As this is my first DSLR, I am just now learning about lenses as well. I have heard many of you saying you love your 50mm lens. so I was looking at them and found some huge chasms. Forgive my lack of education on the subject, but can someone help me understand why there is such a huge price jump between these two lenses? I always heard 'macro' lenses were more expensive, but not so much in this case. I would expect the f/1.2 to be costly, but *that* much more? Seems the more I try to learn, the more confused I get! Thanks in advance for helping out a newbie.
The Canon 50mm 1.2 L is a luxury lens, meaning it has MUCH better glass than the other one. It also has a wider aperture, giving you more possibilities for good bokeh (blurring the background.)
If you're just starting out, go with the basic model. You can always upgrade later!
For some reason the links just take me back here, so I'll do my best to answer your question based off the info in the links -
50mm f/2.5 macro - well the key word here is 'macro'. Do you need a macro lens? Do you do a lot of 'close up' photography? If not, its not worth it. Can you get some cool shots with it? Sure, but its usually one those 'not' needed lens. More for fun.
50mm f/1.4 - well with an fstop of 1.2 means you have a fast lens with also a very 'open' lens. Aka you can let in a lot of light here. The 1.2 lens will be great with said photos above, creating depth of field. Its also really great for capturing movement, specially sporting events. You can set your aperture to 1.2 and have a fast shutter speed and still get great light.
If I were you, I would get the 50mm f/1.2. But I don't really know what you plan on doing it with it. Ask yourself what kind of photos you take and then buy a lens that will help you.
Thank you for your input Beth, and those are some beautiful shots Viranod.
Nice to know I'm not alone Wendy!
Thank you for such a thorough reply Andrew. Odd about the links, doing the same to me, works if you copy and paste though, strange. I would like to dabble in macro photography but like you said, more for fun/artistic creativity. I do shoot sports and find that my current lens (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6) has been adequate but a little dark (ice hockey indoors).
Well with her shooting with the Canon Rebel T2i (don't get me wrong it's a great camera and it's what I shoot with) I'm going to bet she doesn't want to get a lens that costs more than her camera. Being a novice I don't think there's anything wrong with getting the 50mm 1.8 for about $100 or the 50mm 1.4 for about $375. I just recently bought the 1.8 and I love it. It has a very good quality of blur, and lets a lot of light in. Here's some I shot with the 1.8
@natew214 Thanks Nathan, while I don't mind spending more for the lens than I paid for the camera (I've always heard the camera is just there to hold the lens and click, that the glass is where it's at), I also don't want to spend money just for the sake of spending it. I'd really like a good quality lens with an f-stop less than 2. Thanks for letting me know you love yours without having to break the bank!
@tkallen You're welcome. The only warning I'll give you is the 1.8 doesn't have as good of a build quality as the 1.4. The 1.8 only has plastic mounts while the 1.4's are metal. But I'd recommend going to a camera store and getting a feel yourself to see what's the best fit for you. Good luck.
f/1.8 is fine for beginners, don't stress too much about the difference in f-stops. I'd pick that up and play with it. If you learn to love it, you can always sell it. You'd get most of your money back as lenses hold their value well.
I also am a beginner and have bought the f/1.8 and am really loving it. The plastic build is lower quality than the 1.4 but in comparision to the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my camera I think that it is pretty good quality. :D
I shot this with my 50mm f/1.8 - although the aperture was set to f/3.5 for the shot
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
If you're just starting out, go with the basic model. You can always upgrade later!
and this, if you are a little further away from the subject
50mm f/2.5 macro - well the key word here is 'macro'. Do you need a macro lens? Do you do a lot of 'close up' photography? If not, its not worth it. Can you get some cool shots with it? Sure, but its usually one those 'not' needed lens. More for fun.
50mm f/1.4 - well with an fstop of 1.2 means you have a fast lens with also a very 'open' lens. Aka you can let in a lot of light here. The 1.2 lens will be great with said photos above, creating depth of field. Its also really great for capturing movement, specially sporting events. You can set your aperture to 1.2 and have a fast shutter speed and still get great light.
If I were you, I would get the 50mm f/1.2. But I don't really know what you plan on doing it with it. Ask yourself what kind of photos you take and then buy a lens that will help you.
Thank you for your input Beth, and those are some beautiful shots Viranod.
Nice to know I'm not alone Wendy!
Thank you for such a thorough reply Andrew. Odd about the links, doing the same to me, works if you copy and paste though, strange. I would like to dabble in macro photography but like you said, more for fun/artistic creativity. I do shoot sports and find that my current lens (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6) has been adequate but a little dark (ice hockey indoors).
Thanks again everyone!
Thank you gentlemen for your advice, it is much appreciated!
I shot this with my 50mm f/1.8 - although the aperture was set to f/3.5 for the shot