EOS Rebel T2i lenses

[Martin Naef]

On 11.07.2010 03:22, Andrew Tarpinian wrote:
> I'm buying a body soon and am shopping for lenses, anyone have any
> thoughts on the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM vs. the EF 50mm f/1.8 II? Is the
> 1.4 worth it?

A bit late to the party (I'm writing this in off-line mode while on 
vacation), but here's my take on it:

I have the 50mm F1.8. It is a very good lens for the money. The lens is 
SHARP, and still pretty good even fully open. Bokeh is mediocre if you 
stop down (it's still circular when fully open, but the blades show up 
when you stop down). Many people report AF issues on the Rebel bodies 
though, so that could be a killer. If you see this as your primary lens, 
I'd take a step up and go for the 1.4.

As your only lens, and especially for video on a crop camera, you might 
find 50mm a bit long, though. I don't do video with the SLR (still on 
the 40D), but here's my kit and some thoughts about it:

24mm F2.8: This has been my main lens for the last 5 days in Slovenia - 
I would say it accounted for about 90% of all images. It's my most 
recent purchase, and I can see this becoming an absolute favorite. I 
always found 28mm a bit long for travel and city photography, but 24 is 
just fine. For most portraits, 24mm is definitely too wide.

35mm F2: Great walkaround lens outside cities. Works very well for 
family shots. There's a good reason why 50mm became the standard back in 
full-frame film days, this is the equivalent on crop. Bokeh is a bit 
nervous, but for the price of the lens I'm not complaining.

50mm F1.8: My first prime lens. For some reason I don't use it a lot 
now, mostly because the 35mm fills the "standard walkaround" spot better 
whereas for portraits I always head to the

100mm F2: This is a killer lens. Sharp. Nice bokeh. Fast AF. It's my 
go-to lens for portraits. When selecting, it's a tie between this and 
the 85mm F1.8, I went for the slightly longer focal length, but you 
might find 85mm fits more situations if this is the only lens you have 
(or maybe in combination with 35mm).

I still own my zooms (12-24mm, 28-135 and 70-300), but they don't see 
much use. Before I had the 24mm 2.8, I used the 12-24 a lot more often. 
Now I find that I can fit the camera and three primes in my small camera 
bag easily and that covers most of my walk-around photography. I just 
prefer the quality and low-light capability of the primes without the 
need to carry around expensive and heavy L-class zooms. I do miss the 
occasional shot because I've got the wrong lens on the camera, but I'm 
rewarded with very consistent high quality on the others. If I was the 
official event photographers, I wouldn't take that risk though and go 
for something like a 24-70 F2.8 and a 70-200mm.

You might also note that all my lenses are "middle class". I'd love the 
L primes and zooms, but I just can't justify the cost and I also feel 
better knowing that if I drop one, the damage isn't overly expensive. I 
do notice a distinct difference between the zooms and the primes, so the 
hassle of switching lenses is definitely worth it. However, it's also 
worth knowing that I lost a lot more shots over the last years due to 
"user error" such as focusing on the wrong spot, shake, not checking 
exposure after under difficult lighting conditions than I lost on bad 
lens quality. I do find that I pay more attention with primes in the 
first place because I need to do more "Nike Zoom" anyway, so that 
probably contributes as much as the improved glass.

As a minor detail: I found that primes keep their value extremely well. 
I bought mine used and I could sell them again at the same price. My 
zooms, on the other hand, are worth a lot less (this is not true for the 
L zooms that keep their value just as well).

Have fun with your new camera!

Martin