Portrait Lens for a Canon DSLR

[ramgoat647]

I was wondering if the Canon 50mm F-1.8 II IS (EF Mount, I believe) portrait lens is a good one. I have read reviews and almost everyone says its good but the more feedback the better.

[unknownuser]

Well, considering that it is around $100, it of course isn't going to be as great as the 50mm f/1.4 USM or the the 85mm f/1.8 USM, which are almost 4x the price of the 50mm f/1.8. But if it is going to be a step-up from the kit lens for you, it is worth the money if you need something fast and affordable. If it is quality that you're really going for, give some consideration to the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 for portrait lens and think about investing in one of those. Having one really good expensive lens is worth having a few crappy cheap lenses (imo).

[Jarbuckle]

I have that one (few different versions of it) and I must admit I am never pleased with it. The auto focusing mechanism is compete rubbish. It is slow to auto focus, and it sounds like gears being stripped. I spoke with a few different canon reps about it and they all came to the conclusion that for $130 (orless) you cant expect too much out of this lens. I encourage you to bypass this one and save up for something better.

~JarBuckle

[oneDay]

I'll be getting mine this week. If I remember this post I'd like to share my impressions with you. As far as I know it's a brilliant lens concerning overall value. It's large aperture, focal length, bokeh, sharpness, speed, price, among other things all contribute to it's incredible value.

[Gymrat17]

Yeah, from what my Canon friends tell me, it's an awesome lens. Another option is the 35mm but that is too wide for portraits. Enjoy the lens. ;)

[Steve Jobs]

Well, considering that it is around $100, it of course isn't going to be as great as the 50mm f/1.4 USM or the the 85mm f/1.8 USM, which are almost 4x the price of the 50mm f/1.8. But if it is going to be a step-up from the kit lens for you, it is worth the money if you need something fast and affordable. If it is quality that you're really going for, give some consideration to the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 for portrait lens and think about investing in one of those. Having one really good expensive lens is worth having a few crappy cheap lenses (imo).

Don't be deceived by price! This isn't particularly true for Canon, but the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 is the sharptest lens Nikon has ever made, particularly because of the simplicity of the glass structure. Fewest elements and glass for light to pass through. Remember light will only defract, refract and reflect and cause distortion and lose image quality with every bit of glass in there!
I'd vouch for both the Canon 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 though. Sigma makes a wonderful 30mm f1.4 :)

[Anna G]

Dont go less than 50mm or you get fish eye. I learned that.

[Horizon]

I have used the 50mm f/1.8. It's really good for beginners who want a new lens. I suggest getting it, if you have the money.

[Horizon]

Dont go less than 50mm or you get fish eye. I learned that.

There is a difference between fish eye and wide angle. Less then 50, is wide angle

[Steve Jobs]

Dont go less than 50mm or you get fish eye. I learned that.

50mm is as natural as you can get, meaning it most accurately reproduces the field of vision of a standard human eye.

On an APS-C camera, a 50mm lens will equate to roughly 75mm (Nikon/Sony/Pentax) or 80mm (Canon) which is a slightly tighter, more appealing look (in my opinion).

50mm is the plastic fantastic, and the results a $100 tube can produce is quite fascinating. For a different effect, you may like to consider the Canon 24mm f2.8, Sigma 30mm f1.4 or the Canon 85mm f1.8. Each to their own I guess!

There is no fish-eye at 50mm.