keep sigma 18-50mm or go for a canon 50mm 1.8 *100% crop images inside*

[wetWolger]

I am in need of a really sharp lens for my 10D. Since reefs take up so much money my lens budget is not huge, but I am just a hobbiest and not a pro any ways. So the question is do I keep my new sigma 18-50mm lens or go to a highly recomended canon 50mm 1.8 prime. I like the ability to zoom, but if it is going to get my 10x better images I am willing to lose that. At the same time I don't want to buy a lens I wont ever use because I am not one who likes to change lens's a lot. So if it wont give me the flexability I need I wont use it. Regarless of my self images can anyone comment on how good these 100% crops are from the sigma. Do you think the 50mm would be any better? All crops were done at 28mm and the fstop is labled on them. The crops were taken from the center of the image. Thanks for looking:

[gregr]

I don't think there's any way a consumer grade zoom can compare to a 50mm prime in terms of optical quality. So if optical quality is the most important thing to you then the prime is the way to go. At least that's what I think

[APFparadise]

Well it depends on your budget. 50mm 1.8 is a great lens, BUT... in that range NOTHING, nothing beats 24-70L. That lens does not come off my 20d. One of the best ever.

[wetWolger]

unfortantly I can't aford the elusive L glass.....how do those 100% crops look compared to most consumer grade zoom len's? Do you think I will find this lens to be of somewhat acceptable quality?

[dantodd]

I have the same sigma and don't have the focus problems with the lens open like you seem to.

I also have the $75 50mm prime that you are looking at and it is a nice lens. I don't use it as much since it is a prime but it's a great extra lens and IS sharper than the zoom, just wish it had macro.

[gregr]

Do you think I will find this lens to be of somewhat acceptable quality?

That's so subjective it's hard to say- I can say that the 50mm prime will be quite a bit sharper- possibly in the "L" class although it's not only sharpness that makes the L's so nice- it's the color and contrast and flare resistance too.
I take it you can still return the Sigma? Perhaps you could visit a camera store with your camera in hand and take a picture or two with the 50 so you can compare- that'd be the way to go.
Greg

[jwedehase]

Wow, that lens is soft at large aperture! I saw the first couple of images and thought "Wow, what a POS lens!" Then I saw how well it cleared up as the aperture closed down.

I shoot a 20D with Canon's 28-135 IS most of the time. My next lens will be the 24-70L already mentioned, but that's a long ways off. What I've learned in photography is that the age old cliche holds true, "You get what you pay for." My first lens purchase was a knock off 100-400mm. I almost can't stand to put it on my camera any more, it's so soft.

Zoom is nice, of course. However, I feel a prime lens will make you a better photographer. Purely opinion, there's the disclaimer. My thoughts are that your shots will become better and better as you have to "work for your shot." It's so easy to stand back and zoom in. But the shot's better when you walk in and get involved with the subject.

One of my absolute favorite photographers is a guy named Tony Dummett. He's a phenomenal street photographer, and I've learned a lot from him. He's all about getting "in there" for the shot.

Check out some of his portfolio!!

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-...&user_id=59285

[dantodd]

Zoom is nice, of course. However, I feel a prime lens will make you a better photographer. Purely opinion, there's the disclaimer. My thoughts are that your shots will become better and better as you have to "work for your shot."

I don't know about that. Sometimes you really want to be far away and have a longer lens to lose depth and focus on shape and sometimes there is an image both ways. I agree that it is always important to have prime lenses in your bag just as it is important to have a simple whisk in your kitchen. But I still use my stand-mixer alot because it is easier and more versatile. Just a different opinion.

[wetWolger]

I had a couple more thoughts I would see what you guys think of. I read reports that this 50mm prime is not very usable wide open, it needs to be at 3.5 or more. In which case it would only be a quality improvment over the sigma. And since you would mostly want the faster (prime) lens for indoors, or low light and the 50mm (with my 1.6x crop factor) is not very usable in such situations. So I really don't know how usable this lens is for a digital camera.

Does anyone own this lens, and does there camera have a similar crop factor as mine? What you think, do you use it a lot? Would you recomend it despite those issues?

where I am at now is I am going to for sure keep the sigma. I am just wondering if I should get this in addition.

also after some testing there may be more issues in those test photos, I can't seem to duplicate those results.

[spline9]

I have the 50mm 1.8 and the 18-55mm kit lens. I find myself using the 50mm more than the kit lens. I'm no pro but its definately very sharp and super fast. For the price, its definately worth it just to check out.
Just my .02