Reading mode: Light Dark

Steadman's Tips: First Lens for New SLR Owner

Go to last post
S

Steadman Uhlich

Senior Member
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, US
This is addressed to a new owner of their first SLR camera.

As photography as a hobby is easy to enter, and many folks enter the new Digital SLR user base by coming from a 'point and shoot' experience, so many people first struggle with some new issues that are often driven by lack of 'experience' with the "new" 'options' like Depth of Field and variable aperture.

Put another way...when you used a sophisticated Point and Shoot camera, it is likely that you used it on full auto with a zoom lens that responds to the touch of a button (wide/tele) and a built-in flash (on for almost all shots). When a new DSLR owner comes from this experience, their first inclination may be to purchase a budget super zoom lens that covers a very wide focal length range...despite its other shortcomings. This "experience" is common.

When you purchase your first Digital SLR...you are faced with many choices...one of the most pressing is which lens to purchase as your first.

My suggestion below is based on a desire to help you learn something about your camera (somethings you may not already know) and to learn to 'see' beyond the lens.

Put very simply and bluntly...it is often very good to learn with a more 'simple' beginning lens that will allow you to learn some of the important things without adding additional variables (variable max aperture, variable focal length) that are often found as features of a zoom lens.

I suggest that you first puchase a Canon 50mm f1.4 lens.

Here is why:

1. Buying the 50mm f1.4 will open up your eyes to the wonder of low light photography. Photos taken without a flash. Natural looking photos. Photos taken in lower light that makes some shots impossible with other lenses. I believe this can be the most "eye opening" experience for someone (the average snap shooter) coming from a Point and Shoot experience. What you will see through your fast f1.4 lens is lots of light. Scenes will look 'natural' and not 'dark' in the viewfinder (unless the scene is dark...wink). With good technique (hand holding steadily, using a tripod, or adjusting ISO speed) you will be surprised at the pics you can make without any flash...even in dimly lit rooms or scenes. If you don't have experience with low light 'fast lens' photography, you are in for a real treat.

Put another way...if your total experience with cameras so far has been with slower zoom lenses (max aperture f4.5 etc..), and then you put a f1.4 lens on the camera body...you will be so surprised at the amount of light you will now see...you will probably go "WOW" (Literally!) Seeing is believing in this case. If you don't know much about aperture now...don't worry. Put very simply, a fast f1.4 lens has the potential to let in about 8 times (!) as much light as a slower zoom lens...(this is just an example...it could be more!).

Aside: If someone who has experienced this "WOW" feeling when looking through their first fast lens will kindly post a reply below attesting to this I would appreciate your contribution to this thread topic. Just put "WOW" in your subject line of your reply.

2. The learning experience of learning how DOF (Depth of Field) works on the images. Learning aperture and DOF issues is a very important part of mastering photography. Having the more 'expanded' range of possible apertures (down to f1.4 for instance) will allow you to experiment, learn and quickly see the differences. This knowledge will help you more than any lens in the future as you assess shots and potential shots. With the ability to "open up" the aperture you will find that you are capable of 'blurring the background' and other such techniques that make some pics really stand out. You may see 'portraits' in a wholely different way.

3. The 50 f1.4 is relatively small and light compared to most zoom lenses an far sharper (some may say 'better') than most zoom lenses. It is easier to handle than most fast zoom lenses too. More likely to 'walk around' with you. And, some people prefer its small size as it does not 'intimidate' some people as much as some of the larger/longer lenses. This may be more important to you than you even realize, especially if you are photographing children.

4. The optical quality of the Canon 50mm f1.4 is of the highest ranking. It is very 'sharp' and considered one of their best lenses for optical quality and considered outstanding when compared to competitive lenses at that price point or focal length. This 'quality' may not seem like a big deal to you if you are just starting out. Let me just assure you that this lens, even if purchased as a 'starter' or 'first' lens, is one you will be able to use and keep with no fear of having purchased a poor quality lens. The average Canon 50mm f1.4 is so good that it will give you a good starting point to judge additional purchases of lenses too.

The 50mm is a great place to start.

A few more points are covered in my 'reply' to my own thread as this has gotten too long for a single post. Just read the reply below this to continue.

(Continued)
 
(continuation of original post)

If you are on a tight budget, a very nice alternative is the Canon 50mm f1.8 which is essentially of the same optical quality but about $250 less expensive.

You might rightly wonder if my own first SLR lens was a 50mm f1.4. The honest answer is "no." But...I wish it had been. I would have learned so much more about the camera (a film based body at the time) and I would have learned so much more about photography....and I would have better pics to show for it.

I didn't learn my 'lesson' until years had passed and I had the unfortunate experience of using slow and relatively poor quality consumer 'zoom' lenses (which are often slow, dark, and soft). Like many people, when purchasing my first SLR, I opted to buy a super zoom (28-200mm) and always depended on my zoom and flash when scenes got darker. I thought that one lens was a better 'value' since it would take the place of so many other lenses. I liked the flexibility of zooming. I thought I would take great pics from far away zoomed all the way out to 200mm. I thought the lens was good for indoors and outdoors. (What did I know?)

It was a big mistake. A common one to be sure. It was an ignorant mistake...I simply did not know better...and not having a friendly more experienced photographer to guide me...I just went for the big lens.

Many thousands of shots were taken yet I now know that having a 50mm f1.4 would have given me much more satisfying pics, better knowledge of light and camera, and a better 'value' in the long run. So...all of the above is written based on an experience and with the hope that I can help you avoid the same mistake.

Hope that helps,

Steadman
 
as glowingly as you speak of the 50mm 1.4, and frankly I am more in agreement with you than disagreement, it is NO "typical" L lens as far as it's ultimate performance is concerned. It is not as "perfect" a lens as you might insinuate. But with that said I would whole heartedly support the idea of a person considering it as their first lens. It isn't blindingly fast (due to the fact it does NOT posess the true Ring USM autofocus motor). it is nice and light, very sharp (but NOT without it's achilles heels if you're really critical) It WILL do all you say as far as enabling one to experience the depth of field differences available to them via the excellent lower light performance vs. say a typical zoom. All in all with some temperance I agree that the 50mm 1.4 is an excellent "starter" lens for someone that wants to experience excellent sharpness without the price tag usually associated with a lens of that capability. In this world there are truly NO free lunches, but you can get a very nice box lunch with this lens indeed. ;-)
 
If the person hasn't a clue as to what he wants to photograph, and really wants to learn PHOTOGRAPHY (and see how f/stop changes DOF, how moving around can change the entire look of an image), then I completely agree with this choice.

If, on the other hand, this new SLR photographer has some specific goal in mind (I want pictures of Johnny playing baseball), then I'd be hard-pressed to recommend the 50/1.4 as the first lens.

FYI, my first lenses were the 70-200/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 1.4x TC. After that, I think I added the 100-400 IS. Then the 85/1.2

And I believe THEN the 50/1.4
Steadman Uhlich said:
This is addressed to a new owner of their first SLR camera.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Steadman Uhlich said:
Many thousands of shots were taken yet I now know that having a
50mm f1.4 would have given me much more satisfying pics, better
knowledge of light and camera, and a better 'value' in the long
run. So...all of the above is written based on an experience and
with the hope that I can help you avoid the same mistake.
Click to expand...
Except for the fact that with the 50mm lens you probably wouldn't have gotten all the pictures you did a either 28mm or 200mm...

Teaching the magic of photography is well done on a 50mm 1.x lens.

Taking well-composed pictures with a 50mm lens is hard. And it is probably not a good place to start. Although I didn't claim that the 28-200 lenses are nearly as good (optically), they will let you compose without moving around, so experimentation is easy.

But it comes down to what you intend to do with the camera.

If you need 200mm focal length, having a 50mm won't really help you much at all.

-Geir
 
Hello,

This is addressed to the new owner of a first SLR camera.

As an addendum to my earlier post:

Don't let someone intimidate you with the "L" lens issue/debate which will be seen frequently here on this forum. You do not need to purchase an "L" lens to learn photography, nor do you need one to make beautiful pics. They are aptly called "Luxury" lenses by Canon. They are not essential to most general purpose photography and certainly not for beginers learning the basics.

If you can afford an "L" lens and want to purchase that as your first lens, by all means go ahead. You will probably enjoy owning the equipment and may enjoy the experience of using the lens too. You may even learn the basics with it and may produce nice pics too.

But, be aware that even an "L" lens may be relatively "slow" in aperture (maximum aperture) compared to the 50mm f1.4 lens. And, in general, the "L" line (say a "L" zoom) is a heavier and bulkier lens to carry.

So I still encourage you (as a beginner) even then to purchase a fast lens (as the f1.4 50mm is) to learn basics of photography.

There are always trade-offs when selecting a lens. For example, if I were shooting a late afternoon or evening soccer match I may elect to use a faster prime lens rather than my Canon "L" 100-400mm IS lens (which is comparatively 'slower' than the Canon 50mm f1.4. Lower light situations such this are just one of the variables you will encounter and using a faster lens will often allow you to continue to photograph subjects even when others with long and slower zooms are putting their equipment away due to lack of light.

Also, there are lenses made by Canon (and others) which will allow you to have a good start with high quality optics for less than the purchase price of a typical "L" lens. If you are just buying your equipment "kit" for the first time, you may have budget concerns. Regardless, even if you were to purchase the most expensive lens made, it may not be the best with which to learn the basics of photography and your camera. Truly.

For example, if I were given the choice of a single lens to start learning photography with....I would pick the Canon 50mm f1.4 over the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 every time. Despite the fact that the more expensive zoom lens is a quality zoom and even a "L" lens, it is limiting in the fact that it is relatively slow (much slower in fact) and at the 'long end' of lenses. It is also bulky and very heavy and not unobtrusive because of its size, length, and even color. So...based on what I know today, the shorter 50mm lens is a better 'starter' lens in my opinion and based on my experience. Of course opinions differ...(wink)...and that is part of the value of an open forum like this.

Finally, owning an "L" lens does not a good photographer make. In my opinion, learning the basic elements and techniques of photography (such as varying the aperture and use of DOF that you can learn with a modestly priced but 'fast' lens) will make the biggest improvement in the 'technical quality' of your pics. After that, learning composition, subject choice, POV, lighting, etc...comes into play...and will determine the 'esthetic quality' of the pics. There is a lot to learn if you are new to a SLR. That is part of the challenge, and part of the fun.

Good luck and good light to you (dear beginner) and don't let the many choices of lenses and their attributes or features keep you from enjoying your camera. Whatever lens you purchase, you can make beautiful pics.

Steadman
 
Steadman Uhlich wrote:

"For example, if I were given the choice of a single lens to start learning photography with....I would pick the Canon 50mm f1.4 over the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 every time. "

Yep, when I head out to photograph animals in the wild I always take my trusty 50mm lens!! Sure, with the 100-400L I could stay back a safe distance, not scare off the animals or risk my life. But I take comfort in knowing that I made the right choice with my trusty 50mm 1.4.

See that beautiful bald eagle? No?? It's right there, next to the little spec of dust! Isn't it gorgeous!!

If you're going to make a comparison why don't you at least do like for like. FWIW I'd agree with you the 50mm 1.4 is a better choice than the 50mm 1.0L!!
Thanks Steadman!
Regards,
Steve
 
depending on your cash flow it could be a very difficult choice.

Due to cash flow limitations I choose the Canon 70-200Lf4 $550 and the Canon 85f1.8 $330 as my first two lenses.

I am happy with my choices.

One thing that gives my f4 lens some help is having iso 1000 and for many who don't print much and post to the net primarily - noise is dramatically reduced when image is resized for the net.

I am no expert but I would never buy a 50f1.4 primarily because it does not have ring usm.

My next lens will likely be a Canon 20f2.8.

If I had been able to afford a 1D - I would have bought a 28-70Lf2.8 $1100 and a 70-200Lf2.8 $1100 without a doubt due to its low noise at high iso inherent capabilites.

It really depends what focal lengths one needs and under what conditions they shoot - kinda like - boxers or breifs - only you know what you prefer.

Thanks for the thread though - many good points have been raised.

BTW - I am a rank amateur - the above is only my novice opinion.

http://www.pbase.com/jimkelly
 
I would add that the 50 1.4 is a good choice for a second lens. I would also say that the advice that Stedman has written here is very good. However, I would say that there is one step to be done before you follow Stedman's advice. Here is my reason why:

Stedman started this as addressed to the first time SLR owner. Someone who is coming from a P&S and has never owned an SLR. I seriously doubt that someone that fits this category is going to spend $2500 to just learn photography. I'm quite sure that they want to have a useful camera first and then learn as they go.

This person will also be use to having a camera that has a zoom lens. As we all know, an SLR camera is very different then a P&S camera. However, an SLR camera can be made to operate like a P&S depending on the lens that is used. This person would need to start using there first SLR in complete auto mode as they got use to using it and if it is a DSLR, as I have assumed, then they would also have to get use to a different workflow.

As they became more accustom to their new camera and the workflow then they could get the 50 1.4 and begin to learn just what they could do with this camera. They could then experience the WOW that Stedman has referred to.

My suggestion for a first lens is the 28-135 IS. It's the best all around lens for the beginner without spending a fortune. It's also a lens that will be useful for a long time. A less expensive alternative would be the 24-85 which has received high praise also. I prefer the first lens because of the IS and it's greater range since we are talking about having just one lens to start with.
 
I'm with Steadman -- I think the 50/1.4 is a wonderful first lens. Another option, possibly better for beginners not comfortable with composition, is a medium wide to medium tele lens -- Canon's 28-135 IS and 28-105 USM are both excellent zooms.
Jim Kelly said:
One thing that gives my f4 lens some help is having iso 1000 and
for many who don't print much and post to the net primarily - noise
is dramatically reduced when image is resized for the net.
Click to expand...
Yowza! f/4 is a fast lens. Don't be intimidated by f/2.8 zooms. You're only missing out on a stop. Unless you are shooting in very low light, you shouldn't need ISO 1000 too often!
Member said:
I am no expert but I would never buy a 50f1.4 primarily because it
does not have ring usm.
Click to expand...
I think you should try it before you knock it. Maybe this is perpetuation of an internet or DPR myth or snobbery ;-). The 50/1.4 is just another USM design. It focuses quickly and silently, just like other USM lenses.
Member said:
My next lens will likely be a Canon 20f2.8.
Click to expand...
A terrific wide angle lens. Your current lens choices are lacking on the wide side.
Member said:
If I had been able to afford a 1D - I would have bought a
28-70Lf2.8 $1100 and a 70-200Lf2.8 $1100 without a doubt due to its
low noise at high iso inherent capabilites.
Click to expand...
Both good lenses. The 28-70 is my favorite. Your 70-200/4 is just as good, lighter, and cheaper than the f/2.8 zoom.

In any event, I agree with Steadman, despite the knocks he's taken for posting what he posted. A 50/1.4 is a terrific first lens choice, and will open the eyes of novice photographers as to what they've been missing ;-). Also, I strongly agree that "L" lenses are too heavily promoted among the equipment-happy here. Most of the photos posted here could just as easily have been shot with a 28-300; few would ever notice a difference.

A good beginners lens kit should start with either a fixed 50 or 35 or a zoom in the normal range, like a 28-135 or 28-105, IMO. Later, add a prime long lens and either a wide angle prime or zoom, and you have a kit that can pretty much shoot everything.

--
Brian Kennedy
http://www.briankennedy.net/
 
Another informative post that new DSLR owners will appreciate.

However, my humble opinion would be no to the 50mm 1.4 and yes to the 50mm 1.8.

Of course, if you've got the money, why not, but as a beginner lens for someone on a tight budget (purchase of only one lens possible) I don't see any reason to go for the 1.4. Fast lens yes, but the 1.8 will do just as well. It will be very inexpensive and leave some room for more later.

I started with a used D30, that I still have, and the 50mm 1.8 (that I rarely use now). I have used that combo for about 3 months and indeed, it allowed me to really get a hold of that new thing the DSLR was for me, coming from a consumer level camera with slower lens and extra-large DOF. So much more creativity was possible. I shot everything from animals (try to sneak up on birds with a 50mm lens, quite a sport), to flowers, to people, to landscapes, panoramas etc...working on composition and placement, point of view etc...

Then I purchased the 28-135 IS and I have practically used only that lens since last June. I think it is a fantastic lens, at a great pice, that can handle mostly anything. It seems that I got a sharp copy also, judging by what is said around here. If you are interested in shooting quite a bit of everything then this is the lens. Especially if you are a no-tripod type like I am.

And again, I shot animals (easier than with the 50mm), landscape, panos, people, flowers, insects, buildings and was very satisfied with the result. And when you are in the zoo's vivarium (no tripods in there), shooting a lizard hand-held through the glass at ISO 800 and a shutter speed of 1/13s and enough DOF, you're really happy with the lens :)

Now, I ordered a 70-200 F/4L as the next step after owning the D30 for about 8 months (and probably a little close-up filter soon to fit one of those lenses, probably the 28-135, and open up some more possibilities for cheap). The 28-135, while not a macro lens, can go fairly close and give you some good close-ups. gotta get used to the trick of getting as close as possible while not getting closer than the lens can handle :)

My own little experince with this.

David.

--
Canon D30
My photo gallery: http://www.pbase.com/davidp
 
Steadman carefully chose his words: " . . . a single lens to START LEARNING PHOTOGRAPHY with . . . . "

I think that's the key. Given that reason for picking the lens, I'd have to agree.

Now, if your goal is to start shooting wildlife pictures, that's a different story altogether.

If a person knows nothing (or very little) about what effects controlling aperture and shutter speed has, then he really SHOULD learn that, somehow. A 50/1.4 is a good lens to learn that with.
Steve said:
Steadman Uhlich wrote:
"For example, if I were given the choice of a single lens to
start learning photography with....I would pick the Canon 50mm
f1.4 over the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 every time. "

Yep, when I head out to photograph animals in the wild I always
take my trusty 50mm lens!! Sure, with the 100-400L I could stay
back a safe distance, not scare off the animals or risk my life.
But I take comfort in knowing that I made the right choice with my
trusty 50mm 1.4.
See that beautiful bald eagle? No?? It's right there, next to
the little spec of dust! Isn't it gorgeous!!

If you're going to make a comparison why don't you at least do like
for like. FWIW I'd agree with you the 50mm 1.4 is a better choice
than the 50mm 1.0L!!
Thanks Steadman!
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
If somebody doesn't have specific photographic goals in mind (other than learning, and having a good all-around "poin/n/shoot lens"), these make a lot of sense.

If a person strictly wants to learn, I think the 50/1.4 makes an excellent choice. If they have a larger budget, and want a more "normal" lens, then the 35/1.4 is an excellent choice. If they have a much smaller budget, then the 50/1.8 is definitely the way to go.

The 28-135 is still my recommendation for the ultimate point/n/shoot lens. With that and a 50/1.8, one can both learn photography and have a good lens to put on the camera and have about the same focal range that they had with the old point/n/shoot that they used to carry around. With the added benefit of IS.
Brian Kennedy said:
A good beginners lens kit should start with either a fixed 50 or 35
or a zoom in the normal range, like a 28-135 or 28-105, IMO. Later,
add a prime long lens and either a wide angle prime or zoom, and
you have a kit that can pretty much shoot everything.
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
For a long time I used a 35/2.0 and a 90mm/2.8 lens (on a Leica M) as the only lenses and got around great.

I would recommend either such a "wide + small tele" combination, or the 50/1.4 as an addition to a zoom.

Years later I got a D30 and now a 1D and am impressed by the quality of todays zooms as well as I started to dislike changing lenses all the time
Greg M said:
I would add that the 50 1.4 is a good choice for a second lens. I
would also say that the advice that Stedman has written here is
very good. However, I would say that there is one step to be done
before you follow Stedman's advice. Here is my reason why:

Stedman started this as addressed to the first time SLR owner.
Someone who is coming from a P&S and has never owned an SLR. I
seriously doubt that someone that fits this category is going to
spend $2500 to just learn photography. I'm quite sure that they
want to have a useful camera first and then learn as they go.

This person will also be use to having a camera that has a zoom
lens. As we all know, an SLR camera is very different then a P&S
camera. However, an SLR camera can be made to operate like a P&S
depending on the lens that is used. This person would need to
start using there first SLR in complete auto mode as they got use
to using it and if it is a DSLR, as I have assumed, then they would
also have to get use to a different workflow.

As they became more accustom to their new camera and the workflow
then they could get the 50 1.4 and begin to learn just what they
could do with this camera. They could then experience the WOW that
Stedman has referred to.

My suggestion for a first lens is the 28-135 IS. It's the best all
around lens for the beginner without spending a fortune. It's also
a lens that will be useful for a long time. A less expensive
alternative would be the 24-85 which has received high praise also.
I prefer the first lens because of the IS and it's greater range
since we are talking about having just one lens to start with.
Click to expand...
--
Regards
Tom
 
Very valid points, Greg. In my case, the 50 f/1.4 lens was a third purchase after the 28-135IS and 100-300 L. In truth, I bought it more as a result of the constant references to it on DPReview than out of any real understanding as to why I might need it. I guessed that maybe I was missing out on something fun.
Greg M said:
Stedman started this as addressed to the first time SLR owner.
Someone who is coming from a P&S and has never owned an SLR. I
seriously doubt that someone that fits this category is going to
spend $2500 to just learn photography. I'm quite sure that they
want to have a useful camera first and then learn as they go.
Click to expand...
Quite right. I bought my D30 as a first SLR, having previously owned an automatic APS zoom camera. I didn't want to 'learn photography' as a primary goal, I wanted to take pictures with better technical quality and without having to buy films all the time.

I bought the D30 and 28-135IS to get the image stabiliser; the thought that I was buying into a complete system of bodies, lenses and accessories never really entered my head!
Greg M said:
This person will also be use to having a camera that has a zoom
lens. As we all know, an SLR camera is very different then a P&S
camera. However, an SLR camera can be made to operate like a P&S
depending on the lens that is used. This person would need to
start using there first SLR in complete auto mode as they got use
to using it and if it is a DSLR, as I have assumed, then they would
also have to get use to a different workflow.
Click to expand...
Right again - the 28-135 covers the range that I wished my previous camera had. I did indeed use the camera on full auto mode for the first 1/2 hour, and P mode for the next couple of weeks before starting to play around with aperture priority.
Greg M said:
As they became more accustom to their new camera and the workflow
then they could get the 50 1.4 and begin to learn just what they
could do with this camera. They could then experience the WOW that
Stedman has referred to.
Click to expand...
Here's where I did something different. I bought the 100-300L instead, because I'd always found my old camera lacking when it came to shooting anything far away. There's a definite WOW factor in using a 300mm lens for the first time, just as there was a WOW when first using the 28-135's macro mode. There was a WOW moment at seeing the quality of the D30's photos for the first time, a WOW at capturing an action sequence with continuous drive and so on.

There are a lot of things that a DSLR can do compared with a pocket camera, and low light photography with a f/1.4 lens is just one of them. My primary use for the 50mm lens is with a set of extension tubes for macros. I don't shoot much indoors, and even when I do, I find its focal length too long. I tend to use my Sigma 15-30 with a flash instead. For me, there was no WOW with the 50mm lens :(

Andy.
 
For most people, the FAR CHEAPER f1.8 (£79) is good enough - the Mk1 metal mount version is made every bit as well as the 1.4 (used about the same price as a new Mk2) and it's AFD motor (on my 1987 example) seems as fast as the Micro USM on the 1.4 - the Bokeh isn't up to 1.4 standards, but it's a damn sharp lens for anywhere near the price -

the Mk2 may look like it would be more at home squirting water than taking pictures but optically is up there with the Mk1 - these are the bargain lenses, the 1.4 costs about the same as a 28-135IS or 24-85 in the UK!.

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300 +A28, Canon D60.

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

 
Andrew Cawte said:
Here's where I did something different. I bought the 100-300L
instead, because I'd always found my old camera lacking when it
came to shooting anything far away. There's a definite WOW factor
in using a 300mm lens for the first time, just as there was a WOW
when first using the 28-135's macro mode. There was a WOW moment at
seeing the quality of the D30's photos for the first time, a WOW at
capturing an action sequence with continuous drive and so on.

There are a lot of things that a DSLR can do compared with a pocket
camera, and low light photography with a f/1.4 lens is just one of
them. My primary use for the 50mm lens is with a set of extension
tubes for macros. I don't shoot much indoors, and even when I do, I
find its focal length too long. I tend to use my Sigma 15-30 with a
flash instead. For me, there was no WOW with the 50mm lens :(
Click to expand...
Just to make a clarification the WOW that I believe that Steadman was refering to, myself also, was seeing for the first time what a large aperture could do. The DOF and low light shooting of a 1.4 lens is something that you don't experience with a P&S. The 50 1.4 is the best and cheapest lens to get an aperture that large. You get that plus incredible sharpness for only a little over $300. It's not that you can't get this experience with other more expensive lenses, it's just that this is a cheaper way to go in the begining and you get a lens that is still a keeper.

Andy, even with no WOW over the 50 1.4 you still must admit that it is a teriffic lens esspecially given it's cost.
Andrew Cawte said:
Andy.
Click to expand...
 
I'm with you. A beginner needs a lowlight lens like the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 and then a medium range zoom like the 28-135 or 28-70. A 50 mm alone made better sense with 35mm film cameras without the 1.6 factor.
 
When I got my D30 (1st DSLR; though I have
an old Konica film SLR that I bought way
back when...), it came with a Canon 28-105 lens.
I puttered around with that lens and found it
to be pretty decent for general practice.
I then bought the 50mm 1.8 lens, specifically
to teach myself the discipline of framing shots
with a prime.

I think, Ulrich, that you could have been more
specific about the nature of the limitations
the 50mm lens (or any prime) places on the
photographer as far as how photo composition
is performed. Otherwise, I agree that a fast
(I didn't have the money for the 1.4!)
fixed-length lens is an excellent way to start
learning the art of photography.

I'm not sure that all readers will readily
understand that you have to 'zoom with your feet'.
And it's likely that a bunch of readers will have
bought their DSLR without really wanting to undertake
the rigors of disciplining themselves in the use
of prime lenses.

Given the exception that some of your audience falls
into the 'bigger toys' category, I agree with your post.
DavidP said:
I think that's the key. Given that reason for picking the lens,
I'd have to agree.

Now, if your goal is to start shooting wildlife pictures, that's a
different story altogether.

If a person knows nothing (or very little) about what effects
controlling aperture and shutter speed has, then he really SHOULD
learn that, somehow. A 50/1.4 is a good lens to learn that with.
Steve said:
Steadman Uhlich wrote:
"For example, if I were given the choice of a single lens to
start learning photography with....I would pick the Canon 50mm
f1.4 over the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 every time. "
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top