Do I Really 'need' The 50mm 1.8?

[Cougar]

So, am still new to this whole DSLR thing - must say I am loving it though. Am taking much better pics, but still a loooong way to go!

Question is do I really 'need' the 50mm 1.8 (with of course 'need' being a relative term!!)? I've got a Canon 500d and mostly use the Sigma 17-70mm lens, which goes down to 2.8, I think. When I bought the camera I intended to buy the 50mm lens as well (partly why we went with the canon in the end) but am now unsure as to whether I should or not.

Would be interested to know what you thought - obviously there's the wider aperture, but wondered if it offered much else compared to what I've currently got? Thoughts and opinions - lay them on me!!

Oh and I mostly take pics of dogs and - if that helps at all. Thanks.

[huga]

Yes

It's such a cheap lens and totally worth it. I haven't used anything else since I got it back in July (but I only have the two kit lenses and they don't compare).

[Kirislin]

Possibly not, dont just get it for the sake of it. Your lens covers that range, set it on 50mm with the widest aperture 2.8 and take some portraity type shots and see what you think.

[kja]

No, you don't need it.

Work with the lovely Sigma for a bit longer and really run it through the different focal lengths and apertures. See what you like, what you don't like, what frustrates you and what works just fine for you.

THEN start looking at add more lenses.

The 50 1.8 is a fantastic buy as for a very very small sum of cash it introduces you to:

- extremely thin depth of field

- wide open shooting

- low light, no extra flash shooting

- fixed focal length shooting

But you don't need it and some find that they don't like the 50mm length (you can test this by making yourself only shoot for a day or a week at 50 with your zoom) or that the "downsides" of the 50 1.8 aren't acceptable and so they move straight to one of the far more expensive options.

[Cougar]

Thanks kirislin and kja- that's pretty much what I thought. I do love the 50mm setting on my lens so far. I suppose I just wasn't sure whether the extra aperture was worth it. I shoot flash-less wherever possible, as flash washes out my son's skin like you wouldn't believe (we're all quite Nicole Kidman white here!). And my house has very little in the way of natural light, so I'm often doing the low light thing. I will keep it in mind for the future - and the shoot for a week on 50mm is probably a good challenge/exercise for me anyway.

[Guest Tess32]

Nope, I barely use mine because the focus is so unreliable.

[kja]

the shoot for a week on 50mm is probably a good challenge/exercise for me anyway.

it totally is a great exercise! Not just limited to the 50 but if you're ever in a slump or kinda blah on things, choose one lens or setting and only shoot that for a strict period of time. Force yourself to look at things a different way.

[~*Shell*~]

Love mine to death (so much i bought the 50mm 1.4) but similar results can be achieved on your 17-70mm if you shoot on 2.8.

Personally I think the nifty fifty is the best value for money as far as lenses go but if you don't need it, don't get it! I rarely use the 50mm 1.4 @ 1.4 - it usually hovers around the f/3-f/5 mark. I mostly bought it because i dropped my 1.8 (well, it actually fell out of my camera bag but same diff) and it broke into two pieces - the 1.4 has a better build quality and I'm a whole lot more careful with it!!