Just take your zoom lens and try out the two focal lengths with a stationary subject and I believe you will be able to tell the difference
Depends on what you shoot and where you shoot. For me its not cos it is cheap. I have moved from the 1.8 to 1.4 and now a proud owner of the 1.2!
Canon 5D mkII|24-105 F4 IS L|70-200 F4 IS L|135 F2 L|580EX|
guess this is the only lens that one can easily afford w an aperture of below f2.any other focal length will cost twice as much, when you are caught in low light, this will save your day. tight pciture better that blur picture.
all the cameras i got came along with it.
an affordable prime lens that is sharp and can use easily in low light.
If Life worked on auto mode then manual mode for photography would have never existed.” ― Deeksha Mittal
Cheap and good and then when you start to like primes, then it will tempt you to buy other prime lens whose price far surpasses the 50 1.8
Last edited by Noakram; 22nd October 2007 at 10:04 PM.
(I haven't read the whole thing, but that's generally what I meant)A wide angle lens sees a wide angle of view. The first thing people think of is that a wide angle lens will let them include more of a scene in the image, and this is true. What they don't consider, however, is what the short focal length will do to the appearance of the subject.
If you were to make a head and shoulders portrait of your best friend using a 20mm lens, you would have to stand a distance of about a foot (30 cm) away from him. At this distance, his nose would be much closer to the lens than his ears, and so the nose would be much bigger proportionally than the ears in the photograph. This is generally not a flattering effect, and so we don't use wide angle lenses to photograph closeups of people.
when using film, I use 50mm as well as 28mm. Will be starting on 35mm soon.
when using DSLR, will use 50mm for portrait shots and/or low light condition only.