I have both of these lenses. As far as real picture quality is concerned, the 18-55mm cannot compete with the 50mm 1.8. They are in two different leagues optically. However, the versatility of the 18-55mm range and the extremely useful close focusing capabilities of the lens make it worth every penny. Nearly every one of my entries is done with the 18-55, including this week's blue ribbon winning entry.
Regardless, you must, I repeat, must own the 50mm 1.8. It is the best value on the market and it's supremely useful in low light and for purposefully shallow DOF work (e.g. portraits). It does not, however, focus nearly as closely as does the 18-55mm (which is why I've yet to get rid of it).
Regardless, you must, I repeat, must own the 50mm 1.8. It is the best value on the market and it's supremely useful in low light and for purposefully shallow DOF work (e.g. portraits). It does not, however, focus nearly as closely as does the 18-55mm (which is why I've yet to get rid of it).
Hi bledford. Thank you for the quick reply. Can you give me an example of when you would use the 50mm f/1.8 and not the 18-55mm? Excuse my ignorance, but like I said, I'm a Digital SLR newby.
Low light shots like this (without flash) are very difficult to achieve with the 18-55. The $70 50mm is probably the best Canon lens you can buy without spending hundreds.
Can you give me an example of when you would use the 50mm f/1.8 and not the 18-55mm?
Sure. At 50mm, the 18-55mm is only able to open up to f/5.0 or 5.6 (can't remember). That is not sufficiently shallow depth of field for many things like portraits where you want the background to be totally blurry. The 50mm 1.8 can provide the needed shallow depth of field for these kind of shots.
The 18-55 is also not so good at those lower f-stops. For instance, at 18mm and f3.5, you'll get a fairly fuzzy image from the 18-55. It's a lens best kept in the f8-f11 range. That's not to say that you won't get useable shots from the kit lens at lower f-stops, just that they'll be hit and miss.
Ultimately, I find that the 18-55 is on my camera 70% of the time with the 50mm on the other 30%. Versatility simply plays too large of a role in the kind of photography I do to have the 50mm on the lens that much. Needless to say, some faster (lower f-stop capable) prime wide angle lenses are on my wish list.
I have the 50mm 1.8 and the 28mm 2.8 ($160.00ish) and since getting the 28mm, I've never put the 18-55mm back on my camera. It's not a terrible lens, but the picture quality of the 2 primes I have is immediately obvious.
If want to do macro work, you can get an extension tube for relatively cheap which will get you closer than the 18-55 and have better optics.
But, having said all that, I'll be keeping my 18-55mm until I'm able to afford a 17-40mm L which won't be anytime soon.
The 50mm f/1.8 is a total no-brainer for EOS cameras. They should just raise the camera price and include that lens as part of the kit. Now that I've used it a bit, I'd almost put the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 in the same class... it's fast, sharp and offers good contrast for $269.
