Which to get: 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2?

[ilikephotography]

Hi all.

Ive got a 60D with the new STM 18-135 lens.

Im looking for a prime lens. I cant spend a ton of money at this point as id still consider myself an amateur but I want to have something in this range to work with. I would consider upgrading later on if I find that I've outgrown my equipment. Im not looking for an expensive lens for right now.

Thoughts on which lens is better for me?

thanks team!

 

[funkboy]

I wouldn't mess with the 35/2 but there are folks here that like it. Personally I find it's too expensive for what it offers. You'll find a lot of threads here from folks asking about alternatives like the 30mm sigma. There are a lot of other EF-mount 35mm lenses around as well. Ever since APS-C cameras showed up folks have been looking at that 35 f/2 & wondering if/when Canon will deliver a proper modern "standard" focal length lens for APS-C. The closest they've come so far is probably the new 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake.

I'd say your choice should be between the 50 f/1.8 and the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake. If you shoot a lot of video then the STM may be worth the extra hundred bucks for you vs. the 50 (though I don't know if the 60D can take advantage of the STM). It's certainly better built & the AF is better, plus it's smaller. Apparently it's amazingly sharp.

But don't knock the little 50. It's extremely light, decently sharp when stopped down a bit, and cheap as chips.

Another extremely fine lens that won't break the bank is the 85mm f/1.8 USM. The AF speed is in the same ballpark as my 135L and the IQ is pretty close to L territory from f/2.8 and on. Think of it as a "baby L" & you get the picture. Basically every Canon telephoto prime from 85mm on up pretty much rocks, which is why a lot of us are here in the first place .

If you've got the cash, I'd say get the 40 (wider, sharper) or 50 (cheaper, more luminous) AND the 85. Maybe take one now & save up for the other.

Good luck .

 

[Synomis192]

If you don't mind shooting manually (seeing that you have an articulating screen) consider getting the Rokinon 35mm f/1.4. It's a fully manual lens that has the aperture control on the lens itself. People have compared the Rokinon's IQ to the Canon 35mm f/1.4L Then again, the manual control might turn you off.

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens. Don't pass up an opportunity to get it. If you can, get the mk1 metal version of the lens. You might be worried about the focal length because it becomes really long on a crop camera. But for portraits, it's a bargain.

Here's some recommendations:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Canon 40mm f/2.0
Rokinon 35mm f/1.4

 

[pdirestajr]

I'd suggest the 40mm f/2.8 too. It's cheap and incredibly sharp wide open. I actually sold my 50mm 1.8 and 35mm f/2 after I bought the 40mm. I like that it's focal length sits in between those other 2 lenses- for me it took the place of both of them without taking up any space in my camera bag!

 

[theqspeaks]

I'll voice a vote for the Sigma 30mm 1.4. Lovely lens that handles well. The shallow DOF is great, and the 30mm is the closest you can get on the 60D (which I also have) to the classic 50mm perspective.

I also have the Canon 50mm 1.8. Good to have for portraits, but otherwise I never use it. The AF is pretty poor and the perspective is far too tight for everyday use.

What do you want to use the prime for? If it is for an everyday, walk-around lens, I'd aim for a lens between 28mm and 40mm. If you're looking for shallow DOF or low light performance, get a f/1.8 lens or faster. If you want something that'll force you to be creative, grab the Canon nifty fifty and play around with portraits and a tighter perspective.

 

[Rob Moreno]

I have both the 50mm f/1.8 and 35 mm f/2 as well as the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I find myself using the 35 way more than the 50 since my camera has a crop sensor, as does your 60D, and 50mm becomes too zoomed in for most situations I'm in. I use the Sigma 30 for shooting in very low light environments, but if light is not an issue I prefer to use the 35 as it's lighter, more compact and I really like the image quality. The Sigma has a lot of chromatic aberration, IMO. Another plus of the 35 over the 50 is it can focus on a subject from as close as 8 inches away. The auto focus on the 35 is very noisy, but since I use it mainly in manual mode this is not much of an issue for me.

 

[krjc]

50mm 1.4, that is the way to go. Cheap but not to cheap like the 50mm 1.8. Much better max aperture setting then the 35mm 2.0.

 

[Plato the Wise]

EF 28 f/1.8

Reasonably sharp and a better fit to match a normal lens on the crop body. Has better autofocus than the 50 or 35 too.

 

[cliffwang]

For 60D, I pick 35mm.

 

[SDFilmFan]

I have both, and the 35/2 gets used a lot more. 50mm on a crop is a bit long for a fixed walk-around lens, and it's too short for a telephoto. The 50mm (and my 85/1.8) are really only used in my rare portrait shoots. I can put the 35mm on my Rebel, set it to monochrome (still raw, of course) and pretend I'm a teenager with a TLb full of Tri-X again.

 

[Menace]

I'd suggest the 50 1.8 - it's cheap and excellent value for money as a first prime lens. Loud, clunking AF doesn't bother me - it is what it is.

Play with it, have fun, learn, improve your skills and then invest in something better

 

[bbasiaga]

The 50 1.8 is a great lens. However, it is really a portrait lens on a crop body (~80mm equivalent). If you're good with that, its definitely the one for you. Too tight for most indoors work though. I like the 40mm pancake as well. It does pretty good as a normal equivalent (~64mm), is sharp and has cleaner OOF highlights than the 50 1.8. Not to mention it is TINY.

-Brian

 

[dstppy]

Hi all.

Ive got a 60D with the new STM 18-135 lens.

Im looking for a prime lens. I cant spend a ton of money at this point as id still consider myself an amateur but I want to have something in this range to work with. I would consider upgrading later on if I find that I've outgrown my equipment. Im not looking for an expensive lens for right now.

Thoughts on which lens is better for me?

thanks team!

You need to figure out your sweet spots . . . how many photos do you have with the STM? The best thing to do is figure out where most of your shots have been in the range of the zoom you have and choose those. If you're always shooting at one end or the other, you may need something you don't already have for range.

 

[extremeinstability]

If you ever plan on manually focusing the 50mm(like landscape or night stuff via live view) I'd get some other 50mm and not the F1.8. The focus ring on the 50mm is really flimsy and not a "real" one. I focus it that way all the time for night stuff and just letting go of it the focus moves. Then even the shutter slapping can move it and especially if you bump or have to move the tripod. I still haven't replaced mine and every time something comes along and I have to use it(everything I do is manual focus basically) I am quickly kicking myself for not having a better version with a real focus ring.

 

[Invertalon]

40mm f/2.8 STM is your best choice if you can deal with f/2.8 vs. f/1.8 or f/2... About one stop difference. The pancake is the best choice. Awesome little lens.

 

[distant.star]

.
My commendations on what is a one-in-a-million forum response.

I've rarely ever seen anyone take the time to provide such a thoughtful and informative response -- complete with linked references. If I could, I'd buy you a drink!

Keep up the great work!

Oh, and for the OP, I'd recommend the 40mm pancake vs the 50mm. On the crop, the 50mm is effectively 80mm and you're really in portrait territory there. The 40mm is effectively 64 and that's closer to traditional "normal." I have both and always prefer the 40. I have no experience with the 35mm. More generally, I'd suggest thinking about what kind of pictures you want to make. Use your kit lens frequently to frame 35, 40 and 50mm shots to see what you'll be looking at with a prime.

I wouldn't mess with the 35/2 but there are folks here that like it. Personally I find it's too expensive for what it offers. You'll find a lot of threads here from folks asking about alternatives like the 30mm sigma. There are a lot of other EF-mount 35mm lenses around as well. Ever since APS-C cameras showed up folks have been looking at that 35 f/2 & wondering if/when Canon will deliver a proper modern "standard" focal length lens for APS-C. The closest they've come so far is probably the new 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake.

I'd say your choice should be between the 50 f/1.8 and the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake. If you shoot a lot of video then the STM may be worth the extra hundred bucks for you vs. the 50 (though I don't know if the 60D can take advantage of the STM). It's certainly better built & the AF is better, plus it's smaller. Apparently it's amazingly sharp.

But don't knock the little 50. It's extremely light, decently sharp when stopped down a bit, and cheap as chips.

Another extremely fine lens that won't break the bank is the 85mm f/1.8 USM. The AF speed is in the same ballpark as my 135L and the IQ is pretty close to L territory from f/2.8 and on. Think of it as a "baby L" & you get the picture. Basically every Canon telephoto prime from 85mm on up pretty much rocks, which is why a lot of us are here in the first place .

If you've got the cash, I'd say get the 40 (wider, sharper) or 50 (cheaper, more luminous) AND the 85. Maybe take one now & save up for the other.

Good luck .

 

[SteveCSmith]

I have the 50mm f/1.8. It is a great lens - especially when you look at photo color and clarity vs a "kit lens" (hopefully the 18-135 STM is better than my old 18-55). Anyway, I have certainly found myself backing into walls when doing portraits indoors on my 60D. I'd look seriously at the new 40mm (can we call it the "shorty forty" to complement the "nifty fifty"?). I'm looking forward to trying it on FF when my 5D3 comes tomorrow... might fall in love with it all over again.

I came upon a used 50mm f/1.4 as part of a package. I didn't find much difference in photo quality and sold it (huge difference in feel/build quality, though). I can drop and break a few 1.8's for that price. I think the 28mm 1.8 would be worth considering, also. I'd personally pass over anything not USM anymore - once you get one you'll know why (noisy autofocus really does become obnoxious).

Of course, I'm an amateur in the gear acquisition phase of the hobby... hopefully I'll grow in my photography skills soon to match my toybox.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Hi all.

Ive got a 60D with the new STM 18-135 lens.

Im looking for a prime lens. I cant spend a ton of money at this point as id still consider myself an amateur but I want to have something in this range to work with. I would consider upgrading later on if I find that I've outgrown my equipment. Im not looking for an expensive lens for right now.

Thoughts on which lens is better for me?

thanks team!

You need to figure out your sweet spots . . . how many photos do you have with the STM? The best thing to do is figure out where most of your shots have been in the range of the zoom you have and choose those. If you're always shooting at one end or the other, you may need something you don't already have for range.

+1. The question is asking about focal length, and only he knows which focal length he likes best.

 

[ecka]

I really enjoy using my 40STM on FF. I sold my 50/1.8II because of it. The build quality ... focusing ... sharpness ... bokeh ... size ... price ... simply amazing. 40mm focal length and f2.8 aperture may be not so impressive on a crop camera, but you can look for something equivalent (~25/1.8 ), like Sigma 30/1.4 or Canon 28/1.8USM.

 

[funkboy]

My commendations on what is a one-in-a-million forum response.

Thanks ;-). Plenty of other good posts here too; specifically the suggestion to have a look at your back catalog of photos shot with the zoom & see what kind of focal lengths one tends to use.