Limits of the 50mm F/1.8

[Schizophonic]

Just some technical queries I have about this lens.

I used this lens at a wedding event yesterday under dark / poor light conditions. It struggled to keep up with the actions even wide open at F/1.8 and it just was not as sharp as I hoped. I end up using my 17-40 F/4 and bumping up the ISO to get what I was hoping.

I've not used other prime L lenses and would want to know if they are quicker and sharper that the cheap 50mm F/1.8?

 

[Rojin]

There is some copy variation as to whether it's going to be unacceptably sharp wide open, I thought the one I had was pretty good. The drawbacks of the nifty fifty are; slow AF especially in low light (it can struggle to even AF correctly in low light), bokeh isn't the smoothest especially as you stop down and the build quality is cheap.

Using AF assist may have helped?

Shooting wide open does also mean your working depth of field is very narrow, this can take some getting used to.

 

[Mr Jones]

My 85mm f1.8 is fast, sharp and bokeh love!
The 50mm f1.8 is surprisingly good IF you pair it up with a flashgun to give focus assist (turn off flash/fill if you want to shoot with natural light). Used it for almost one whole wedding when I started out.

 

[AtticusFinch]

No lens will be as sharp wide open as it is a couple of stops down. Just a fact of optics generally. The f1.8 is a decent very cheap lens that does not produce results as good as the 1.4 or 1.2 which each have their own qualities.

If you were taking wedding photos for someone I'd recommend the 1.4 at 1.8/2 and you'll have better bokeh.

The 85 1.2 is lovely too, but again gives better sharpness stopped down a bit.

 

[Schizophonic]

Striaght from the camera was this shot used with a bounce flash and the 50mm lens. Its quite soft still.

 

[Rojin]

ISO 800 with bounced flash, why so high? At f 2.8 I'd expect it to be pretty sharp to be honest, has it missed focus or is it always soft?

 

[Fusion]

Just remember it is a cheap lens, stop down to f/2.5 and the sharpness will be improved.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Optics work on the basis that you get what you pay for - to get sharpness, definition and great bokeh for protraits, you will do better with a "better lens".

In low light you need to balance the combination of wide aperture lens (stopped down a bit for sharpness), flash and the lowest ISO you can to avoid noise. Never easy, but almost always made easier with better (and unfortunately) more expensive glass.

For that reason when shooting protraits at weddings etc I would avoid a 2.8 zoom lens - OK if you're outdoors, but sharper, more satisfying sesults can be had with dedicated primes.

 

[a1ex2001]

For that reason when shooting protraits at weddings etc I would avoid a 2.8 zoom lens - OK if you're outdoors, but sharper, more satisfying sesults can be had with dedicated primes.

99% of the countries wedding photographers would disagree with you, but opinion is after all just that.

The 50 1.8 is an absolutely fantastic lens FOR THE MONEY, personally I've never had a problem with low light autofocus mine just seems to work. I never use AF assist on my flash gun as it totally ruins candid portraits, I find mine acceptable wide open but it is definately better stepped down a little I try to shoot about f2 to f2.8.

 

[ElDude]

You can get awesome photos with the nifty fifty, but as I've been using it (without a flash as I still haven't gotten around to buying one after 6 years!) more and more recently I've been finding it struggles a lot in low light. In some cases it refuses to focus at all.

Still, I'd recommend it to anyone. For the price you'd be insane not to buy it

 

[Schizophonic]

You can get awesome photos with the nifty fifty, but as I've been using it (without a flash as I still haven't gotten around to buying one after 6 years!) more and more recently I've been finding it struggles a lot in low light. In some cases it refuses to focus at all.

Still, I'd recommend it to anyone. For the price you'd be insane not to buy it

Yes - thats what the 50mm was struggling do. Even some slight movement it would through the AF off. Its not a fast lens but in low light conditions its far from quick. I know its a £70 lens and you pay for what you get out of it. Heck, compared to my 17-40 F/4 it nailed the shots I needed. I rather take sharpness over ISO noise. Though the 5D MKII is quite understanding

 

[AtticusFinch]

I doubt they would

99% of the countries wedding photographers would disagree with you, but opinion is after all just that.

The 50 1.8 is an absolutely fantastic lens FOR THE MONEY, personally I've never had a problem with low light autofocus mine just seems to work. I never use AF assist on my flash gun as it totally ruins candid portraits, I find mine acceptable wide open but it is definately better stepped down a little I try to shoot about f2 to f2.8.

To clarify, I doubt 99% of this country's [sic] wedding photographers would disagree with my proposition. A high quality prime lens will give you a better picture all other things being equal than a zoom would.

If you were suggesting that a person who is shooting an entire wedding would disagree with me then that's pretty obvious. I was clearly not suggesting that an entire wedding should be shot with a single prime lens.

I was stating that if you were to take wedding portraits (or other portraits) that a dedicated prime wil llikely produce beter results.

As a result I stand by my observations on that. As for the f1.8 50mm I agree that its a fine little cheap lens and does the job its intended to do. The 1.4 is a better lens in every way and remains an inexpensive option for many. Given the choice the 1.4 is the lens to have of the two.

 

[bigredshark]

To clarify, I doubt 99% of this country's [sic] wedding photographers would disagree with my proposition. A high quality prime lens will give you a better picture all other things being equal than a zoom would.

That's simply not true. Compare the Canon 50mm f/1.8 with the 24-70L - all things being equal, even at f/2.8 and definitely at f/4 the zoom is sharper. The same is true of the Nikon 24-70 and the cheaper primes in their range. That's extreme examples in some ways as both the 24-70 zooms are exceptionally good and run more than ten times the cost of the 50mm f/1.8s or 3-4 times the f/1.4 versions but it still proves the point - you can't blanket say that primes are *always* better than zooms. Indeed the 35mm prime is no better once you stop down to f/4 or so and only better in the corners at f/2.8...

 

[Mp4]

So the 50mm sweet spot is at F2.2 to F4?

I'm going to my mates at 4:30 today to take family photos and all im taking is the 50mm

ive always shot at 1.8 AV the AF is a bit iffy! And when i MF i can never get it crisp!

 

[bigredshark]

So the 50mm sweet spot is at F2.2 to F4?

I'm going to my mates at 4:30 today to take family photos and all im taking is the 50mm

ive always shot at 1.8 AV

Sharpness wise, with most lenses, the absolute sweet spot is usually around f/8 or so, though on a fast prime I'd expect f/4 down to be as good, on an expensive prime f/2 or so maybe.

I'd use whatever aperture suits what you're doing, I've never stopped down for sharpness alone myself but I don't generally shoot wide open unless I have to either (and I do make a point of owning good glass so I can shoot wide open when I need to).

 

[AtticusFinch]

Please read what I post

That's simply not true. Compare the Canon 50mm f/1.8 with the 24-70L - all things being equal, even at f/2.8 and definitely at f/4 the zoom is sharper. The same is true of the Nikon 24-70 and the cheaper primes in their range. That's extreme examples in some ways as both the 24-70 zooms are exceptionally good and run more than ten times the cost of the 50mm f/1.8s or 3-4 times the f/1.4 versions but it still proves the point - you can't blanket say that primes are *always* better than zooms. Indeed the 35mm prime is no better once you stop down to f/4 or so and only better in the corners at f/2.8...

I clearly state that a "high quality" prime will outclass a zoom - the f1.8 is certainly not a "high quality" prime. It is a cheap lens that outperforms its price point.

 

[bigredshark]

I clearly state that a "high quality" prime will outclass a zoom - the f1.8 is certainly not a "high quality" prime. It is a cheap lens that outperforms its price point.

OK, what do you want to compare - the 24-70 is still as sharp or perhaps better than the 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.8 and f/4. The 50mm f/1.2 isn't renowned as much better than the others below f/2 either and that's a £1200 L lens - which, all things being equal is on a par with the zoom.

Why make blanket claims like that? What's the point?

 

[AtticusFinch]

Righto

OK, what do you want to compare - the 24-70 is still as sharp or perhaps better than the 50mm f/1.4 at f/2.8 and f/4. The 50mm f/1.2 isn't renowned as much better than the others below f/2 either and that's a £1200 L lens - which, all things being equal is on a par with the zoom.

Why make blanket claims like that? What's the point?

I thought this thread was about a guy that turned up at a wedding to take some photos. I have made my comments in that context. If you're going to take some portrait shots at a wedding or anywhere else for that matter, in my opinion you usually get better results from a high quality prime than a zoom.

For the money, you will get really excellent pictures out of a 50mm f1.4 stopped down a little, and those images will be (as you appear to acknowledge) as good as the 24-70 2.8 (with in your opinion) this latter lens "perhaps" producing better results.

My point is that you don't need a 24-70 zoom to get great portrait pictures and for the money you'd be best not buying it and using a 50mm f1.4 instead.

I maintain that the usual result is that a high quality dedicated prime is designed to, and (on this point will concede an abosulte) usually produces comparable or better results than a zoom will.

If cost is not in the equation even you seem to be agreeing with the point that the 50mm 1.2 stopped down is better (if perhaps by a great deal) than the zoom you mention - which is my point. High quality primes are designed and include (usually) better elements in them with a view to producing superior results in use than zooms, which are designed to be versatile within a range.

If this were not the case, then surely people would not bother buying primes, and manufacturers wouldn't bother making them as everyone would just be fooling themselves in believing that they are delivered with superior results.

These are the reasons I made "blanket claims" - becuase I believe they're facts. It's OK with me that you may not believe the same, or that your experiences may be different - but I'm not just off on some fanciful rant of my own - just reflecting on the purpose of the glass and my experiences in using it over the last 25 years.

 

[mangobreeder]

The 1.8 is a cracking lens.

This shot was taken in near darkness and yeah it not pin sharp, and the Dof is a bit too much, and there is noise because of the high ISO, but regardless i think its a great image.

 

[Rojin]

Actually if your aim is sharpness, the 50mm 1.8 mkII out resolves the 50mm 1.2 across the frame (as you stop down). Of course though sharpness isn't everything, and I know which lens I'd rather be using!