Why I Love my 50mm f/1.8 lens

I’ve been using my “nifty fifty” (aka “plastic fantastic”) Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens almost exclusively since I got it a couple months ago. It was cheap, at $100, and it’s been a blast to use. The wide aperture means I can take shots without needing the flash, with a strong bokeh (blurred background with foreground in sharp focus). It really hit me just how awesome this lens is, when I dragged the camera out trick-or-treating with Evan last night. Lots of other parents brought cameras – it’s a natural thing to do. Many even had DSLRs with fancy schmancy lenses. But they ALL were firing the flash. Completely blowing away the spooky halloween ambiance, replacing it with brightly lit subjects with harsh shadows. Ick.

Here’s a shot I took just down the street, at a neighbour’s house that was tricked out as a haunted house.

Halloween 2007 - 7

The flash would have completely killed the effect, destroying the shadows and blowing away the colours in the background.

Halloween 2007 - 9 Halloween 2007 - 5

All of these shots were taken hand-held, with no tripod, monopod, or additional lighting.

The fixed 50mm focal length takes some getting used to, since you have to zoom with your feet, but I find it makes me more mindful of the shot I want to take because I have to think ahead. And, most of the time, the longer-than-normal 50mm gets me a much nicer and closer shot, and compresses distance nicely (something that gets exaggerated with a zoom lens and shorter focal lengths).

Anyway, just a quick rave about the awesome 50mm f/1.8 lens. If you have a DSLR (any make, any model), run out and get one. It’s by FAR the best bang for the buck, and the fast f/1.8 aperture is awesome and addictive.

Shopping for Zoom Lens

Shopping for Zoom Lens

I’ve been jonesing for a zoom lens since I picked up my Canon XT back in June. The kit lens is not too bad (aside from some chromatic aberration), but a longer lens would be great. I had been eyeing the Canon 55-200 EF lens, at around $300 bucks at the local Black’s, but after reading some reviews, I want to stay far far away from that lens and its questionable build quality.

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro lensAfter a bit of poking around on The Camera Store’s site, I think I’ve found a much better alternative. A Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro. There’s no image stabilization, so I’ll have to use a tripod when in the 200-300mm range, but at $320CDN, it’s a much better deal. And reviews suggest a much sturdier build quality.

Poking around some sample images shot with that lens, I’m pretty happy with it. Sure, it might not stack up against a $1500 lens with image stabilization and the works, but it’s cheap enough to be able to pick it up without many regrets.

Unfortunately, I think the lens is too slow for much indoor work. I don’t think it’s a suitable candidate for photographing workshops here at the TLC. But as an outdoor lens, it looks pretty darned good.

Update: On recommendation from Raffaella, I think I’ll hold out for the Canon 28-135mm f.3.5-5.6 IS USM. It’s a little more spendy (just under $600 CDN), and not quite as long, but the Sigma may be too long, and the build quality won’t be quite as good as this. And the image stabilization would help when shooting at the 135mm end of the lens. Now to go return some more empty bottles, and look under the cushions on my couch…

Shopping for Zoom Lens

I’ve been jonesing for a zoom lens since I picked up my Canon XT back in June. The kit lens is not too bad (aside from some chromatic aberration), but a longer lens would be great. I had been eyeing the Canon 55-200 EF lens, at around $300 bucks at the local Black’s, but after reading some reviews, I want to stay far far away from that lens and its questionable build quality.

Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro lensAfter a bit of poking around on The Camera Store’s site, I think I’ve found a much better alternative. A Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro. There’s no image stabilization, so I’ll have to use a tripod when in the 200-300mm range, but at $320CDN, it’s a much better deal. And reviews suggest a much sturdier build quality.

Poking around some sample images shot with that lens, I’m pretty happy with it. Sure, it might not stack up against a $1500 lens with image stabilization and the works, but it’s cheap enough to be able to pick it up without many regrets.

Unfortunately, I think the lens is too slow for much indoor work. I don’t think it’s a suitable candidate for photographing workshops here at the TLC. But as an outdoor lens, it looks pretty darned good.

Update: On recommendation from Raffaella, I think I’ll hold out for the Canon 28-135mm f.3.5-5.6 IS USM. It’s a little more spendy (just under $600 CDN), and not quite as long, but the Sigma may be too long, and the build quality won’t be quite as good as this. And the image stabilization would help when shooting at the 135mm end of the lens. Now to go return some more empty bottles, and look under the cushions on my couch…