I own the 50mm 1.8 lens. Does it make sense to own this one too? I mostly take kids pictures indoors - so moving subjects..
358174
Not really. The is is the only thing different and that is nominal at these focal lengths. I use it for High vibration environment when shooting video.
358175
Generally, it is a personal style/preference depending on the desired effect. If you're looking to up your game with the subject matter you've mentioned, I wouldn't buy a 24. If you're shooting with an aps sized sensor you're gonna have a multiplier effect on your lens making you 50 even better a lens. I would, in your situation, investigate a fast (2.8) zoom lens in the "standard" range (28-80). I love canon's 17-55 2.8is. This awesome if you have an aps size sensor. Good luck!
358176
Yes. Two completely different lens. 24mm is twice as wide as the 50. Especially is u are not shooting a full frame dslr
358177
completely different lenses, especially for full frame. Why do you have a 50 f/1.8 on a 6D? that's almost a toy lens on a near professional camera. Although I don't have a full frame camera, if I did, I'd get the 24-70 L Zoom. If price is the issue, get the 24 2.8 IS for outdoor, landscape work and a 50 mm 1.4 for indoors, portraits, everyday use. Another nice lens is the 35 mm f/2 IS. bit wider, very sharp, with IS.
75885
I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash. I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor... » Read More I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash. « Show Less
1247240
hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one prime lens. You will never regret. hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one... » Read More hum... what do you mean, by a "base" lens? I consider myself a "advanced" amateur haha... i also have a D7000, and i use this lens mostly for street-photography and some portraits. This lens are definitely for open space when you use it in a crop sensor (which is the case), if you need a lens for indoor, i would go for some sigma or even tamron 17-50mm f2.8 which is more expensive. I even have a nikkor 35mm f1.8 which is not wide enough for small indoor places, but it is also one great lens.Talking about the image quality it is amazing. It's always nice to have one prime lens. You will never regret. « Show Less
1304752
I have both of these lenses and the 16-50mm f/2.8 is wide enough to take indoor real estate photography. I had the 11-18 first but I have not used it since I bought the 16-50mm and there is not much difference on the wide angle shots. I used the 16-50mm about 95 % time and my 11-18 and 70-300 telephoto about 5% of the time on my A77 Sony Camera. I am thinking of selling my 11-18mm because it is just sitting in my camera bag.
1065199
I don't like the 50mm 1.4. I do have the 35mm 1.4 and I love this one much better.
1078335
The 50mm 1.4 is great for indoor low-light portraiture, unless you are shooting groups of people -- you may not have enough space to step back. Lately I've been using the 85mm 1.8 more. The extra length does a better job of blurring the background at shorter distances, which helps isolate the subject further. Indoors it's great for tight crops of faces and outdoors I mostly use it for candid shots while street walking. One thing to keep in mind though, the longer focal range requires you to shoot at a relatively faster shutter speed, which makes it tougher to hand hold in dim light. I've considered upgrading to the 85mm 1.4, although that opens up a whole new can of worms... long story short, most feel the 1.8 is better bang for the buck, while the rest are convinced that the 1.4 is legendary. (For what it's worth, I'm using these lenses on a D90, APS-C)
1010249
I was so glad to see this question here! I have a D50 also and was a bit confused too after reading other descriptions of this lens.
120648
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected. The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
1551101
That is exactly why I purchased this lens and I love it! The focus is a bit soft if you try and go below f2.2, but as I'm generally shooting moving children I usually keep it around f2.5 or 2.8 anyway. Hope this helps!
735066
I have both lenses. Are different lenses for different uses. With the 50mm 1.8 you can get a great bokeh to 1.8. (In my opinion the great problem for this lens is the quality of imagen is not good in the edges at 1.8). The 50 mm 1.8 is perfect for begins in the bokeh. Personally, I bought the 40mm 2.8, because is the smallest lens in the market. I can carry my camera with this lens every where. This lens (40mm) has a great quality of imagen from 2.8 to 22. If you look for a lens for portrait, buy 50 mm. If you look for a compact lens with excelent quality, I recomend 40mm.
759249
My brother has loan his 50 1.4 to me. I like. I may get the 24-70 2.8 - we get so many positives about it. Use the 24-70 indoors and the 4f lens where there is good light??Thanks for your suggestions.
1850113
Yes, is it worth it. My opinion is no. I actually returned my lens and purchased 3 primes for around the same price range. I had the lens for about 2 weeks and returned it for a 50mm1.8, 85mm 1.8 and 28mm 1.8 and do not regret it at all. Total for all 3 lens 1410.85. And I love them.
1241571
Its a great all around lense. It produces very sharp images. Portrait shots will definatelly come out crisp but keep in kind that its a 70-300 lense, therefore; distance may be an issue when trying to shoot indoors.
1579847
I have both and the 85mm has a much better build quality, longer focal length, and more robust colors and image quality is significantly better. I rarely use my 50mm anymore. I keep it because of its low price and the resale value isn't worth it.
1135875
IMO no. The 35mm or Zeiss 24mm would be much better. If you are outdoors, the 50mm is ok, but if someone is right near you, or you want a landscape/building shot, the focal length of the 50 will be too long. (I own the Zeiss 24 and this 50)
1774792
If you already have the 50 1.8, you already own one of the best so I'm not sure it's worth the money to gain the distance. On the other hand, i love the 80mm and use it primarily for portraiture; while I use my 50mm for shots requiring a wider angle such flowers, fields, horses. I solved the problem by buying a 28mm x 75mm. Covers all ranges and creates nice bokeh.
1917664
Hi B. Sabb, I have use this lens for at least 2 yrs and taking tons of photo with that. It is a very sharp lens after f2.8 and excellent for portraiture. But it is not focus quick. If u want a quick Pentax lens, u might consider the one with "screw-drive" only, say the DA70. It is super sharp and focus quick. Enjoy your shooting. If u want to take your kids photo, i recommend u take the FA31 instead. As kids always move sudden and go closer to u, a wider lens is much better. Adam