Recommend me a lens that's better/more useful than a 50mm lens

[scottsdaleriots]

I would like to buy a nifty-fifty (most likely the 50mm 1.4). I'd like it for portraits but want it for music/concert photography (right between the stage and the crowd, where the security personnel stand...if I can figure out a way to get a media pass without paying extra to the tour organisers ).

But while some people say everyone should have a 50mm in their lens collections, one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens? I guess my (stretched) budget wpuld be up to $1500 including the B+W filter I would buy. What does everyone think of these 'kits' and which one is better? http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Filter-Accessory-Digital-Cameras/dp/B002PX21JS/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1331887805&sr=1-7 or http://www.adorama.com/CA5014AFUA.html

I don't need this lens (canon branded or otherwise) but I would like it. I guess the alternatives would be a prime such as the 24mm/35mm or the 17-40mmL. Any suggestions/advice is appreciated.

 

[peederj]

Get the Samyang (Rokinon etc) 35mm for wide and 85mm for tele for half your budget, as good sharpness and light gathering, and double the versatility.

For filters, just cheapies are fine for protection. Save your money, you will need it.

 

[unkbob]

For filters, just cheapies are fine for protection. Save your money, you will need it.

Cheap filters are magical - they can turn an amazing lens into a pretty good one.

 

[briansquibb]

I would go for a fast lens.

I like to get close and personal so I use the 70-200f/2.8 If that is too much the perhaps the 85 f/1.8

For a wider angle maybe a 28 f/1.8

 

[Flake]

Yet another question which assumes the people answering it have second sight! For the purposes of guessing should we assume you are a Canon 1DX user or that you own an 1100D or maybe a D30 perhaps a 5D MkI? There are many many cameras now, not all of them new, and by with holding the body you own makes the question impossible to answer accurately!

Assuming you have a crop camera (although you might not have) 50mm is 80mm (fov) so if you want 50mm you will need a 35mm. For portrait consider the 85mm f/1.8.

Of course the other information you haven't told us is the lenses which you currently have so it's nothing more than a guessing game.

I take it you aren't considering photography as a career? Music photography is a sure fire way to poverty as every single student in the world seems hell bent on producing images for free and then giving them away for nothing! Fine is it's for fun and a hobby, but for professional use they really aren't suitable for a portfolio unless they're really stunning.

 

[Tijn]

What camera and lenses do you already have? What do you want to shoot / like shooting most, if you were to cross out concerts?

 

[alipaulphotography]

The beauty of a 50mm lens is precisely in its simplicity.

The focal length on full frame is roughly what the eye can see, which is perfect for documentary/street photography or simply telling stories and capturing memories of how you saw things with your eyes.

Sometimes I wish I had a little button on my head I could push and take a photo of what I see through my eyes - (Dynamic range is certainly better!) But until then - a 50mm on a full frame/35mm film body will have to do.

They are cheap, can shoot in low light, just the right focal length for getting wonderful shallow depth of field and bokeh without being telephoto.

Wider than 50mm (24/35mm) - you'll be sacrificing that shallow depth of field, but obviously you can fit more into a scene. I use the 35mm a lot at weddings as it allows me to get close and tell stories better by capturing more people in each photo. But if I had to use one lens - it would be a 50.

 

[solarpos]

Are you FF or 1.6? If you are shooting crop then the 50 is not a 'normal lens and is better suited for such things as indoor sports or head and shoulders portraits. In that case I suggest a 35 FL lens. If you are shooting with a FF body then I guess you just figured out that the 50mm FL isn't your bag. That's a good thing, knowing what works and doesn't work.

 

[Neeneko]

You should slap your professor....

The 1.4 is a workhorse... for the money it is probably the best lens you can get for a Canon, esp if you are only going to have 1 or 2 lenses. It is simple, versatile, and optically pretty damn good.

It might not be 'fun' or 'sexy', but it gets the job done, which if your goal is taking pictures is exactly what you want, especially if you are just learning. Get good with that one first then start playing with more interesting (but less flexible) lenses.

That being said, I would also recommend this one if you are looking for a good general purpose lens usable across a wide range of subjects:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006I53S/ref=oh_o04_s00_i00_details

Good lens, nice range, low cost.

 

[unkbob]

You should slap your professor....

I don't agree. The 50 is very useful and versatile but a wider lens like the 35L on a FF add more drama. Since I bought the 35 my 50 gets very little use. The 50 is more flattering but for portraits you probably want to go a little longer than that. If all you've got is one lens, sure I'd probably go for the 50, but if you have two, then a 35 (or 24-70) and an 85 / 100 / 135 / 70-200 are nicer to have, at least for the way I work.

 

[AJ]

one of my teachers (I'm a photography student) have said that some people find 50mm lenses boring, etc. So what's the next best kind of lens?

Who cares what someone says what some people think? What matters is what you think.

Focal length is very personal. Don't let other people decide focal length for you. Pick it yourself.

I suggest going to a gig with a zoom lens. Crank up the iso and start shooting. Don't worry about a bit of noise or some blur. Afterwards, have a look at the exifs of the photos that you like, to see focal length. Buy a prime accordingly.

 

[D_Rochat]

For filters, just cheapies are fine for protection. Save your money, you will need it.

I'm not the first to say it in this thread, but he couldn't be more wrong. The cheap ones are going to take away from your image quality. If you're going to spend the money on a good lens, get a Hoya or B&W.

 

[ksuweh]

If you are going to be right up front next to the stage a lot of artists like to show off & get right there in your face. That is why I prefer a wide angle lens for those events.

I assume that you have a 1.6x crop body. If that is the case a Canon EF-S 10-22 would be a good option, a Tokina 11-16 is a great option & a Canon EF-S 17-55 would be another good option.

Two pieces of advise:

1. Buy the best glass that you can. The lenses are the investment & no matter how good of a camera you have, if you use a crap lens you WILL get crap photos.

2. This one ties into the last comment......buy good filters! A crappy filter isn't any better than a crappy lens.

For filters I suggest B+W Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC) UV filters. They are well worth the investment!

 

[David KM]

For filters, just cheapies are fine for protection. Save your money, you will need it.

Cheap filters are magical - they can turn an amazing lens into a pretty good one.

Awesome !!!! So true, but if he's using a cheapy filter on a Rokinon then it may be an upgrade. I use a thin smear of vaseline to protect all my lenses, slightly better than a cheap filter ;o)

35L would be my vote for this thread.

 

[peederj]

I had a feeling that would be controversial around here. Like saying coat hangers are just as good for speaker cables as $2000 oxygen-free cables in an audiophile forum. Lots of peacocks in photography, and lots of sunk costs.

Anyway for a film student on a budget the $10 Chinese UV protector models (e.g. Zeikos, Opteka, Maximal Power, etc.) are every bit as good as B&W and Tiffen. Hoya years ago _was_ the cheapie filter, but people realized that they were just as good as the fancy German ones (not to mention they make much of the glass for the rest of the industry anyway) and now they aren't so cheap. Of course some filters (of any price) may be damaged or just poorly done...and yes I've sent some of those back.

I have a huge variety of filters of various price ranges, all the way up to 4x4 Schneiders etc. And the rare moments I have a flare problem or something with a filter, I look down expecting to find it's a cheapie but there is my fancy B&W with all its multicoatings. When one has a problem with a filter, don't blame the filter, just unscrew it.

Anyway if you'd like me to set up a double-blind test of lens filters using the 35L or 135L or whatever lens you feel is worthy of trophy status, I'll be happy to do so, but we're going to be betting something that's gonna hurt or it's not worth the time. 8)

 

[Wrathwilde]

Well, since I've never found a 50mm useful for anything... Not wide enough for most indoor, landscape or architectural shots, and not telephoto enough for anything else (assuming a FF sensor). The last time I used a 50mm was when it came with my Canon T70, I couldn't find any subject that lens was suited for, ended up trading up to a Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8, still my favorite lens of all time, wish Canon would make a similarly fast L lens with that range, variable f/ stop would be fine, but a fixed f/2.8 would be nicer.

 

[Halfrack]

So you're looking to get pit access - go for it but expect to hear no more than yes. Depending on what body you have now, you may be better suited to a body upgrade and a light lens, rather than spending a lot on the lens. Better performance at 6400ISO and higher will be critical. You may want to wait for the new 24 or 28mm 2.8IS - since you're shooting hand held - both for the IS and that the DoF of F2.8 will be much better since you would be that close.

But all that said, the 50/1.4 is by far the widest lens & brightest at the cheapest price you'll ever get. There's lots of them, and getting a used one is a great first step for any photographer. If you can't get into the pit, you can still shoot from the other side, and having the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8 will both work out great.

I can only think that someone would part with the 50/1.4 when/if they go for the 50/1.2

 

[scottsdaleriots]

I realise I have accidentally posted this in the wrong section of the forum. Hoping the mod/admin will see this and kindly move it to the right section.

This is my gear (so far): 7d, kit lens (18-200mm) and my 70-200mm 2.8 IS II

Yet another question which assumes the people answering it have second sight! For the purposes of guessing should we assume you are a Canon 1DX user or that you own an 1100D or maybe a D30 perhaps a 5D MkI? There are many many cameras now, not all of them new, and by with holding the body you own makes the question impossible to answer accurately!

Assuming you have a crop camera (although you might not have) 50mm is 80mm (fov) so if you want 50mm you will need a 35mm. For portrait consider the 85mm f/1.8.

Of course the other information you haven't told us is the lenses which you currently have so it's nothing more than a guessing game.

I take it you aren't considering photography as a career? Music photography is a sure fire way to poverty as every single student in the world seems hell bent on producing images for free and then giving them away for nothing! Fine is it's for fun and a hobby, but for professional use they really aren't suitable for a portfolio unless they're really stunning.

I thought it was a straight forward question, I didn't realise people would be asking me about my gear. Currently I've got a crop body and will upgrade in the future to FF (I was going to save up and get the 5dmkiii but probably not, too expensive and I don't actually need it right now). I've only got 2 lenses - my kit lens (18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS) and my 70-200mm 2.8 IS II.

Lol, don't forget the copyright! It seems quite stupid ridiculous to me that the photogs wanting to be a music/concert would pay a few hundred dollars to be able to take photos and most likely give up the copyright(?) as well. I haven't been to a concert and asked to take photos there in the pit but it seems to me that's what I would most likely do - beg, beg and BEG the tour organisers to let me takes photos there in the pit for my folio, pay an extra $30 at least or something to get a piece of cardboard saying 'media pass' (or whatever) and sign a contract or the like giving away the copyright and voiding the chance to put the photos in my folio. Which I think it is a little more (a lot more..?) easier to do music/concert photography if I were living in the US or UK just coz there's a lot more concerts AND a lot more outdoor concerts with tons of bands playing all on the same day. Here it's the band playing in an arena where the roof is closed and lots of artificial light (Im not very good with staged lighting, especially since at concerts there's a lot of different light types and they use colour gels a lots and bursts of light, etc. I would probably fail in getting my exposure right lol, I dunno I havent tried it yet).

What camera and lenses do you already have? What do you want to shoot / like shooting most, if you were to cross out concerts?

Well I want to work in the film industry as a stills photographer, but obviously that's a very long road and quite difficult to break in to. I also shoot sports at a major event (no press pass) and dabble in a bit of everything - landscape/cityscape, portraits, street, etc.

You should slap your professor....

The 1.4 is a workhorse... for the money it is probably the best lens you can get for a Canon, esp if you are only going to have 1 or 2 lenses. It is simple, versatile, and optically pretty damn good.

It might not be 'fun' or 'sexy', but it gets the job done, which if your goal is taking pictures is exactly what you want, especially if you are just learning. Get good with that one first then start playing with more interesting (but less flexible) lenses.

That being said, I would also recommend this one if you are looking for a good general purpose lens usable across a wide range of subjects:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006I53S/ref=oh_o04_s00_i00_details

Good lens, nice range, low cost.

Lol my professor doesn't own a 50mm lens and he's been shooting for 20+ years, he thinks they're boring and "why wopuld you want to shoot something that everyone else can see! It's pointless" (his words, not mine regarding the 50 focal length is equivalent to the human eye). Prior to his words I had never heard someone talk bad about the 50mm lens/focal length. Which, admittedly, is making have second doubts about purchasing the 50mm lens from canon (I was thinking of getting the sigma).

The beauty of a 50mm lens is precisely in its simplicity.

The focal length on full frame is roughly what the eye can see, which is perfect for documentary/street photography or simply telling stories and capturing memories of how you saw things with your eyes.

Sometimes I wish I had a little button on my head I could push and take a photo of what I see through my eyes - (Dynamic range is certainly better!) But until then - a 50mm on a full frame/35mm film body will have to do.

They are cheap, can shoot in low light, just the right focal length for getting wonderful shallow depth of field and bokeh without being telephoto.

Wider than 50mm (24/35mm) - you'll be sacrificing that shallow depth of field, but obviously you can fit more into a scene. I use the 35mm a lot at weddings as it allows me to get close and tell stories better by capturing more people in each photo. But if I had to use one lens - it would be a 50.

Thanks for your input. I think I might do a few weddings in the futuree just coz it pays well and is a challenge to shoot. Very stressful and definitely a shoot you don't want to stuff up. I'm also considering a wide angle zoom like the 17-40L but am not sure.

If you are going to be right up front next to the stage a lot of artists like to show off & get right there in your face. That is why I prefer a wide angle lens for those events.

I assume that you have a 1.6x crop body. If that is the case a Canon EF-S 10-22 would be a good option, a Tokina 11-16 is a great option & a Canon EF-S 17-55 would be another good option.

Two pieces of advise:

1. Buy the best glass that you can. The lenses are the investment & no matter how good of a camera you have, if you use a crap lens you WILL get crap photos.

2. This one ties into the last comment......buy good filters! A crappy filter isn't any better than a crappy lens.

For filters I suggest B+W Multi-Resistant Coating (MRC) UV filters. They are well worth the investment!

Yeah I will try to get in front of the stage coz that's where it all happens - and i love those shots from the pro music/concert photogs where they're like in the (almost) face of the singer. That's what I want and aspire to try and achieve.

Thanks for the lens suggestions, I will do some research on them. But I am trying to stay away from the EF-S lenses since I want to buy FF lenses so I can use them in the future. And am trying not to get bitten by the L lens bug or the 'collector of lenses' bug in general - a fellow student (older man from overseas with money to burn) in my class has 22 lenses.

So you're looking to get pit access - go for it but expect to hear no more than yes. Depending on what body you have now, you may be better suited to a body upgrade and a light lens, rather than spending a lot on the lens. Better performance at 6400ISO and higher will be critical. You may want to wait for the new 24 or 28mm 2.8IS - since you're shooting hand held - both for the IS and that the DoF of F2.8 will be much better since you would be that close.

But all that said, the 50/1.4 is by far the widest lens & brightest at the cheapest price you'll ever get. There's lots of them, and getting a used one is a great first step for any photographer. If you can't get into the pit, you can still shoot from the other side, and having the 50/1.4 or the 85/1.8 will both work out great.

I can only think that someone would part with the 50/1.4 when/if they go for the 50/1.2

I kinda leaning towards the zoom lenses since that's all I've got and i like the vewrsatitly.


I was considering buying the 50mm from B&H or amazon since it's a bit more than $200 cheaper there than my country. But of course there's the inflated shipping fees (I bought $120 worth of gear from B&H and the shipping was an extra $125+.) I've found a site selling the 50mm for $356 + $6 insurance delievery + free freight. Not so bad IMO http://www.dwidigitalcameras.com.au/store/product.asp?idProduct=62

 

[dunkers]

Since youre using a 7D, the 17-55 f/2.8 would probably be a good fit unless you plan on switching to full frame in the near future.

The 17-55 is L quality, minus the red ring/weather sealing. It has the versatility of a zoom. It covers wide angle and the 50mm range. Youre sacrificing f stops, but you get a versatile zoom range.

 

[D_Rochat]

Since youre using a 7D, the 17-55 f/2.8 would probably be a good fit unless you plan on switching to full frame in the near future.

The 17-55 is L quality, minus the red ring/weather sealing. It has the versatility of a zoom. It covers wide angle and the 50mm range. Youre sacrificing f stops, but you get a versatile zoom range.

Agreed. Sell that 18-200 and put the money towards a 17-55 2.8 or a 24-70 ver I if you plan on going to full frame in the near future. Providing that your 18-200 is still in good shape, you should be able to recover most of the cost to fund a replacement.