Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 vs Sony FE 50mm f/1.8

On a full frame, a camera stop down to F 2.8 for an improvement and F 4 for bright corners. The lens is able to focus as closely as 45 centimeters the...

I've loved using the 24mm f/2.8 as my "go to" lens on hikes. Fast focus, compact and lightweight, sharp images with good color, and nice focal length for scenery and general shooting. I'm pleasantly surprised that my 2 favorite lenses cost me $100 new each

8 lens and am blown away by how much cleaner and crisper it is than the 18-45 kit lens. Now when I edit footage I can tell the difference in lighting and video quality from the two lenses. Everything is on a tripod for what I shoot so I don't need a zoom. Should I get a Canon 24mm 2

For the price the lens feels okay. Image quality is okay. If you are just starting out on the Sony e mount system this lens will do. Autofocus is okay for what it cost

People are suggesting a 70-200 and that would be my recommendation for football or soccer, but for basketball usually you should put yourself courtside near the basket.

0 that's been backordered for 2 months now). For landscapes, I'd get the 16mm 2.8 for lightweight and the price, or the 14-35mm if you can splurge.

You can get a cheap flash on Amazon; I bought a Neewer NW680 for very little cash (I think it was around £30 - £50) - I don't use it much in the types of photography I usually do, but when I'm trying to get indoor shots of my dog, it's very useful; excellent value for money considering how much a Canon Speedlite flash can cost. You may think the pop-up flash built into your T6 will do just fine, but an add-on flash offers so much more flexibility, and would be a good complement for your doll shots.

Obviously everything is more expensive when it comes to the RF lenses and I'm taking that into consideration as well. The EF-M Sigma 16mm which I've heard is incredible is only $400 and the Rokinon I'm looking at is only like $250. Meantime the only viable "kit lens" for the RP I'd consider would be the 24-105 F/4 for $900 or get a couple primes like the $400 35mm F/1.8, $200 50mm F/1

I am using it on a EOS T5 so the camera remains lightweight. The perfect walk around set-up.

Not a purchase I'll regret, plus it's so light weight it's easy to carry around any time. If you are looking for the highest quality everything, you may want to pass on this. But if you're on a budget, I don't think you'll be disappointed with this lens.

Nice fast lens. The autofocus is a bit slow and struggles in dimlighting, but then again, can’t beat the price compared to a USM lens. I’m just starting out and it’s perfect for me.

Unfortunately that was not the case and I returned the lens to Amazon.* The image quality was great, especially for the price, with better than expected bokeh. The auto focus was a little slow and could make quick shooting a problem. If you want a portrait lens or one for landscape photography I would recommend this for the money but I do mostly amateur level street photography when I travel and the auto focus issue was a deal killer for me

That's a bit closer than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM ($399.00 at Amazon)(Opens in a new window) , which focuses to about 18 inches.

8 IS is simply so much better, and the price difference isn't as big as with the EF equivalents, that I'll always just recommend the 35mm. And if you already have the 35mm and don't particularly use it, well, the 50mm f/1.8 isn't going to do much for you, either.

Having that much aperture opens up an entire world o possibilities and because is a static lens, you are forced to be creative with your angles and positioning. Let alone the affordability of this lens, I would recommend this to anyone interested in buying their first lens.

The aperture variability is really great on this lens; ranging from f/1.8 - f/22. However, the lens itself is really small. I work with a Sony A7II, and I did not experiment too much with the auto focus too much