Canon 50mm

[Fujito]

So there are several 50mm's available. I don't know which one would work best for me. Money is but isn't an issue, meaning I'd like to spend less but if the more expensive one is that much better then I don't mind.

I want to primarily use this lens for food photography. Would the macro one be better suited for that kind of photography?

-EF 50mm f/1.8 II --$100
-EF 50mm f/1.4 --$375
-EF 50mm f/2.5 compact macro--$280

[grimm]

personally I would get the f1.2L you probably don't need that shallow of a DOF for culinary photography but the L glass is top notch. Other than that i'd probably stick with the f1.8 due to the price. I have the f1.8 and it's a great lens.

[97TurboDSM]

as grimm said, 1.8 or 1.2L anything inbetween is a waste of money. the 1.8 really is one of, if not the best, best lens for the money. Sigma's 50/1.4 is arguably better than canon's 1.4 and incredibly close in performance to canons 1.2L. i own sigma's 50/1.4 and its awesome.

[Fujito]

I didn't even see that one. $1500 more than the f/1.8 though.

Well, I was looking at buying the 85mm f/1.2L eventually. I read some reviews on Amazon about the 50mm 1.2L and a lot of people say that there are issues with the lens.

I think I might just get the f/1.8. Can't beat $100.

[grimm]

I would get the 85mm over the 50mm. the 50mm1.8 is a steal for the price. but you should be able to find it for under $100.

[97TurboDSM]

if you're going to spend money for a 50/1.8 try to find an mk1 with the metal mount. they're a little more expensive but people that have them swear by them. also the 85/1.8 is fantastic as i own it as well.

[Chris_PA]

You get what you pay for

That's all I'm saying


Also, 50mm for food photography is silly

Get this if you plan on shooting a lot of food:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_3_5L.html

Even this would be 100 times better than a 50mm for food:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._8L_Macro.html

[Fujito]

Originally Posted by Chris_PA

You get what you pay for

That's all I'm saying


Also, 50mm for food photography is silly

Get this if you plan on shooting a lot of food:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_3_5L.html

Even this would be 100 times better than a 50mm for food:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._8L_Macro.html

I'm open to suggestions. Lugging around a tripod in a restaurant setting isn't very practical, though, so maybe the 100mm would be better than the 180mm for me. Hmmm

[den9]

well if your doing this in a restraunt and not under studio lighting, id go with the f/1.2

[97TurboDSM]

the new 100macro 2.8IS is awesome. get it.

[sisforsurfing]

Don't get the 50/1.2. f1.2 at a distance that close to food is going to leave you with wayy too little DoF.

I say on a budget get the 50/1.8 and get to know it's weakenesses. The metal mount version I is optically identical to the II, pretty pointless IMO.

But yeah, I wouldn't get a 50. You can probably get a great deal on the "old" 100mm macro since everyone's buying the new one, which is no different except that it has IS (which is great, but not for 2x the price.) That's probably the best middle ground. That gives you the field of view of 160mm on a 35mm body.

The bee's knees for food would be a T/S lens. Huge control of depth of field and where focus lands, and for food/product stuff that's great. But maybe get something cheaper and easier to use first and find out where your gear is holding you back.

[Fujito]

I actually need a lens this weekend for some portraitures I need to do on Sunday.

I'm looking online and no one has the 50mm f/1.8. Stores do, however, have the 85mm f/1.8 which is an overall better portraiture lens. After doing some reading I don't think the f/1.2 L 85mm is for me being that I'm an amateur and I'd rather put that $1700 into my car. SO, I'm going to go buy the 85mm f/1.8 tomorrow morning. I'll look into getting the macro lens. All I have right now is a 15mm f/2.8 fisheye and the kit 28-135mm f/3.5-5 lens.

[nissan4life]

I have a 50mm 1.8 I can bring it out to sa on tuesday if you want to try it out, and I paid 80 for iirc

[Racersky]

Originally Posted by sisforsurfing

Don't get the 50/1.2. f1.2 at a distance that close to food is going to leave you with wayy too little DoF.

I say on a budget get the 50/1.8 and get to know it's weakenesses. The metal mount version I is optically identical to the II, pretty pointless IMO.

But yeah, I wouldn't get a 50. You can probably get a great deal on the "old" 100mm macro since everyone's buying the new one, which is no different except that it has IS (which is great, but not for 2x the price.) That's probably the best middle ground. That gives you the field of view of 160mm on a 35mm body.

The bee's knees for food would be a T/S lens. Huge control of depth of field and where focus lands, and for food/product stuff that's great. But maybe get something cheaper and easier to use first and find out where your gear is holding you back.

So is there a difference? I'm thinking about picking one up myself.

[ASIAN JUL]

I have the 1.4... for the price it's not awful. I love it, others have mixed opinions on it.

[Fujito]

I just picked up the 85mm f/1.8 from calumet in Philly. My friend is visiting from Texas tomorrow, and she has experience modeling, so we're going to get it on.

[Fujito]

[97TurboDSM]

i love mine, its a wonderful piece of glass.

[Fujito]

I took some random shots. It really is an amazing portraiture lens. And the DOF is impressive. Prior to this the largest aperture I had was the f/2.8 on my fisheye.

[97TurboDSM]

1.8 is very fun, even better is 1.4! i think i might give it up in favor of a 135L though, talk about a portraiture lens!