Best normal prime lens for a Canon EOS 500D?

seta wrote:

Hello,

I own a Canon EOS 500D, together with a Canon EFS 18-55mm f3,5-5,6 kit lens.

I am not happy with the quality of the lens and I was thinking of buying a new one.

The 18-55mm lens that came with the 500D has been superseded by the better 18-55mm IS STM.

I cannot afford having 2-3 lenses, though that would be the ideal, so I decided I would look for one good prime lens. I would prefer a normal prime lens.

A normal for landscape orientation shots for FF is 50mm. For APS-C it is 31mm (50 / 1.6 = 31.25mm).

I don't want a wide angle prime, because I already have wide angle on my 18-55.

You also have 50mm on your kit lens

I understand that the prime lens would be great for portraits (I take a lot portraits of my kids) and also works well in low light. Maybe not a very good option for sightseeing and travel, so I 'll have to complement with my 18-55mm for wide angle photos.

The only 50mm one I found from Canon is an old model: Canon EF 50mm f/1,8 II. But it seems to be discontinued and not very compatible with newer DSLR cameras

The Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II has been superseded by the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM. better build quality, much better and silent AF, better sharpness across the frame and wise open.

The other two alternatives are:

Sigma EX 50mm f/1,4 DG HSM the only 50mm lens I found, but don't know if it is any good.

It is pretty good, it renders out of focus backgrounds very smoothly.

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2,8 USM Macro I like this the best - it has a slight telephoto feel and has a macro!

If anyone has a better suggestion, please let me know!!

Above, the 50mm f1.8 STM. Small, light cheap, and good.

Or, a normal for APS-C: Sigma 30mm f1.4 DG HSM Art. This will give the "normal" view, the 50mm lenses will give a short tele view on APS-C.

Thanks

Just as you enjoy taking portraits of your children, I have enjoyed taking photos of my daughter over the years. Thinking much like you, I wanted a quality lens for portraits and decided to get the Canon 60mm macro. As reported I found it to be excellent and very sharp. I am sure you would enjoy it.

But as nice a lens as the 60mm is, I would suggest it is really not that versatile overall to rely on it as your new " go to" quality lens. I think you would, in many situations, find it challenging to use as your primary lens. For example, at your child's next birthday party you would likely find yourself backing up into walls to try to get the shot you need inside your house (60mm on an crop sensor body is like a 96mm view on a full frame). Other than portraits over the years you will likely want to use your primary lens to get photos of your kids in many situations ...with their friends in group shots, be able to zoom in for a portrait on Christmas morning but then perhaps get a wider shot to get both children and the tree in the background, etc.

I would suggest a higher quality zoom and a speedlite for bounce flash photography indoors would be worth considering as a next purchase. I have been able to get many sharp images that, to my eye, closely rival my 60mm lens with a Canon 15-85 USM and a Sigma 17-70 Contemporary. A quality zoom will allow you to capture spontaneous moments with your kids that you will miss while trying to get into the right position with the 60mm.

As others have suggested, if you really want to go with a prime, starting with the 50mm STM would be a good choice. It is a good performer and for a reasonable price you will see if working with a prime as your main lens is right for you. Good luck!

Lemming51 wrote:

seta wrote:

...

I understand that the prime lens would be great for portraits (I take a lot portraits of my kids) and also works well in low light. Maybe not a very good option for sightseeing and travel, so I 'll have to complement with my 18-55mm for wide angle photos.

The only 50mm one I found from Canon is an old model: Canon EF 50mm f/1,8 II. But it seems to be discontinued and not very compatible with newer DSLR cameras

The old EF 50 f/1.8 II is fully compatible with the newer DSLR cameras. It has been replaced by the much better constructed EF 50 f/1.8 STM.

The other two alternatives are:

Sigma EX 50mm f/1,4 DG HSM the only 50mm lens I found, but don't know if it is any good.

Plenty good, but some experience AF inconsistencies with the Sigma. YMMV

You should look further, there are lots of other 50s:

Yongnuo EF 50 f/1.8 - a clone of the EF 50 f/1.8 II. Not any better, but cheaper.

It is actually worse...

Canon EF 50 f/1.4 USM: Aged design, but not a bad lens. Get and use the hood to protect the somewhat fragile extending barrel AF.

Samyang (also sold as Rokinon, Bower, and other brands) 50mm f/1.4 AS IF. Manual focus and aperture, which may be preferable for video use (esp. if "click-less" aperture).

Lensbaby 55mm f/1.6. Don't know anything about it other than it's available for ~$500, is manual focus and manual apterture, but is also a "macro" lens, focusing close enough for 1:2 (1/2 life size) maximum magnification.

Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZE Planar T*. High-end manual focus but auto-aperture lens.

Sigma 50 f/1.4 DG HSM Art - improved and more expensive version of the orginal DG HSM

Above $1200 USD there are several even higher-end Zeiss Milvus and Makro-Planar models, and the Canon EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

and finally the $3500 Zeiss 55mm f/1.2 Otus Distagon T*

55mm f1.4  

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2,8 USM Macro I like this the best - it has a slight telephoto feel and has a macro!

Have at it. You may prefer 60mm for portrait focal length, the lens's optical performance is excellent. f/2.8 is 2 stops greater aperture and shallower DOF than your kit 18-55 f/3.5-5.6, but not as thin or "dramatic" as the f/1.8 or f/1.4 alternatives. But then again, sometimes f/1.4 only gets the end of the nose in the plane of focus where f/2.8 can give you the entire face.

Along the same line, there is the Tamron 60mm f/2 Di II Macro.

IMHO, YMMV.

-- hide signature --

Unapologetic Canon Apologist

Thank you all for your replies, they were very helpful!

I will try to address some issues:

My EFS 18-55mm f3,5-5,6 kit lens is actually the better IS STM model (I bought it later separately) but I am still not happy with the result. I will try to explain in amateur terms: Many times the photos come out like they are unfocused or not sharp. The portraits don't have enough definition, and also low light photos are usually blurred. I assume it is also because of the aperture which is at 3,5-5,6. Some times if I have the right conditions I get better results but generally the quality is mediocre.

I guess I missed the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM. I did not realize it existed, and thanks to all for pointing it out. It seems a very good choice, probably better than the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2,8 USM I was considering. I understand the old one is also fully compatible, but why go for the older one since there is a new one out and is considered as good and slightly better. I am thinking that the smaller aperture of the 50mm will compensate me in sharpness and quality instead of the 60mm. Also the 50mm might be more versatile to take portraits indoors. I usually take head & shoulders shots of my kids and also groups of 2-3 together.

Ideally, except the Canon 50mm prime that I am willing to try, I would like a great quality lens that would be something between 17-55mm and 17-85mm to substitute the kit lens I have. This would be much more flexible for kids portraits as far as spontaneity goes and also cover for sightseeing and travel photography which is also very important for me. As far as I checked a good lens like the Canon 17-55mm f2,8 is quite expensive... Any other cheaper suggestions (without compromising the quality)?

As far as the 50mm is concerned, it is probably a good choice for me now... Hopefully it will be suitable for my Canon 500D body camera.

Thank you all!!

seta wrote:

Thank you all for your replies, they were very helpful!

I will try to address some issues:

My EFS 18-55mm f3,5-5,6 kit lens is actually the better IS STM model (I bought it later separately) but I am still not happy with the result. I will try to explain in amateur terms: Many times the photos come out like they are unfocused or not sharp. The portraits don't have enough definition, and also low light photos are usually blurred. I assume it is also because of the aperture which is at 3,5-5,6. Some times if I have the right conditions I get better results but generally the quality is mediocre.

I guess I missed the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM. I did not realize it existed, and thanks to all for pointing it out. It seems a very good choice, probably better than the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2,8 USM I was considering. I understand the old one is also fully compatible, but why go for the older one since there is a new one out and is considered as good and slightly better. I am thinking that the smaller aperture of the 50mm will compensate me in sharpness and quality instead of the 60mm. Also the 50mm might be more versatile to take portraits indoors. I usually take head & shoulders shots of my kids and also groups of 2-3 together.

Ideally, except the Canon 50mm prime that I am willing to try, I would like a great quality lens that would be something between 17-55mm and 17-85mm to substitute the kit lens I have.

The 17-85mm always was a bit of a dog in my opinion, the 15-85mm that replaced it is better in every way. But, yes, quite slow apertures.

This would be much more flexible for kids portraits as far as spontaneity goes and also cover for sightseeing and travel photography which is also very important for me. As far as I checked a good lens like the Canon 17-55mm f2,8 is quite expensive... Any other cheaper suggestions (without compromising the quality)?

The Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM is pretty close in IQ. Only issue with Sigma lenses is a kind of incompatibility with flash guns that lay an IR grid to focus on, this often leads to OOF results. In case of flash gun use, turn off the IR focus grid.

As far as the 50mm is concerned, it is probably a good choice for me now... Hopefully it will be suitable for my Canon 500D body camera.

Thank you all!!

People are, of course, welcome to invent their own language, but in commonly accepted photo-talk, a normal lens provides a field of view that's "normal."

What normal is, numerically, varies depending on the camera and the size film it uses or the size of its sensor.

For a lens to be 'normal' for your camera, (which we refer to as having a cropped senor, or a 1.6 sensor, and known more formally as an APS-C camera) it should have a focal length somewhere in the 25 -35 mm range.

If you bought a so-called full frame camera, a normal lens would be in the 40 - 60mm range.

The Kodak Signet 35 had a permanent 44mm lens, and was my first good camera.

The Nikon S3 had a 50 mm interchangeable lens.

If you bought Hasselblad film camera that takes pictures 6 x 6 cm, a normal lens would be 80 mm.

If you bought a Bronica film camera that takes square pictures, the normal lens would be 75 mm, even tough the film is the same as the Hasselblad. There's a range that counts as normal.

And so on.

So if you want a normal prime lens, start looking at the 28mm, 30mm and 35mm lenses.

All that said, the 50mm f 1.8 STM lens is a fine prime short telephoto lens.

BAK

BAK wrote:

People are, of course, welcome to invent their own language, but in commonly accepted photo-talk, a normal lens provides a field of view that's "normal."

What normal is, numerically, varies depending on the camera and the size film it uses or the size of its sensor.

For a lens to be 'normal' for your camera, (which we refer to as having a cropped senor, or a 1.6 sensor, and known more formally as an APS-C camera) it should have a focal length somewhere in the 25 -35 mm range.

If you bought a so-called full frame camera, a normal lens would be in the 40 - 60mm range.

The Kodak Signet 35 had a permanent 44mm lens, and was my first good camera.

The Nikon S3 had a 50 mm interchangeable lens.

If you bought Hasselblad film camera that takes pictures 6 x 6 cm, a normal lens would be 80 mm.

If you bought a Bronica film camera that takes square pictures, the normal lens would be 75 mm, even tough the film is the same as the Hasselblad. There's a range that counts as normal.

And so on.

So if you want a normal prime lens, start looking at the 28mm, 30mm and 35mm lenses.

All that said, the 50mm f 1.8 STM lens is a fine prime short telephoto lens.

You are right, the 50mm Stm its a short telephoto lens, thanks! And i think its more close to what i am looking for than the 25-35mm.

BAK

I don't want to jump to any conclusions but it does sound like technique/camera settings instead of the lens. Post some photos with the EXIF so we can help more. No point spending money if you can fix these issues for free.