appledu said:
Now, questions:
The prime lens: EF 50 mm f/1.8II
I don't know if this is correct, but I understand the prime lens as a 1:1 shot.
That means, I guess, that it's pretty much like what the human eye would see. So, if I took a picture of my cat (pic on profile😛 ) from a foot away, I'd capture what my eye would see from a foot away....if I take it 10ft away, it's what I'd see 10ft away...is that correct?
What are the advantages of this lens over a mid-range one that includes 50mm?
No, you're not quite correct. A prime lens is, purely and simply, a lens with a single focal length. Put a prime lens on the camera, and you are unable to zoom in or out - you're stuck with whatever framing you get (unless you use the good old fashioned "foot zoom".
😀)
What you're talking about is termed a "standard" lens. On a 35mm camera (film, 5D, 1Ds), the 50mm is considered a standard lens. On a 1.6 crop body, though, a standard lens would be one with a focal length around 30mm or so.
As to the advantages: it's a lot easier to design and make a good quality prime lens than to make an equivalent zoom lens. Consider, for example, a telephoto lens: the 200mm f/2.8. RRP in Australia is $1399. In comparison, the 70-200 f/2.8 has a RRP of $2409 (or $3589 if you want IS.) I'd bet good money on the 200mm f/2.8 producing much better pictures than the 70-200mm at 200mm, too. There are plenty of other such examples (and note that, once you're past 200mm, you won't get f/2.8 except in prime lenses.)
That's not to say that zoom lenses are bad; just that they're harder to design, and have more compromises inherent in their designs. Some zooms are of superb quality (the 70-200mm f/2.8 springs to mind); others aren't as good; the price will tend to reflect this.
The 50mm f/1.8 is an excellent lens for the price, and well worth picking up. It'll do a solid job of stock "head and shoulders" shots.
As this lens is really cheap, despite the good reviews, I'm hesitating about a second lens...I've figured out that I'd prefer wide shots (landscapes, ground shots up/across) to zoom, that I'd get later on...which lens do you advise, knowing that I'd prefer it to have IS and I'd still like a little zoom, if possible?
Am I right in trying to get specific lenses rather than an all-rounder?
An all-rounder is a decent starting point; it'll help you figure out the focal lengths you're most likely to use, if you want to go down the prime route; the image quality might not be great, but it will help you to learn. Later, you can sell it in favour of better quality glass without losing too much money.
If, on the other hand, you're sure of what you want to do, I'd suggest throwing as much as you can afford at good quality glass from the start; you'll get better shots that way.
Something to be careful of is the use of the word "zoom": in photography, a zoom lens is one capable of going anywhere in between two focal length limits (eg: 24-70; 28-105; etc.) You're talking about zoom in the context of distance photography; such lenses are called telephoto lenses (or super telephotos, if they're longer than around 200mm). A lens that can go from (eg) 100 to 400mm would be a telephoto zoom.
Hope this helps clarify matters a little.
