Is the 50mm lens phasing out?

[Xeperu]

Depends per lens and per camera.

I'm getting pretty serious about photography, I think I found a passion .

I will get all my lenses calibrated to my camera when the 5DmkIII comes out next year. I don't like the ****** AF on the 5DmkII, I tried a 7D and it's much better on that.

Basically what it means is that Canon will match the lenses to the camera to have no focus offset. I think it's only 120 usd per lens anyway.

ANd about L's. I can afford it, so why not. On my beginner kit I had the 18-55 prime, a 55-200 Tamron and the nifty fifty.

The kit lens has so much CA that it was sickening.
The Tamron made everything fuzzy
The nifty fifty was awesome, but the bokeh is not so nice.

I pretty much uptraded the 18-55 for a 17-40L, the Tamron for the top of the line 70-200 and the 1.8 for the 1.2. The picture quality improved by about a million. Even on a ****** crop body. On the 5DmkII at 21 mpixel raw you will see every lens distortion there is. No point in having a 2 grand camera with a 100 euro lens.

 

[carlgo]

I think the thread should have been about the equivalent of the 50mm, seeing that DX, 4/3, etc are so popular, far more prevalent today than 35mm or FX.

As an only lens it makes darn good sense. Having a wide and a telephoto in prime or zoom form(s) makes darn good sense as well and then you don't miss the "50".

 

[b_scott]

i've seen sigma/canon 50mm 1.4 comparisons, and the canon looked better to me so I got it. It's probably very very close.

----------

I pretty much uptraded the 18-55 for a 17-40L, the Tamron for the top of the line 70-200 and the 1.8 for the 1.2. The picture quality improved by about a million. Even on a ****** crop body. On the 5DmkII at 21 mpixel raw you will see every lens distortion there is. No point in having a 2 grand camera with a 100 euro lens.

my setup is similar to yours. Currently:

Canon EOS 5D Mark II + Grip | 17-40 L f4 USM | 50 f1.4 USM | 85 f1.8 USM | 70-200 L f4 IS USM | 1.4x II TC | 430EX II

 

[h00ligan]

Depends per lens and per camera.

I'm getting pretty serious about photography, I think I found a passion .

I will get all my lenses calibrated to my camera when the 5DmkIII comes out next year. I don't like the ****** AF on the 5DmkII, I tried a 7D and it's much better on that.

Basically what it means is that Canon will match the lenses to the camera to have no focus offset. I think it's only 120 usd per lens anyway.

ANd about L's. I can afford it, so why not. On my beginner kit I had the 18-55 prime, a 55-200 Tamron and the nifty fifty.

The kit lens has so much CA that it was sickening.
The Tamron made everything fuzzy
The nifty fifty was awesome, but the bokeh is not so nice.

I pretty much uptraded the 18-55 for a 17-40L, the Tamron for the top of the line 70-200 and the 1.8 for the 1.2. The picture quality improved by about a million. Even on a ****** crop body. On the 5DmkII at 21 mpixel raw you will see every lens distortion there is. No point in having a 2 grand camera with a 100 euro lens.

The 7d af sucks too. The 5d is no less reliable and for non sports it's pretty irrelevant. When you know where to lock focus the outer points are fine. My 7d had major issues, much more than the 5d2s. Thy said I got a good deal on my body so I'll be able to upgrade if I feel a need to without losing much. That said if anyone is getting bad shots with a 5d2 it's not the cameras fault. Though clearly a 1 series or 7d may be preferable for real sports, it's also complete overkill for most hobbyists.

Nobody knows what they will do for af on the next 5. If they plant the 7d af in a 5d3 they are going to have to do something magical to keep selling 1 series.

 

[ppc_michael]

I shoot film, and the 50mm is still my go-to on 35mm format.

 

[Xeperu]

i've seen sigma/canon 50mm 1.4 comparisons, and the canon looked better to me so I got it. It's probably very very close.

----------



my setup is similar to yours. Currently:

Canon EOS 5D Mark II + Grip | 17-40 L f4 USM | 50 f1.4 USM | 85 f1.8 USM | 70-200 L f4 IS USM | 1.4x II TC | 430EX II

Nice setup also, I considered the 70-200 f4 IS, but I figured I'd get an itch and wanting to upgrade to the 2.8 anyway. Also an advantage is that the 2.8 has 77 mm filter thread (where the f4 has a 67 mm thread). This way I can use my filters on all my lenses and I just need a 77mm kit (have a step up ring for the 50 mm, but I shoot mostly just with a protection filter on that one for weatherproofing).

I too use a grip and the 1.4x II TC. I only use a different flash the 580EX II which I managed to pick up second hand (2 months old) at the price of a new 430EX.

 

[Razeus]

The 50mm on a crop body is perfect if you do street photography.

 

[h00ligan]

Disagree, it compresses too much on a crop for street IMO. 80mm is a lot less intimidating though.

 

[Xeperu]

Disagree, it compresses too much on a crop for street IMO. 80mm is a lot less intimidating though.

I agree, 35mm is perfect for street walk arounds on a crop body. The Canon 35mm 1.4 is pretty good also.

 

[Razeus]

Disagree, it compresses too much on a crop for street IMO. 80mm is a lot less intimidating though.

I disagree with this statement.

 

[h00ligan]

Which part? I don't find 80mm to give the depth or environment, even shot farther back. 85 is an intimate portrait length to me.

Anyway it's all opinion and conversation!

 

[IllegalFun]

I have a Canon Crop camera, and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS "Mini-L"
it stays on my camera 90% of the time... why?

because I realised that I hated my 50mm f/1.8 because it is a really bad lens, and I found that most of the time, the focal length was too long...
so I use the 17-55 and stick it at about 30mm for portraits and 55mm for flowers and shallow DOF

I have now decided to go F/Frame, as I don't really use anything past 200mm, and want better quality...

what lenses am I after first? a 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 HSM...
While I love the 50mm equivalent for portraits and walking around, I really want an 85mm F/1.4 for the shallow DOF...

the only problem, is with an iMac, 5DMk2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4 and 17-40L, 2 external HDD's plus a copy of Aperture and Photoshop CS5, this is going to be ridiculously expensive!!!
over £5500!!!

 

[b_scott]

the 50 1.8 is not a bad lens. You are spoiled by a $1K lens over a $90 lens.

 

[Tiggs]

Seems to be phasing out. At least mine I never use anymore.

 

[h00ligan]

the 50 1.8 is not a bad lens. You are spoiled by a $1K lens over a $90 lens.

I think we have to define bad.

Slow af
Cheap build
Decent optically stopped down


But hey it's $100! And a damn site better than the kit. Canon should throw one in with every kit. People have no idea about primes when they start!

 

[Vudoo]

Guess which lens I used to take this photo?

That's right, my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens. Even though I have zoom lenses that are close to $2000, they couldn't pull off the job shooting through aquarium glass. For one, you want fast for low light and movement. And second, you want to use a lens where the barrel doesn't move when you place it flat against the glass.

 

[Xeperu]

Guess which lens I used to take this photo?

Image

That's right, my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens. Even though I have zoom lenses that are close to $2000, they couldn't pull off the job shooting through aquarium glass. For one, you want fast for low light and movement. And second, you want to use a lens where the barrel doesn't move when you place it flat against the glass.

Also a reply at h00ligan, but my browser at work is messing up (IE 8).

Most people don't care for something that doesn't zoom. People who buy an entry level DSLR come from a compact environment (from what I see, people who come from a film SLR upgrade to a semi pro, Canon XXD series, not canon XXXD series, or equivalent), they want that zoom. I think many nifty fifties will end up in drawers in favor of a ****** 18-55 F4.5-5.6 kit lens.

On that note, the kitlens is utter ****. I shot some photos with it and all needed CA correction.

@Vudoo
Never, ever compare a zoomer to a prime. The 50 mm 1.8 shoots sharper than a 70-200 f4 IS.

And yes, the Sigma is sweet.

What I hate most about shooting through glass, even on holding it as a flat surface is that you'll always have reflection, it starts acting like a filter.

 

[Phrasikleia]

@Vudoo
Never, ever compare a zoomer to a prime. The 50 mm 1.8 shoots sharper than a 70-200 f4 IS.

That's a strange comparison you're making, since those two lenses don't even have a focal length in common. But regardless, your statement simply is not true. The 70-200 f/4L IS is a sharper lens than the nifty fifty. I own them both, so I speak from experience, but you don't have to take my word for it. Have a look at the blur index charts from SLRgear.com. Here we have the zoom lens at what should be a disadvantage, shooting wide open at one of its extremes of focal length, whereas the prime is stopped down considerably and should therefore be at its best--but the 'disadvantaged' zoom still wins this comparison by a good margin (warmer colors are better, click to enlarge):

I'm not trying to start a zooms-versus-primes debate, believe me. I'm just pointing out that the zoom you mentioned is much sharper than you might think.

 

[gnomeisland]

Hmmm... I couldn't disagree more.

I find my Sigma 50 f/1.4 is on the 5DII for >75% of the time I am shooting.

Yeah, but you're missing (or I guess reinforcing) the speculation by the OP, that part of the reason is that 50mm is a less desirable focal length on an APS sized sensor. While I use my fast(ish) 50mm a fair amount I have to agree. After getting my 35mm I use that a lot more. However, if I had a full-fram sensor I think the situation would be reversed.

----------

I'm not trying to start a zooms-versus-primes debate, believe me. I'm just pointing out that the zoom you mentioned is much sharper than you might think.

Good point, but then how much more is that zoom lens? And how does it compare to 50mm prime in a similar price class? While it is awesome that we now have zooms that are sharper than cheap primes, expensive primes still hold their own and often for less money than the zoom.

Personally, as an amateur, I prefer the shooting experience of primes. Years ago when I was actually making a little bit of money from my photos, I shot with zooms for the flexibility. (although, they were not good zooms and you know what? my clients never cared if the pictures were eye catching in the end)

 

[h00ligan]

I'm evaluating two copies of a sigma 50/1.4 right now. It's inability to focus at all distances may be an issue. I hope the second is better.

I haven't owned the 70-200 as I shoot close , but I don't doubt it is as sharp as a $100 prime. I would think the sigma or canon stopped down on fill frame would he Harper but that's speculation.

One issue with lens tests, bum copies happen, especially with cheap lenses. Tdp reviewed the sigma 17-50 and it had awful results. That said mine was sharper on a 7d than my 15-85. One sample is not enough of a test to say which is sharper.

 

[b_scott]

Guess which lens I used to take this photo?

Image

That's right, my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens. Even though I have zoom lenses that are close to $2000, they couldn't pull off the job shooting through aquarium glass. For one, you want fast for low light and movement. And second, you want to use a lens where the barrel doesn't move when you place it flat against the glass.

very nice. It should be stated though that some primes' barrels' move to focus, like the Canon 50 1.8

 

[Xeperu]

That's a strange comparison you're making, since those two lenses don't even have a focal length in common. But regardless, your statement simply is not true. The 70-200 f/4L IS is a sharper lens than the nifty fifty. I own them both, so I speak from experience, but you don't have to take my word for it. Have a look at the blur index charts from SLRgear.com. Here we have the zoom lens at what should be a disadvantage, shooting wide open at one of its extremes of focal length, whereas the prime is stopped down considerably and should therefore be at its best--but the 'disadvantaged' zoom still wins this comparison by a good margin (warmer colors are better, click to enlarge):

I'm not trying to start a zooms-versus-primes debate, believe me. I'm just pointing out that the zoom you mentioned is much sharper than you might think.

Ye, bad example on my part. ANd yes, I did go home to verify. My 70-200 f2.8 IS (II) vs the nifty fifty prime. I don't think I'll ever use that again. (Plus it has volcanic ash in it I noticed, >_<, that you Fuji-san)

 

[h00ligan]

The thing is. Sharpness is one part of thecombo. So ok the 70-200 is sharper, how does it look at f2... Oh wait