Anything Wrong with 50 1.8 STM on a 6D?

[hmatthes]

My main go to lens is the 50mm STM on my 6D - Other lenses i have/use are 24-105F4, 70-300, 70mm macro.
Its great in low light, yes i'd like something f.8 in the range 80-150.

For street work i do wonder if a 35mm model might be more creative overall, but these are all quite expensive.
the 40mm pancake image circle is to small on the 6D, so not suitable.

As a value for money lens the 50mm 1.8 STM seems great.

Hello Stuart -- I use both the 40mm f/2.8 and the 50mm 1.8 STM all the time. The EF40mm f/2.8 definitely has a full frame image circle -- someone misled you. This 40mm is so very small on the 6D that it makes a great street lens. At night I use my 35mm f1.4 -- much bigger but beautiful wide open!
The Canon EF85mm f1.8 is a delightful portrait lens shot wide open as well.
Enjoy!

 

[Sporgon]

the 40mm pancake image circle is to small on the 6D, so not suitable.

:

Well if it is the image circle on the 50 STM @ f/1.8 is worse

 

[slclick]

Color, microcontrast, build, size....I use the 40 over the 50 1.8 STM every time. In fact I use my 50 more adapted on my M5 than on my 5d3.

 

[Larsskv]

I think I'm 50 1.8 STM bound, but before I make that major life-leap - Does anyone use the 85 1.8 on full-frame as their general walk-around lens? Anyone?

:-*

Go for it. You won’t go wrong. It is so cheap that you can upgrade later, and keep it as a small and light travel lens.

 

[Cory]

Last brutally insane question -
Canon 50 1.4?

 

[fullstop]

Last brutally insane question -
Canon 50 1.4?

no. not worth it in my opinion. Candidate for an update since ages. And it does not work very well with mirrorless cameras (or in LiveView).

 

[Quirkz]

I’m going to second everyone recommending the 40mm - it’s nearly as cheap as the 50 1.8, and small - making a wonderful walk around lens. Don’t spend the money on anything more unless you know exactly which limitations with the 40 that you want to improve on.

My favorite in that general ‘normal’ focal length range is the canon 35mm 1.4 II - but it’s quite an investment, and not to be done on whim (it’s soooo good though)

I’ve also owned and used the 50mm 1.4 sigma art, the canon 50 mm 1.4 and 1.8 stm. The only one I’d say ‘skip’ is the canon 50 1.4

 

[sdsr]

Last brutally insane question -
Canon 50 1.4?

Does your "general everything" include atmospheric painterly-bokeh sorts of photos? Is your idea of a good lens what seems to have become the standard, i.e. a sort of clinical perfection (ultrasharp even wide open and in the corners, no cats' eye bokeh in corners, etc.)? Few lenses do both, at least not wide open (the closest 50mm in my experience is the horribly expensive Sony FE 50 1.4), and the Canon 50 1.4 isn't one of them: wide open it's unimpressive from a clinical perspective, and its rather harsh bokeh is unlikely to please someone looking for atmosphere. Plus, it seems rather flimsily made and its badly damped, imprecise focus ring makes it a chore to focus manually (that may not matter to most). Stopped down a bit, though, it performs really well on the clinical front - but by then it's competing against cheaper, often smaller, 1.8 lenses which may be better at similar apertures anyway. (If you don't mind risking maddening AF performance combined with considerable bulk, weight and price, there's always the Sigma Art 1.4.)

While I admire clinical perfection, given the choice I would take a character lens with as fast an aperture as possible (for want of a better term); which means, among 50mm-ish AF lenses you can attach to a 6D, the 50 1.2 L - but you have to pay for that with greater expense and weight. The 40mm pancake doesn't do it for me (the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2, on the other hand...). Your preferences may lead you to the opposite conclusion, of course.

As for your question whether anyone uses an 85mm as a walkaround lens, that's my favorite focal length and I often do. Fullstop's answer to that question is the right one, though.

 

[jd7]

I’m going to second everyone recommending the 40mm - it’s nearly as cheap as the 50 1.8, and small - making a wonderful walk around lens. Don’t spend the money on anything more unless you know exactly which limitations with the 40 that you want to improve on.

My favorite in that general ‘normal’ focal length range is the canon 35mm 1.4 II - but it’s quite an investment, and not to be done on whim (it’s soooo good though)

I’ve also owned and used the 50mm 1.4 sigma art, the canon 50 mm 1.4 and 1.8 stm. The only one I’d say ‘skip’ is the canon 50 1.4

I had the 40 2.8 for a while and ended up selling it for lack of use. I sometimes regret it though! It's a great little lens. I think I'd probably prefer it to the 50 STM as a walk around, even though it's only f/2.8.

Cory, have you considered the 35 f/2 IS? Obviously if you're set on 50mm it's not for you, but the 35 f/2 IS makes an excellent general purpose walk around prime in my opinion.

 

[slclick]

I’m going to second everyone recommending the 40mm - it’s nearly as cheap as the 50 1.8, and small - making a wonderful walk around lens. Don’t spend the money on anything more unless you know exactly which limitations with the 40 that you want to improve on.

My favorite in that general ‘normal’ focal length range is the canon 35mm 1.4 II - but it’s quite an investment, and not to be done on whim (it’s soooo good though)

I’ve also owned and used the 50mm 1.4 sigma art, the canon 50 mm 1.4 and 1.8 stm. The only one I’d say ‘skip’ is the canon 50 1.4

I had the 40 2.8 for a while and ended up selling it for lack of use. I sometimes regret it though! It's a great little lens. I think I'd probably prefer it to the 50 STM as a walk around, even though it's only f/2.8.

Cory, have you considered the 35 f/2 IS? Obviously if you're set on 50mm it's not for you, but the 35 f/2 IS makes an excellent general purpose walk around prime in my opinion.

Having both the 35 f/2 IS and the 40 is a bit of a conundrum. I waffle on which to take which often leads towards bringing the 450 on the crop for a semi long/normal tele prime and having it available for the FF when wanted. But I do love my 35 IS

 

[jd7]

Having both the 35 f/2 IS and the 40 is a bit of a conundrum. I waffle on which to take which often leads towards bringing the 450 on the crop for a semi long/normal tele prime and having it available for the FF when wanted. But I do love my 35 IS

After I got a 35 IS I used my 40 much less, which is why I ended up selling the 40. Then I moved to a 35 Art after giving one of those a try, and sold 35 IS. Now I sometimes wish I still had the 40 because as much as I like the 35 Art, it would be nice to have something smaller occasionally.

 

[AuroraChaserDoug]

I like the unobtrusiveness of the shorty 40 and shallow DOF of the 50 1.4. In fact, my 50 1.4 has such a shallow DOF that often the the image appears to have nothing in focus at all! Although I don't often do street photography, I'm planning on using my shorty 40mm while out traveling next month since it looks like a body cap. I may carry my "24-105" coffee mug just to keep people guessing when shooting from the hip.

 

[Larsskv]

The 50 f1.4 isn’t any better than the f1.8. Bokeh is worse. Build quality is worse. Sharpness wise they are about the same at similar apertures. I haven’t suggested the 50 f1.4 to anyone for many years.

85mm is an alternative, of course, but you will find it too long in many situations, especially when you are unable to move around to get the shot that you want. Bokeh wise, it is a better performer than the 50 f1.8.

I’d start with the 50 f1.8 STM, and would later recommend either the 85 f1.8 or the excellent 35 f2 IS, or perhaps a 28 f2.8 IS.

 

[pwp]

I'd agree with most of these posts, the 40mm f/2.8 Shorty McForty or the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 would be great choices, well ahead of the EF 50mm f/1.8. My daughter lucked out with a second hand one for $40 which is a genuinely decent copy. The 50mm Canon is certainly a cheapie, and you might get lucky with a good one, but somewhat random copy variation might play a negative position for you.

If budget constraints are tight, go for the Shorty McForty pre-owned. They're a rock solid little lens with a huge following.

-pw

If I recall correctly, Lensrentals has found the 50 f1.8 STM to have excellent, almost non existing, copy variation.

+1 You are absolutely right that it is incorrect to imply a large copy variation for the 50mm f/1.8 STM as the opposite is true. This is what Lensrentals writes: "Remember, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM is the standard against which all other lenses are measured. It’s amazingly consistent." https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/05/sony-fe-50mm-f1-8-mtf-and-consistency/ (they have the MTF variation of the Sony compared with the Canon 50/1.8)

Thanks for that, I stand corrected. Now I know!
My experience was based on now obsolete info that related to the original versions.

-pw

 

[AlanF]

I'd agree with most of these posts, the 40mm f/2.8 Shorty McForty or the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 would be great choices, well ahead of the EF 50mm f/1.8. My daughter lucked out with a second hand one for $40 which is a genuinely decent copy. The 50mm Canon is certainly a cheapie, and you might get lucky with a good one, but somewhat random copy variation might play a negative position for you.

If budget constraints are tight, go for the Shorty McForty pre-owned. They're a rock solid little lens with a huge following.

-pw

If I recall correctly, Lensrentals has found the 50 f1.8 STM to have excellent, almost non excisting, copy variation.

+1 You are absolutely right that it is incorrect to imply a large copy variation for the 50mm f/1.8 STM as the opposite is true. This is what Lensrentals writes: "Remember, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM is the standard against which all other lenses are measured. It’s amazingly consistent." https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/05/sony-fe-50mm-f1-8-mtf-and-consistency/ (they have the MTF variation of the Sony compared with the Canon 50/1.8)

Let me correct something I said earlier.....

The OLD version of the 50 F1.8 has terrible AF inconsistency.... the STM version is much better. The old version can be found used for almost nothing, and is not worth the price.

The original f/1.8 is an excellent lens with a metal mount. I had one from the film days which I sold for about $150 a short while ago after I bought the STM. It was replaced by the version II, which would break into II when dropped.