28mm or 50mm?

[Williesoe]

hey guys, i'm in a dilemma of whether to buy a canon 50mm f/1.4 or a 28mm f/1.8. currently i got the 50mm, but i'm thinking of returning it and buy the 28mm. i'm more of a people photographer, and i think 28mm is better to capture wider pictures to fit more people in it, but i dont know about the quality of the 28mm.. any suggestions?

[Russ]

If by "people shots" you mean that you like to photograph multiple people in tight quarters then it may be necessary to use a 28mm lens, especially if you're using an APS-C sensor camera (ie 1.6x). HOWEVER, I'd consider a 50mm to be the minimum focal length for portrait type work of people. A wide angle lens tends to distort facial features too much due to perspective inherent with wide angle lenses.

[Derrel]

I am assuming that since this is your first post, and that you are thinking of returning a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens, that you are new to d-slr photography,and that you've only recently bought that 50mm lens. if my assumptions are correct, I'd say try this: return the relatively expensive f/1.5 fifty millimeter lens,and purchase the very inexpensive Canon 50mm f/1.8. Then, from the same dealer, purchase a Canon 28mm f/1.8 lens.

I own the 50/1.4 EF Canon,and it's a good lens,but given what it costs and what it brings to the table on a 1.6x Canon body compared with the Canon the 50mm 1.8 lens,and given what a 28mm f/1.8 lens brings to the table, I think it would be a better idea to put the kind of money you've spent into a fast 28mm, and LESS money into a 50mm from Canon.

Simply put, I think for over $300, the money spent on getting a fast 28mm lens is well worth it, while what the 50mm 1.4 EF brings is not such a good value for the amount of money spent when there is a reasonable alternate choice in the inexpensive 50mm 1.8 EF which costs $84.95 today from NYC.

[Williesoe]

right on, thanks a lot guys! this really helps!

[MarkD]

The Canon 28mm f/1.8 costs $420 at B&H. The Sigma 28mm f/1.8 costs $299 at B&H. I'd go for the Canon if I could afford it, but the Sigma is also a good lens if you need to save money. You could also check keh.com. B&H, and Adorama for a nice used one.

[kkarl00]

I have a similar question. I shoot with a Canon Rebel T2i. My main usage is mixed martial arts fighting which has horrible lighting and super fast action. I have the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens. It’s seems to be too close when I have to shoot as the guys/gals are up against the cage. Do you think a 28mm 1.8 lens will help with that or should I not bother to spend the extra $500 on a new lens.?
Here is an example

[anton_reno]

kkarl00,

First, welcome to the Forums. I 'm sure you'll find some useful advice here.

Don't, don't, don't get rid of your 50 mm lens. It is a versatile lens that may be the sharpest lens you'll ever own. But if you need a wider angle in order to get your images, do consider either a 35 mm or 28 mm f/2.8 lens. The wider angles of view mean that there is less magnification of the everything in the image, including camera shake, so you won't need the speed of an expensive f/1.8 lens. The difference between an f/1.8 and f/2.8 lens is just over 1 stop, not enough to make a great difference when you factor in the less apparent camera shake and greater DOF. You aren't required to buy Canon brand lenses for your camera, but in the case of these two focal lengths, Canon's f/2.8 versions are both much cheaper than you are budgeting for. In fact, you can get both from B&H for a total of about $580 + S&H. Tokina's 35 mm f/2.8 is even cheaper than Canon's and would bring your total down to roughly $550 + S&H.

Anton

[mrchile]

kkarl00,



Don't, don't, don't get rid of your 50 mm lens. It is a versatile lens that may be the sharpest lens you'll ever own. But if you need a wider angle in order to get your images, do consider either a 35 mm or 28 mm f/2.8 lens. The wider angles of view mean that there is less magnification of the everything in the image, including camera shake, so you won't need the speed of an expensive f/1.8 lens.
Anton

I beg to differ anton. In low light, that extra stop can make a huge difference. If you have an exposure value of 1/250 sec at f/2.8, at f/1.8 you'll get 1/500 sec. shutter speed. That can make a huge difference when shooting moving objects.

The 28 may be wide enough, or you might want to go to 24mm or even 20mm. Canon doesn't have the 24mm or 20mm , but Sigma makes them with a Canon mount. The problem will be DOF. It can be difficult to get the focus on the subject the way you want it. It'll take some practice to get it right.

[anton_reno]

Mrchile,

That's an interesting example you give since it is 4 stops brighter than the room I'm in right now. That's the correct exposure for my office at an EI of 400 with the current illumination coming from late afternoon sunlight through an east facing window. The sport that kkarl00 is shooting takes place in some sort of arena, probably under some sort of high intensity illumination. The lighting may be horrible, but I suspect that it is adequate to shoot at your EV 11 setting, or faster. I stand by my recommendation that a 28 mm or 35 mm f/2.8 lens is adequate to shoot the sport under that kind of ambient light with negligible effect on image sharpness due to camera shake. If the venue were an old jazz bar with light approaching EV0 at EI 400, I'd say you are right and that even an f/1.8 lens would be less than adequate. A lens with a maximum aperture of f/0.95 would be more appropriate under those lighting conditions.

To kkarl00, I get the impression that you may be under the misapprehension that all photographs, even those portraying sports, should be tack sharp with no blur from any source whatsoever. Nothing could be further from reality. The motion blur of a well aimed blow as it's happening can often be a more informative and evocative image element than a punch or kick stopped in midair. Try using slower shutter speeds and smaller apertures (those are the high numbers) to record some parts of the fights you shoot.

Anton

[LynnP]

Alright John, put down that bottle of tequila. Canon has the 20mmf2.8 and the 24 f1.4. But you have to have deep pockets for the 1.4. That knocks me out of the ball game. Actually I am wondering about kkarloo moving back and using a 135 f2L for better perspective.


Lynn