# First prime lens - EF 50mm vs 28mm



## shawrh (Jun 20, 2011)

Hi all,

Im only recently getting back into the game after a long, long hiatus so please be gentle.  Im on a budget and Im currently building my kit.  I dont want to spend a ton of money since Im just starting out again and dont see the need to buy top-of-the-line when I dont really know how to use it.  It seems like I would just be wasting that extra quality with my lack of knowledge. Although, with that said, I dont want a piece of junk either.

Anyway, I currently have a Rebel xsi with an EF 28-135mm. Its all well and good for now, but I want to add a prime lens for all the standard reasons. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is obviously appealing to me for the price point and good reviews Ive read.  I know its cheaply made, but the reviews seem to say that it takes quality shots.  For right now, I would sacrifice quality construction for a lens that would help me learn.  However, given the 1.6 crop factor of the Rebel, should I instead go with the EF 28mm f/2.8? This is more money, but it would get me closer to a real 50mm, right?

What I just wrote may be completely wrong, so please fire away with your corrections.  Is there another lens I should be considering? I just want something I can learn on that will give me decent shots. 50mm seems to be the focal length I want. If and when I get more comfortable with my work I can then upgrade.  

Also, I was looking into flashes. I was looking at the Speedlite 430EX II. Thoughts? Any other suggestions? Should I hold off on the flash until get the other aspects of my shooting down?

Again, please correct anything Im saying thats wrong. General thoughts and suggestions for a beginner are also welcome. Thanks for your help!


----------



## Gaerek (Jun 20, 2011)

Keep in mind, there is no such thing as 'real' 50mm. 50mm is always 50mm no matter what sensor is being used. What your thinking is 35mm (or full frame) equivalent. 28mm on 1.6 crop factor is about 45mm equivalent. 50mm is 80mm equivalent.

Having said that, it seems like you need to think about what you want/need. Is 50mm going to reach too far for your purposes? Will 28mm give you what you need? I use 50mm all the time on my cropped frame without issues. There are times when it would be nice to go wider, just like there are times it would be nice to go longer. Keep in mind, if you need to go wider (or longer) you still have your kit lens. Not to mention, the 50mm is quite a bit faster than the 28mm. Decide what you need and buy the equipment that's appropriate for it.


----------



## shawrh (Jun 20, 2011)

Thanks for the input. I want a prime lens that is fast and good for indoor/low light shots.  That seems to be the 50mm. However, I also want something that depicts the image naturally (closer to what my eyes naturally see) and that works well outside in the street. That would seem to be the 28mm, right? I know there is a 28 mm with 1/8 aperture, but I can't afford that right now. I'm leaning more towards the 50mm.  Perhaps I should just go home and set my zoom lens on those two lengths and see what is the most comfortable. 

Please keep the thoughts/corrections coming!


----------



## subscuck (Jun 20, 2011)

What exactly is your budget? If I'm reading correctly, you seem to want a "normal" perspective lens. On film and ff slr's, this is 50mm. To get that equivalent field of view on a Canon crop, a 30 or 35 puts you closer than a 28.

Canon makes a 35 2.0 and Sigma makes a 30 1.4. I own the Sigma and it's great. People who own the Canon seem to be happy with it. I don't know if either of these lenses are in your budget, though.

The price appeal of the 50 1.8 is seductive, but I would recommend the 1.4 version any day. The reviews you read on the 1.8 may not have told you how slow the af is, and how spotty it can be in low light. Either Canon or Sigma's 1.4's are much better low light performers. The 1.8 also has fairly harsh bokeh on out of focus backgrounds. But again, I don't know if either 1.4 fits your budget.

Even tho a 50mm lens isn't "normal" on a crop body, it can still be used for all the uses you've mentioned. You'll need to back up a bit, and sometimes there may not be enough room, but it's doable.


----------



## fokker (Jun 20, 2011)

Field of view and perspective are not the same thing. The reason the 50mm lens has always been popular is because it closely matches the perpective of the human eye, making it easy to visualize your shots before you put the camera up to your face, and also because the perspective of a 50mm lens gives a very 'real' look to some photos. Field of view is related to the sensor size - the bigger the sensor the more of the image from the lens hits it. Even with a full-frame camera you can only capture a small rectangle of what your eyes can see. 
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I would defintely go for the 50mm. Not only is it cheaper but I think you'll find much more novel use with it. You can produce much shorter depth of field with the longer 50 vs a 28. Mostly, I just don't find using my 28mm sigma lens on a 1.6 crop very exciting or inspiring at all.


----------



## shawrh (Jun 22, 2011)

subsuck- Wouldn't a 28mm be closer to normal perspective (50mm) than a 35?  28x1.6=44.8 vs 35x1.6=56 - only 0.8 closer, but still closer. I would prefer the 50mm/1.4mm, but the cost difference is about $300. This higher price seems to be in the following - faster AF, better bokeh, bigger aperture, stronger construction. All very valuable upgrades, but are they really worth it for my first prime lens? The Sigma lens runs about $500.  That's out of my budget for right now. 

fokker - thanks for the input. Regarding 50mm vs 28 mm vs 35mm, it seems like 50mm is the way to go. Sounds like a good lens to pay my dues on and have some fun without breaking the bank. If i love it and get much better, I'll upgrade to a nicer version. 

I still like the idea of having the 28mm to pull back more, but I don't think it will be a huge problem when I start shooting with the 50mm. 

Any thoughts on my flash question? Thinking about the Speedlite 430EX II. Should I hold off on  the flash until I get the other aspects of my shooting down or do you consider the external flash essential?

Again, I apologize for the novice nature of my questions. Thanks for taking the time to help me!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Jun 22, 2011)

What focal length are you using most on your existing lens that you plan to buy the new lens for?  That may help you decide?


----------



## shawrh (Jun 22, 2011)

Good point. To be honest, I haven't been paying too much attention. I just zoom until I see what I want and snap. I need to start paying more attention to all the settings.


----------



## subscuck (Jun 22, 2011)

The 430 is a nice flash unit. It's got a decent guide #, but I wouldn't go any cheaper than the 430 in Canon's line up. Seeing as the pop up flash on cameras is next to useless, I always recommend a speed lite right away. I also recommend a tripod right away, too, and these recommendations are based on hind sight. While a speed lite will still keep your lighting on axis, it'll allow for far betting lighting than the pop up simply by being able to bounce it, and down the road can be used off camera. If you can handle the learning curve of both photography fundamentals and lighting fundamentals at the same time, then get a speed lite now. If you feel you're better served learning only photography fundamentals first, then hold off. Or buy a tripod.


----------

