner.

dougsmit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 27, 2005, 1:27 AM   #8
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 15

Thanks for all your advice. I'm not a hardcore photographer so I don't think I'll be changing lens much. I think for my case a fast zoom lens is not practical, I figured I'll get a cheaper walkabout lens and a fast standard lens for some indoor and portrait shots. If I buy more than 2 lens, they will not be used.

Guess I'll look out for the Sigma 30mm/f1.4. I can't grasp if f1.8 and f1.4 is going to make any practical difference at all.

I'm just lazy, if there is some lens that does from 18-85 with f2.8 costing less than $1000 and weighing like 500g, I'll probably never change lens.
konei is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:22 AM.