Lightnings taking a ride

by ceinmart

submit your photo

Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is it really useful to have a fast prime lens for portrait photography, considering a low budget? If it is, what about the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II?

I have an entry level 18-55mm lens and a Canon 20D.

share|improve this question
Yes, it is. –  Andres May 27 '11 at 18:00
for me, no (not only don't I own Canon equipment, I don't do portrait much and generally dislike 50mms, but I have both a 35 and 70mm prime already). For you, maybe :) –  jwenting May 30 '11 at 5:19
See also What is a good Canon lens to take portraits? –  mattdm Jun 19 '11 at 22:37
It is cheap. Buy it and if you find that you use it a lot. Upgrade to the 1.4. Otherwise - it is a great lens - noisy and cheap - but great. –  sylvanaar Apr 14 '13 at 13:06

5 Answers 5

up vote 31 down vote accepted

Yes, absolutely.

The 50 f/1.8 is outstanding value for money providing a very wide max aperture for portraiture compared to other lenses in the same price bracket.

I have the 1.4, but borrowed a 50 f/1.8 when my lens was being repaired. Although it was 2/3 of a stop slower and lacked an ultrasonic focus motor, wide open it was sharp, and can produce outstanding images in low light:

Other advantages are that it's very light, and stopped down one of the sharpest lenses in the whole range on account of it's simple construction. The lens tests on dpreview also reveal that wide open it's sharper than than the EF 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.8:

share|improve this answer
For what it's worth, "sharper than the faster lens at f/1.8" is also true of the Pentax 50mm f/1.7 vs. the f/1.4. Maybe that's coincidence, but it seems like maybe it comes naturally to 50mm lens design. –  mattdm Dec 5 '11 at 3:48
I have one too and like the images it makes. My only knock against the lens is that it's not great on the manual focus. –  jottos Feb 13 '12 at 6:06

I have the 18-55, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 as well as the 20D - superseded by a 50D.

My personal rules have always been these: Get the very best glass you can afford. Get prime lenses first, zooms later. Get the fastest lens you can afford.

You will see a difference in sharpness, contrast and color going from the 18-55 to the 50/1.8. The 50/1.4 is better than the 1.8, but you may not be at the point where you will see or need the improvements the 1.4 offers.

BUT if you can only get one more lens in the near future, AND since you have the 18-55 AND you are starting out, you may want to expand your range first with another zoom, say a 70-200 before you start picking primes. The 70-200 is a great range for portraits.

Yes, prime lenses, especially Canon L's are significantly, sometimes vastly better than their zoom counterparts. They are also generally faster. BUT they are also expensive.

Once you have shot across the full range of 18-55 and 70-210 THEN pick the prime you want the most. I may be a 24mm, 35mm or even an 85mm. Get to know how you shoot first, then buy with a purpose. My 2 cents.

share|improve this answer
thanks bro, nice way of suggesting and helping –  Ifi Oct 19 '10 at 15:07

Definitely worth it. I use this lens very often. It's lightweight and may feel cheaply built, but it has excellent image quality and can't really be beat. Even the f/1.4, which is probably constructed better, doesn't seem to provide better quality. enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

share|improve this answer

The 50mm f/1.8 lens is a decent lens from an optical perspective. It has good sharpness, and honestly can't be beat for its price. It should be noted, however, that it has a very cheap, fully plastic body. I also have the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my 450D, which has an all plastic body. During a recent trek through the Colorado Rockies, however, I somehow managed to crack the mount. I can't say exactly how it happened, as I never dropped it or anything. Its just an example of how fragile a plastic body really is, and how short a life the lens may have if you do indeed purchase one.

I would say the 50mm f/1.4 is also a good lens, with a much better body build, and just as good if not better sharpness than the f/1.8. Might be worth the extra cost to have a more durable lens.

share|improve this answer
At current prices you could get three 50 1.8s for the price of the 1.4, more than making up for the lack of durability! –  Matt Grum Oct 19 '10 at 17:38
@Matt: True, it is really, really cheap. However, the better build of the 1.4 should last for many years at least, where as the 1.8 could break at any time leaving you in the lurch. I wouldn't say the cost more than makes up for the lack of durability, but it does somewhat make up for it. –  jrista Oct 19 '10 at 17:45
When you say that the f/1.4 has "just as good if not better sharpness" that seems slightly misleading and contrary to what @Matt Grum said. He suggests that the f/1.8 is sharper at 1.8. However, I don't think what you said/meant is wrong. It's probably true at the ideal aperture (e.g. - the review suggests f5) but cannot be said for the whole range of apertures. –  Tom Dec 28 '10 at 4:52
@Tom: In my experience, the 50/1.8 is ok at f/1.8, and is at its sharpest at f/2.8. The 50/1.4, however, is razor sharp at f/2 and beyond. Additionally, the bokeh of the f/1.4 is smoother, which creates a better separation between in-focus and out-of-focus areas than the rather harsh bokeh of the f/1.8. This cleaner distinction between in- and out- of focus areas improves the sharpness of the f/1.4 beyond that of the f/1.8. The differences are subtle, but I prefer the look of the f/1.4 myself. –  jrista Dec 28 '10 at 6:55
@jrista: It's a year later, but thanks for posting on the differences between the f/1.4 & f/1.8 in feel. I've often looked at the very narrow DOF on the f/1.8, and thought it would be just too hard to use f/1.4 wide open -- but it sounds like there are a number of other factors which make it nice. –  khedron Nov 28 '11 at 16:25

Same here, I've the 50mm f/1.4, and as my fastest lens I couldn't live without it for concerts and low-light photography. It is much sturdier than the 50mm f/1.8 and is worth the upgrade, in my opinion. At this price though, the f/1.8 is almost disposable. Note that the 50mm f/1.4 can get jammed if you press hard on its sides. I don't think you can accidentally do it while operating it the recommended way, but it has happened to me and two other friends when we left the lens detached at the bottom of a Lowepro camera bag, and the camera + another lens on top of it was pressing hard. Symptoms include not being able to focus anymore, but Canon will fix that problem for free (you still need to ship it).

share|improve this answer
Interesting, I didn't know about that problem. I'll be more careful with my 1.4 from now on. –  Paul McMillan Oct 20 '10 at 6:41

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.