Bought a Canon EF 50mm f1.4 -- a mistake?

Rizzice

Rizzice

Active member
So I just purchased a Canon 7D and have been researching a lot of different footage and information for film with the 7D.

After a while, I decided to purchase the Canon EF 50mm F1.4, but now that I'm reading some other articles and forums, I hear that the 85mm f1.8 might be a better choice.

Like I said, I'm mostly planning to work with film, and I do martial arts so I may take some action shots as well, but the issue right now is I have about a $400 budget, so I am only trying to purchase one lens that I can work with a while until I can recover from my 7D purchase. The 85mm f1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 are nearly the same price, so I could still return my 50mm when it arrives, and get something else.

Should I keep it, or did I make a mistake when I bought it? I'm not even sure what differences I am seeing between the 85mm and 50mm.. I know some people have both, are they really that different? Is the 50mm for closer shots?
Also.. is there a specific brand I should be looking for, or is it completely dependent on the lens? I'm completely new to SLRs and I'm completely ignorant of what most of the numbers mean -_- eager to learn though..
 
Last edited:
Choosing an 85mm lens as your sole lens for the short term would be the mistake. I don't believe that any sane person would do that, unless he/she had very, very particular needs. An 85mm lens is a telephoto lens. Narrow field of view. There's not a whole lot that you're going to be able to do with it.

Photographers generally consider a "normal lens" (a lens that provides a field of view close to that of the human eye) to be their workhorse lens, if they were to choose just one prime lens for that purpose. On the 7D, a lens with a focal length between 28mm and 35mm would provide the "normal" field of view. 50mm is a bit narrow, but it can still be used for general purpose, just with a little more difficulty.

My suggestion: Why not choose a fast zoom lens? There are several great options for under $400. There's the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, the name ones that immediately come to mind.
 
I didn't realize the 85mm and 50mm were "slow"? What difference does it make? Are the lenses you listed good in low light? I really liked the focus on the 50mm, the bokeh seemed quite nice.
 
Last edited:
That 85/1.8 is tack sharp and great for getting close but you need a wider lens like at least 35mm on the 7D but preferable wider. The 35/1.4 is great or go for something like a 16-35/2.8.
 
Rizzice said:
I didn't realize the 85mm and 50mm were "slow"? What difference does it make? Are the lenses you listed good in low light? I really liked the focus on the 50mm, the bokeh seemed quite nice.
Click to expand...
No, the 50mm and 85mm are not slow. They are actually very fast. I never said that they're slow. (What gave you that impression?) I said that they provide a narrower field of view than what might be desirable for general use.

The smaller the f-number, the faster the lens. The f-number refers to the ratio between the focal length and the diameter of the iris opening (the aperture). Faster lenses let more light into the camera, since the iris openings are larger, which allow them to perform better in low light. Exposure is determined by three factors: aperture, shutter speed, and ISO value (AKA gain in the digital camera world). In the film world, ISO choices were limited for a number of reasons, so aperture and shutter speed were the most important variables to manipulate.

In order to obtain a usable exposure in low light, more light must be collected than in well-lit situations (obviously). The two ways to do that, besides artificially adding more light to the scene, are to open the iris wider or keep the shutter open for a longer time (this is known as using a slower shutter speed). However, slow shutter speeds are generally not desirable because they result in more motion blur. A lens that could open to a wider aperture value (i.e. f-number) would allow for a faster shutter speed, and that's why the maximum available aperture value of a lens is called the "lens speed."

The f-number listed in the name of the lens refers to the maximum aperture value available on that lens. You can always close the iris down to a smaller value, but never to a larger value. That's why "fast lenses" are considered to be so valuable. A hundred years ago, any lens that could do f/5.6 or faster was considered a "fast lens." Nowadays, f/2.8 is generally the threshold for what people consider "fast." You will not find any zoom lenses for the 7D that are faster than f/2.8.

The aperture is also a critical factor in depth of field. The smaller the aperture (meaning the higher the f-number), the larger the depth of field (meaning that more of the scene will be in focus). So fast lenses are also important because they allow for shallower depth of field, which is what people crave these days for achieving the "film look."

Please read the following Wikipedia articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_%28photography%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_length
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed

Wikipedia is your friend. You should also read a book (or Web site) on the basics of photography. These sources will answer most of your basic questions about using an SLR and lenses before you need to ask.
 
Last edited:
Rizzice said:
I didn't realize the 85mm and 50mm were "slow"? What difference does it make? Are the lenses you listed good in low light? I really liked the focus on the 50mm, the bokeh seemed quite nice.
Click to expand...

they're not slow and are a lot faster (better in low light) than the zooms he mentioned. he just meant that a reasonably fast zoom might be more up your alley since you're only getting one lens. a zoom would be more of an all-arounder since you'd have more focal lengths to choose from.
the 50mm might be a little more telephoto than it would be on a full frame but should be good enough for general use. the 85 might be a little limiting if it was your only lens.
 
That is a great lens, and has a lot of control. I find it very sharp, even wide open.

Since you're on a budget, I would recommend getting something like the kit lens. You can find a used 18-55mm for $75-100. Get the IS (image stabilizing ver) and you're handheld work will be smoother. They are not fast, but a 50mm will be pretty restrictive in certain places and you'll want something wider.

Other options are manual Nikons, but they are more expensive. A 28mm f2.8 in good cond. goes for @ $200.

This was shot with the 50mm, nikkor 28mm, and one shot with a zoom. Mostly on the 50mm though.
 
If you are going to do a lot of close in stuff get the 85.

HOnestly if your just starting id get a 50mm 1.8 (almost as good as the 1.4 but only $100 or so), and then get something for indoor and wide stuff like a 24 or 28mm 2.8.

Trust me, a 50 mm is to close up at times, 85 would be even more so. I rarely ever need anything more zoomed in than my 50mm, but if you do, get some wider options to, or you will limit yourself. 85mm can almost never be used inside unless its a large room.
 
Thanks for all the helpful replies, and that long write-up ydgmdlu! Definitely a lot to learn in the text and links :)

I agree that 50mm will probably be too restricting for all-around use, but I am still trying to figure out what lens to get. The sad thing is, I already purchased a filter set for 58mm threading to fit on the 50mm f1.4.. oh well :P

The 7D I am buying also comes with a 28-135mm lens, but I was originally planning on selling it. Might it be worth keeping?
 
The EF 28mm 1.8 USM shares the 58mm filter size and is a wonderful compliment to the EF 50mm 1.4 USM. They make a gr8 pair.
 
Rizzice said:
The 7D I am buying also comes with a 28-135mm lens, but I was originally planning on selling it. Might it be worth keeping?
Click to expand...
Do you have the camera yet? Can you still cancel your order?

Whether or not it's worth keeping is up to you. Just try it and see how you like it.
 
I can't cancel the orders, but I can most definitely still return the lens for full price, so as far as I'm concerned, I can still purchase any lens/es that I want.

So my understanding is the 50mm F1.4 is great in low light, but the problem with having it as my sole lens is that it won't be able to do wide shots, right? Maybe it would be better if I just bought the f1.8 instead, saved the $300 leftover to buy a more general purpose lens? I don't see a reason to invest $400 with my budget on a lens that I won't be using as much...
 
Rizzice said:
Maybe it would be better if I just bought the f1.8 instead, saved the $300 leftover to buy a more general purpose lens? I don't see a reason to invest $400 with my budget on a lens that I won't be using as much...
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be a good plan.

If you don't mind manual-only lenses, you can get several excellent old Nikons for less than $100 each.
 
So basically the difference between a zoom and a prime lens is versatility versus quality?

If I'm doing film, will I even notice the difference in quality between a prime and a zoom? My biggest concern is the difference in quality in low light... but I've heard that for stills the lens quality is MUCH more important than for film, but I don't know by how much..
 
Hi Rizzice,

Despite owning the 50mm f1.4 among others myself, I'd agree it probably shouldn't be your second lens based on your needs. Yes, I'd keep the kit 28-135mm lens despite it's limitations (primarily higher f-stop than you'd want for filiming quick movement). But on your budget, you'll have to do the best you can. If martial arts were my focus and I could get close to the action, I'd probably go with the Tamron f2.8 17-50mm. But if I was ALWAYS filming more than about 30 feet from the action, I'd probably consider something like a 70-200mm lens although the ubiquitous f2.8 with IS is clearly way above your buget.

Probably as important a decision is whether or not you require Image Stabilization for your martial arts shooting. And I'm sure you'd get a lively discussion with advice going back and forth from our well meaning colleagues.

And on that note, I'm a bit surprised that despite all the discussion of lens lengths, no one has underscored the 1.6 crop factor on the 7D and how that affects the adjusted length of your lens. Be sure to carefully consider both of these aspects in your choice. In fact, I'd recommend you rent or borrow a few lens before making a poor investment. Okay?

Happy trails,

Michael
 
Thanks Michael. The thing is, I plan on filming a lot of different types of things.. I was thinking about investing in the Canon EF 28-70MM f2.8L, which would require me to return the 50mm as well as sell the 28-135mm. It has really high reviews pretty much everywhere, my only concern is that it seems that it's no longer repairable by Canon and it's also rather large.. the Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 EX DG Lens is another lens I'm looking at now. It has all the focal lengths that I will probably be using mostly, and decent reviews..

As for IS, I think I can live without it. I plan on trying to build myself a rig or some kind of diy stabilization system if I can manage..


ydgmdlu said:
If you don't mind manual-only lenses, you can get several excellent old Nikons for less than $100 each.
Click to expand...

Isn't one of the main reasons to use 7D instead of a typical handheld camcorder the fact that you can have great manual control? Will I even be using AF very much? That would be cool if I could get an entire set of good prime lenses with my budget.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top