# Is there a need for a 50mm?



## Jack56 (Sep 7, 2014)

After a lot of research and hesitations, I think I've got the lenses that I want, for now 
I own the 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8 II, 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 100mm f/2.8 L.
And yes, there it is. The 50mm plastic fantastic. Still there. Would you sell this one or would you keep it or change it for the 50mm f/1.4?


----------



## wickidwombat (Sep 7, 2014)

why sell it do you need the cash that badly? you'd get what 50 maybe 60 bucks for it...


----------



## Jack56 (Sep 7, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> why sell it do you need the cash that badly? you'd get what 50 maybe 60 bucks for it...


No, of course not. But, why keep stuff when you don't use it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2014)

Well, aside from that one lens, everything else you have is f/2.8 or slower. I find fast primes to be very useful on some occasions...


----------



## AvTvM (Sep 7, 2014)

If you don't use it and don't need it as light, compact and fast "emergency backup" ... Then sell it. 

I would not buy the current canon 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 L instead. Neither are really worth the money. Maybe canon will come up with a really good and priceworthy 50/1.8 IS sometome soon. In line with 24, 28 / 2.8 is and 35/2 IS.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 7, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> After a lot of research and hesitations, I think I've got the lenses that I want, for now
> I own the 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8 II, 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 100mm f/2.8 L.
> And yes, there it is. The 50mm plastic fantastic. Still there. Would you sell this one or would you keep it or change it for the 50mm f/1.4?



I'd keep it. You've got the 24-70 which also covers 50, but if you already spent the money, why take the hit? It's a great lens, especially for the money.

If you want the f/1.4, you can always get that too, but how much money do you realistically expect to get selling a lens that sells new for slightly over $100? Unless, I'm mistaken as to the lens you're referring to.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 7, 2014)

If you look in my signature, I have the same lenses as you do and trust me, even f/1.4 is sometimes barely enough. Keep the fifty, it's a lightweight little wonder lens


----------



## Jack56 (Sep 7, 2014)

Thanks all, I'll keep it.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 7, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > why sell it do you need the cash that badly? you'd get what 50 maybe 60 bucks for it...
> ...


Sounds like you've answered your question here. If you don't see any value in keeping it, the letting it go is the best option for you. I agree with the others here and recommend keeping it for those times when f/2.8 isn't fast enough - the money is already sunk.


----------



## Zv (Sep 7, 2014)

I sold my 50 1.8 II for about $60. Not for the money but just to reduce the amount of unused gear I had. There were definite situations that I could have still used it (prob shoulda kept mine tbh). I ended up replacing it recent(ish)ly with the old Sigma 1.4 which I got used. I actually quite like the Sigma, it's useable wide open and great at f/2. I found the plastic fantastic not so fantastic wide open and it really needed to be stopped down at least to f/2.2 (which makes it kinda pointless when you have an excellent f/2.8 zoom). My zooms are all f/4 which would have made more sense to keep it. 

Weird. I miss that lens but I also don't ...


----------



## ULFULFSEN (Sep 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, aside from that one lens, everything else you have is f/2.8 or slower. I find fast primes to be very useful on some occasions...



Fast zooms are not usefull on occasion....? ???


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2014)

ULFULFSEN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Well, aside from that one lens, everything else you have is f/2.8 or slower. I find fast primes to be very useful on some occasions...
> ...



Of course they are, and the OP already has two of the best fast zoom lenses available (24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II). 

Well, I think f/2.8 is a fast zoom lens. Perhaps you can recommend some zoom lenses faster than f/2.8 which are fully compatible with the OP's 5DIII body?


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ULFULFSEN said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'd just be interested in knowing of a fast zoom that's faster than f/2.8 regardless of the make/compatibility. I've never seen one to my knowledge.


----------



## Philshoz (Sep 7, 2014)

For my one euro's worth, I love my 50mm f1.4. Used it a lot at night walking round the Spanish bars recently...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 7, 2014)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I'd just be interested in knowing of a fast zoom that's faster than f/2.8 regardless of the make/compatibility. I've never seen one to my knowledge.



Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8...generally considered an excellent lens. It's for APS-C only, though.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 7, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > why sell it do you need the cash that badly? you'd get what 50 maybe 60 bucks for it...
> ...


You just answered to your own question


----------



## timmy_650 (Sep 7, 2014)

I would sell it. I have one and every time use it, I don't care for it. And you have a lot better lens than me. I would recommend the 40mm 2.8 to replace it. Yes the 40mm isn't faster than the other lens you have but it is a lot smaller. I love walking around with my 70-200 with the 40 in my pocket.


----------



## Phenix205 (Sep 7, 2014)

I have a similar set of lenses. I had a 50 1.4 for about 10 years and sold it because I always took it with me but seldom really used it much. When Sigma released the 50 1.4 Art, I was sure I would get one immediately. But I am still wondering if it would be just another piece of glass sitting in my closet, especially considering it's weight.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Sep 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> If you don't use it and don't need it as light, compact and fast "emergency backup" ... Then sell it.
> 
> I would not buy the current canon 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 L instead. Neither are really worth the money. Maybe canon will come up with a really good and priceworthy 50/1.8 IS sometome soon. In line with 24, 28 / 2.8 is and 35/2 IS.



As long as this is the case, the old 50mm f/1.8 Mk I is still the best of the Canon 50's as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## epsiloneri (Sep 7, 2014)

timmy_650 said:


> I love walking around with my 70-200 with the 40 in my pocket.


You really need big pockets to put in the 70-200 should you want to switch to the 40, though.


----------



## ecka (Sep 7, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I'd just be interested in knowing of a fast zoom that's faster than f/2.8 regardless of the make/compatibility. I've never seen one to my knowledge.
> ...



Yeap, no need for fast primes on crop since 18-35/1.8 arrived, unless you have some kind of pocketability fetish .


----------



## ecka (Sep 7, 2014)

epsiloneri said:


> timmy_650 said:
> 
> 
> > I love walking around with my 70-200 with the 40 in my pocket.
> ...



That's doable, actually. All you need is a strap for your 70-200, instead of the body.


----------



## e17paul (Sep 8, 2014)

If you feel the need for a big aperture 50, then keep it. Do you ever find yourself swapping it in place of the 24-70? If not, then you don't need it.

I prefer to zoom with my feet, using mainly 24 and 50 primes, but I recognize that sometimes you can't, and sometimes there is not time for changing lenses.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 8, 2014)

Keep the plastic fantastic. It's cheap, light, and is always there if your 24-70 fails. 1.8 is very useful at times.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 8, 2014)

I personally like to have a good big aperture lens mixed in with my very good f2.8 and f4 lenses. The 50mm isn't that sharp until you get to f2.8... so I say get rid of it and consider a good f1.4 lens, but not the Canon 50 which ids also soft until you get to f2.8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 8, 2014)

ecka said:


> epsiloneri said:
> 
> 
> > timmy_650 said:
> ...



Exactly. At events where I know I'll primarily use the 70-200/2.8 II, I sometimes need wider than 70mm. I put the 40/2.8 pancake in my pocket, rather than wearing a belt with the 24-70/2.8. Since I carry the camera on a BR strap attached to the 70-200's tripod collar, I just leave the lens hanging from the strap when I switch to the 40/2.8.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 8, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> so I say get rid of it and consider a good f1.4 lens, but not the Canon 50 which ids also soft until you get to f2.8.



The EF 50/1.4 may not be good on test charts wide open but it can do surprisingly well in practice. This was shot at f1.6, and it's good enough for me, unless you want sharp borders at 1.6, which is a rare requirement. 

I really like the 40 STM as a 'walkabout' or landscape lens, but it can't hold a candle to the 50/1.4 for 'event' type work.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 8, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > so I say get rid of it and consider a good f1.4 lens, but not the Canon 50 which ids also soft until you get to f2.8.
> ...


That's a lot sharper than my 50 f/1.4 ever was. I didn't find it to be of much use until f/2.

To Jack56 - it doesn't hurt to keep it. You've got a great set of lenses that cover just about any situation, but sometimes only a fast prime will do. Since you don't seem to need one much, the nifty 50 is probably a perfect lens to keep in the bag.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 8, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> No, of course not. But, why keep stuff when you don't use it?



Because if you don't have it, you will never use it.  It works both ways. 

A 50 does not take up that much room. You don't have to carry it in your bag, but it can sit on a shelf quite happy. 

Who knows, one of these days you might want to shoot with the 50. You have already paid for it, the resale value is pretty crummy. Why not keep it?


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 8, 2014)

I was always extra careful not to drop the 50 f1.4 because of the auto focus issues that can result... I hated it about as much as I loved my 50 f1.8.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 8, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > No, of course not. But, why keep stuff when you don't use it?
> ...


I think you just summed up my photographic life. Whatever it is that I don't bring, I need. If I had all of the shots I've missed because I left my flash, ND filters, polarizer, tripod, (wide angle, telephoto, etc.) lens at home, I might actually have a half-decent portfolio  I can only blame myself for the other half of the shots I've missed - wrong f-stop, wrong lens on camera, timer, single shot instead of burst, one-shot instead of AI Servo, and the list goes on...


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Jack56 said:
> ...



I get so mad at myself when I do those stupid errors. My nemesis right now is shooting with an on camera speedlite on Av and the camera reads the scene as an 8 second exposure. I change it to Manual, but that first shot... the one that got away.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Sep 8, 2014)

Jack56 said:


> After a lot of research and hesitations, I think I've got the lenses that I want, for now
> I own the 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8 II, 70-200 f/2.8 II and the 100mm f/2.8 L.
> And yes, there it is. The 50mm plastic fantastic. Still there. Would you sell this one or would you keep it or change it for the 50mm f/1.4?



Hi, I have almost the same zoom lenses and I owned all three 50mm lenses (1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L) and sold them all because I rarely used them and never felt confortable with this focal range. Because I needed something for low-light I bought the 35mm f2IS and no regrets at all, this is my most used prime, for street photo and landscape portrait.
If Canon brings a new 50mm with IS, I will probably give a try.


----------



## LOALTD (Sep 8, 2014)

I love my Canon 50/1.4, but, as others have noted...the AF motor is fragile and breaks all the freaking time. And, it's pretty poor at f/1.4...but sometimes you just need the light gathering ability of f/1.4, so you deal with it.

I have sent it into Canon to have the AF fixed 3 times now, no exaggeration. I could almost buy another one with the repair costs. And I've never dropped it either!

I'm seriously considering the new Sigma 50/1.4 but I'm waiting to see how Canon updates its 50mm line. I'm much more into hand-held video now, and I'd really love IS on a 50mm since I really love the focal length.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 8, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > AcutancePhotography said:
> ...


JD, there is a fix for that one, at least if you don't use HSS flash a lot. Go into the "Flash Sync in AV Mode" setting and change it from Auto (which allows it to go to 30s!) to 1/60s-1/200s. This makes sure that your flash exposures are never below 1/60s. You can switch to P mode as well if you don't have time to fool with the menu.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



When I shoot with flash, I prefer being in manual, but I think that just might be worth doing.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



The main caveat is when moving indoors/outdoors frequently on this settings. I botched quite a few photos, when I ran out of dimly lit room outside and forgot about that settings - 1/200s is far from fast in midday sun


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I'd just be interested in knowing of a fast zoom that's faster than f/2.8 regardless of the make/compatibility. I've never seen one to my knowledge.
> ...



Wow. I'd love to see a trend towards zooms that fast for full frame and in more focal ranges. Thanks. With IS, of course.  ;D

I know I ask too much for today, but maybe in 20 years.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 9, 2014)

Khalai said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Yes, that is the caveat of using that mode. If you need to go go over 1/200s (using HSS), this is no good. If you have a 5DIII or 1D X (or 6D?), the other option is to use Auto ISO and set your minimum shutter speed to 1/60 or (better yet) 1/100s. That way you don't have to deal with the 1/200s ceiling.


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Yes, that is the caveat of using that mode. If you need to go go over 1/200s (using HSS), this is no good. If you have a 5DIII or 1D X (or 6D?), the other option is to use Auto ISO and set your minimum shutter speed to 1/60 or (better yet) 1/100s. That way you don't have to deal with the 1/200s ceiling.



This is fun. Just guys talking about gear. All we need is some beer, some comfortable chairs... And hell, a few strippers on the main stage.


----------



## Khalai (Sep 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Yes, that is the caveat of using that mode. If you need to go go over 1/200s (using HSS), this is no good. If you have a 5DIII or 1D X (or 6D?), the other option is to use Auto ISO and set your minimum shutter speed to 1/60 or (better yet) 1/100s. That way you don't have to deal with the 1/200s ceiling.



I can't use Auto ISO on my 6D with flash attached. All it does is turn ISO to 400. Even read the manual bit about that, it's inherent to the body. Do 1DX or 5D3 have better Auto ISO with flash? W/o flash, Auto ISO works like a charm, I use it 90% time, but flash = fixed 400 and that's it sadly


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 9, 2014)

Khalai said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that is the caveat of using that mode. If you need to go go over 1/200s (using HSS), this is no good. If you have a 5DIII or 1D X (or 6D?), the other option is to use Auto ISO and set your minimum shutter speed to 1/60 or (better yet) 1/100s. That way you don't have to deal with the 1/200s ceiling.
> ...


I forgot about that whole ISO 400 thing...I think all Canon bodies do that. Just taking a look at the manual, it looks like it's a tad bit more flexible, though - look at notes 1, 2, & 3 (below). I wonder how the minimum shutter speed setting affects that. I'll have to play with it when I get home.

EDIT: Two pages past that it says (of the minimum shutter speed in Auto ISO), "This function does not work with flash shooting."


----------



## Ripley (Sep 11, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...



+1

I can hardly believe that's a 50 f1.4 @ 1.6... must be a great copy or something.


----------

