Lens for shallower depth of field?

[arvark]

I have a Canon Rebel T6/1300D and I want a lens for shallower DOF for videos. I'm using the Kit 18-55mm DC III, so I guess I need a lens with a lower aperture. My budget is kinda thight, I don't care if it's prime or zoom, are there any for 100-150€?

[jammiescone]

Quote

I guess I need a lens with a lower aperture

Correct. If you don't have a specific focal length in mind, I'd probably take a look at the Canon 50mm f1.8 in that budget area. A good budget lens with a lot of versatility. If you're not opposed to buying used, you might be able to pick up an f1.4 at somewhere around that price, which is lower aperture again and higher quality glass.

[xQubeZx]

I'd get a fast prime like a 35 1.8 or 50 1.8. If you can afford it get a 1.4. For some really smooth background get a longer focal length like an 85 1.8 or 1.4 

[cc143]

Ok so I'll start by being pedantic, but 1n f/1.8 is actually wider than the f/3.5 not smaller. 

 

Now, since I was an annoying pedantic prick for today, lets go over some other details. 

 

I agree what was recommended above completely. On the canon side, there is no 35 1.8, native or reputable 3rd party, so the best option is the 50 1.8 which is ~$100 new and might I add excellent quality given the price. The 50 1.4, I have and love, but I think in the end you may be better off with the 1.8, the 1.4 is very old at this point and should get a refresh. 

 

You should also be aware that the crop factor of your camera will also affect your depth of field. (however not the light coming into the camera and on the sensor.) So the 1.8 (x1.6) would perform similarly to a ~f 2.8 on FF. in terms of DOF.  (and at 80mm not at 50mm). 

 

That is mind you not bad and you can get amazing blurring with a 2.8 on FF.  

 

DOF also depends upon other factors, such as lighting, the distance of the object from the lens and the background from the object, the closer you are to your object the blurrier the background basically. 

[jammiescone]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

Ok so I'll start by being pedantic, but 1n f/1.8 is actually wider than the f/3.5 not smaller. 

 

Sorry yes, I took "lower" to be talking about f stop values but CC is correct, a lower f stop is a larger aperture!

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

Ok so I'll start by being pedantic, but 1n f/1.8 is actually wider than the f/3.5 not smaller. 

 

Now, since I was an annoying pedantic prick for today, lets go over some other details. 

 

I agree what was recommended above completely. On the canon side, there is no 35 1.8, native or reputable 3rd party, so the best option is the 50 1.8 which is ~$100 new and might I add excellent quality given the price. The 50 1.4, I have and love, but I think in the end you may be better off with the 1.8, the 1.4 is very old at this point and should get a refresh. 

 

You should also be aware that the crop factor of your camera will also affect your depth of field. (however not the light coming into the camera and on the sensor.) So the 1.8 (x1.6) would perform similarly to a ~f 2.8 on FF. in terms of DOF.  (and at 80mm not at 50mm). 

 

That is mind you not bad and you can get amazing blurring with a 2.8 on FF.  

 

DOF also depends upon other factors, such as lighting, the distance of the object from the lens and the background from the object, the closer you are to your object the blurrier the background basically. 

Agree with all this, however the 50 1.4 can be worth it used if you don't need critical sharpness. 

[cc143]

53 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

Agree with all this, however the 50 1.4 can be worth it used if you don't need critical sharpness. 

Listen, I have it and love it as I said and have used it a lot since I bought it. However, it is 20 years old or there about now. In the past, before the current version of the 1.8, it was worth it yes, it was noticeably sharper and build quality was far superior. However, after using the most recent 1.8, I'd be indifferent between the two, I do not believe the 50 1.4 warrants the additonal ~$200 when bought new and because the lens is so old at this point, you cant know how old the used lens you are buying is and may end up getting one whose usm motor is close to failure, sounds pretty loud (which is a big problem when shooting video) mine for instance amazingly loud!, and even if that isn't the case, it may have dust and other particles inside, which is normal for a probably 5-10 year old lens. 

 

The new 50 1.8 is an STM motor too, which is much more silent. 

 

I'm not one to alarm someone from buying used camera gear, God, I haven't bought anything new in like 10 years if I absolutely didn't have to (e.g. tripod), but in this case, just go to your local camera store or amazon and pick up a 50 1.8. 

[xQubeZx]

52 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Listen, I have it and love it as I said and have used it a lot since I bought it. However, it is 20 years old or there about now. In the past, before the current version of the 1.8, it was worth it yes, it was noticeably sharper and build quality was far superior. However, after using the most recent 1.8, I'd be indifferent between the two, I do not believe the 50 1.4 warrants the additonal ~$200 when bought new and because the lens is so old at this point, you cant know how old the used lens you are buying is and may end up getting one whose usm motor is close to failure, sounds pretty loud (which is a big problem when shooting video) mine for instance amazingly loud!, and even if that isn't the case, it may have dust and other particles inside, which is normal for a probably 5-10 year old lens. 

 

The new 50 1.8 is an STM motor too, which is much more silent. 

 

I'm not one to alarm someone from buying used camera gear, God, I haven't bought anything new in like 10 years if I absolutely didn't have to (e.g. tripod), but in this case, just go to your local camera store or amazon and pick up a 50 1.8. 

The 50 1.8 will not be bad at all no. Just wanted to give him the option if he really need shallow DOF but in that case he could look for a 1.2 one instead if he has the budget. 

 

Personally I'm trying to find old MF lenses with 1.4 in the 30-85mm range. Most people want so damn much for them though. 

 

 

[cc143]

Just now, xQubeZx said:

The 50 1.8 will not be bad at all no. Just wanted to give him the option if he really need shallow DOF but in that case he could look for a 1.2 one instead if he has the budget. 

 

Personally I'm trying to find old MF lenses with 1.4 in the 30-85mm range. Most people want so damn much for them though. 

 

 

The Canon 50 f/1.2L is legendary, amazingly sharp in comparison to most of the best out there even. The price reflects that;P  Tbh, its not that worth it dude, just stick with 1.8 and if you want to go shallower DOF move to FF, yes the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is more significant on crop, but you'd be amazed at how much shallower DOF is on FF. 

 

The sigma 50 1.4 is probably going to be a much more affordable option than the Canon 50 1.2, but still OP want's a ~$150 solution, so basically its the 50 1.8 STM, there's no reason to look any further. 

[xQubeZx]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

The Canon 50 f/1.2L is legendary, amazingly sharp in comparison to most of the best out there even. The price reflects that;P  Tbh, its not that worth it dude, just stick with 1.8 and if you want to go shallower DOF move to FF, yes the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is more significant on crop, but you'd be amazed at how much shallower DOF is on FF. 

 

The sigma 50 1.4 is probably going to be a much more affordable option than the Canon 50 1.2, but still OP want's a ~$150 solution, so basically its the 50 1.8 STM, there's no reason to look any further. 

Yup for 150 its the 50 1.8 thats the way to go. Won't even get an 85 for that. 

[peabody505]

yongnuo. you're welcome

 

50m f1.8 - https://www.adorama.com/yn5018caef.html

35mm f2 - https://www.adorama.com/yn352caef.html