Today we’ll look at a few of the benefits of shooting with a wide aperture. If you’re new to photography there will be some key insight here into one of the biggest factors for taking professional quality photos that will stun your friends and family. After this, we’ll take a look at several lenses that will help you get to f/2.0 and wider without forcing you to give up food and electricity for the next six months to make the purchase!
Why Don’t My Photos Look Amazing?
So you finally decided to get serious about photography and went out and bought a new camera. If you’re like most beginners, you picked up something high quality but affordable like a Canon Rebel or Nikon D80.
These types of cameras often come with a basic “kit lens.” In the case of my own Rebel T1i, the kit lens was an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6. I want to be clear that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with shooting with this lens. It’s versatile and can be used in a number of different situations containing varying lighting and distance factors.
However, you’ve probably noticed that the photos, in particular the portraits, you’ve been taking with your kit lens are good, but not great. They’re far better than what you could get with a cell phone or flash and trash camera from the drug store, but not quite something that you could make a living selling.
As an example, consider the image below.
This is a nice shot. It’s cute, engaging, bright and crisp. However, the subject doesn’t quite pop the way you see in many professional portraits.
Now consider this next image:
There’s something fundamentally different about this image isn’t there? Something that immediately makes it seem high quality and professional. Something beyond the closer crop and even the lighting in the scene.
The answer is completely obvious to some but remains somewhat elusive to others. In case you missed it, it’s the background. In the first image, the background is slightly blurred, but is still perfectly decipherable and therefore demands much of your attention. The house in this shot detracts from the main subject, which is of course the boy. It’s not that the house is ugly or uncommonly busy, just that it’s in-focus enough to make your brain feel like it’s an important part of the composition.
In the second image, the background has been blurred out so much that it’s actually difficult to even decipher what’s going on back there. This causes your brain to interpret this space very differently than the sharper space in the foreground. By mimicking the way your eyes focus, this shot creates the subtle illusion of depth in a two-dimensional image.
Depth Of Field
The term used to describe the primary difference between the two images above is “depth of field.” Put simply, images with a shallow depth of field (like the second photograph) have very little in-focus while images with a greater depth of field (like the first photograph) are in-focus over a much great area.
You can manipulate the depth of field in your photographs by adjusting your aperture. A wider aperture produces a shallower depth of field and a narrow aperture produces greater depth of field. As an example, consider the spliced image below. According to the photographer, the left portion was shot at f/29 and the right portion at f/4.5.
As you can clearly see, the background gets much blurrier as the aperture widens (the lower the number, the wider the hole that lets in light will be).
Shooting in Low Light
Perhaps even more of an issue for many photographers is the need to shoot in poor lighting conditions. Whether you’re getting paid to photograph a wedding in a dark church or just want to take some nice indoor shots of your family on Thanksgiving, a lens that can grab a lot of light is a necessity.
Obviously, a flash is mounted on your camera for this very purpose. However, built-in flashes tend to be quite harsh if not diffused properly. You can and should invest in portable lighting equipment, but there are still plenty of opportunities where you either won’t want to or won’t be allowed to use a flash.
One of the benefits of a lens with a wide aperture is that it can collect a ton of light. If you’ve ever shot during sunset as the available light is decreasing, you know that there are plenty of times when you need to capture every photon you possibly can!
In these instances, the shallow depth of field again has an impact. Just be sure to zoom in and take a look at your photos to make sure the important parts of the image are staying crisp. If you’re shooting people, it’s a good rule of thumb to focus on the eyes.
Can I Afford A Good Lens?
After reading the information above, you’re probably ready to grab your camera, blast open your aperture and go to town. The trick is, every lens has its limit for just how wide the aperture can go. As I stated above, the kit lens that comes with a Rebel T1i tops out at f/3.5. This is fine for many purposes but definitely not ideal for capturing blurry, rich-bokeh backgrounds.
The solution is of course to go shopping for a new lens. Unfortunately, this can be quite straining on your checking account. Take for instance the lens below, which retails at a whopping $1,830. Also consider that this is by no means the far end of the quality or price spectrum as many professional photographers spend several thousand dollars for each lens they use.
Canon EF II Telephoto lens – 85 mm – F/1.2 – Canon E
If you’ve got the budget, a lens like this can really bump up the professional quality of your photographs. However, I’ll bet that most of you are like me and would rather read about something a little more affordable.
Fortunately, there are a few options available for the budget conscious photographer looking to hit f/2.0 and wider for less than $500. All prices are estimates based on those listed on the manufacturer’s websites.
The Thrifty Fifty
If you’re really set on achieving a fairly wide aperture but don’t really have much money to burn, look no further than the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, also lovingly referred to by many photographers as the “thrifty fifty.”
Short of a pirated copy of Photoshop and the Lens Blur filter, this is by far the cheapest way for Canon users to achieve nice blurry backgrounds in their photos (around $100 brand new).
This lens produces beautifully crisp images with decent (but not great) color and is as compact and light as any lens you’ll find.
The downside is that the construction mirrors the price. It’s a fairly cheap feeling lens comprised mostly of plastic. Further, many users report that the less than optimal five aperture blades tend to produce relatively poor bokeh.
Still, at a hundred bucks it’s definitely not a bad place to start.
AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D
The Nikon users out there definitely have an excellent answer to the Canon 50mm f/1.8 in the Nikkor equivalent.
It’s a very similar lens in all respects to the Canon version. The construction is mostly plastic, making it feeling cheap but also super lightweight. Further, the autofocus is super fast and critics rave on the surprising crispness of the image quality for a lens so affordable.
If you’re a hobbyist and don’t really see yourself ever making money from photography this is a perfect first lens purchase.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
Canon’s next step up takes a rather large leap in price up to $389 (if you look around, it’s fairly easy to find in the $350 range). I own this lens and simply can’t say enough about it. In fact, it was used for the image of the woman above.
The images are crystal clear, the construction feels solid, there are eight aperture blades instead of five, and it’s still really small and lightweight, though obviously not quite as much as the 1.8 above.
I was initially worried about the lack of a zoom, but I found that I really like the 50mm prime because it makes focusing much faster. It’s a perfect zoom for shooting what you see and it’s occasionally nice to have one less variable to worry about.
The USM (Ultrasonic Motor) is much quieter than my kit lens, but not quite as quiet as I was hoping it would be. I’ve used some of the pricier Canon USM lenses that were ridiculously smooth and the 50mm f/1.4 certainly falls well beneath these.
Tons of photographers all over the web agree with me that this lens is really an excellent buy for anyone with a low to mid-range budget. If you can afford to choose this option over the thrifty fifty, go with it and never look back.
AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D
All of the conclusions drawn for the jump from the Canon f/1.8 to the f/1.4 apply here as well. If you’re really strapped for cash, go with the f/1.8, but if you can scrounge up the extra couple hundred bucks, absolutely go with the f/1.4 instead.
The leap from 1.8 to 1.4 might not sound like much, but when you’re shooting low light, you’ll never be sorry you spent the extra money.
This lens is extremely fast and produces images that are sharp enough to rival lenses three times its price. As far as I can tell, you’ll be every bit as happy with this lens as I am with my Canon 1.4.
More Lenses Under $500
Due to their affordability, the selections above represent my suggestions for where to start your search. However, for $500, you can find several more outstanding lenses even higher in quality than those we’ve already seen. Here are a few to check out:
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM
AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G
Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM
AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8D
What’s Your Favorite Lens?
I hope this article has helped make the decision for your next lens purchase a little easier. Keep in mind that the lenses above are straight from Canon and Nikon and that even more affordable alternatives can often be found from other manufacturers such as Sigma and Vivitar.
Leave a comment below and let us know your recommendations for a good lens below $500. Tell us about that one affordable but high quality lens that you simply couldn’t be without and why.
Enjoyed this Post?
Subscribe to our RSS Feed, Follow us on Twitter or simply recommend us to friends and colleagues!
By Josh Johnson
How to Take Great Photos
Whether you've got a simple point-and-shoot, or a professional camera, you'll learn the basics of what every photographer needs to know to make their shots count!
Join our newsletter!
U-Design WordPress Theme only $35.00 
Modernize - Flexibility of W ... only $35.00 ){kind=link}
Tinkerbell portrait retouching - More
Photo Basix
Just getting started? Start with our basix tutorials on the fundamentals. View All Basix Tutorials
Create a Tutorial, Get Paid!
Have something to teach the world? Want to earn money doing it? Tutorials, screencasts, and articles published here on Phototuts+ are largely contributed by readers just like you! We'll pay you great money for good content. Find Out More
Could you add options for different camera systems too? I have a Pentax and I would love to see comments about the Pentax lenses here as well.
Interesting article but like Pablo I would like to see some more choice in terms of camera systems.
I’m a pentax user as well and pentaxforums.com has a very good lense database: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/
What about Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 AF-S?
Agreed with Tilak there, if you find the 50mm to confining on a crop sensor like the Canon Rebels or the cheaper Nikon houses(Remember, that a 50mm on a crop sensor actually functions like a 80mm) the 35mm is absolutely amazing!
Hi there.
For those who use Nikon D5000 i’ve got a great one.
Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G
The shots i took with this lenses is this one.
http://www.henryhingst.com/category/35-mm/
Best regards!
Umm.. I’ll slightly disagree with the first part of the article. The woman image you showed has a great “bokeh” effect in the background. Let me be clear, attaining bokeh or such blur background from a normal 18-55 kit lens is not a rocket science. I own a 550D with 18-55 kit and I’ve taken some amazing bokeh portrait shots with the kit lens itselft. That narrows down to one thing, buying a fixed focal length and aperture lens is not a very necessary thing if you want to do what you suggested.
Sure, the 50mm prime lenses do have an edge over the speed and the photo clarity, but since the article is aimed at a photographer who is on budget and can’t afford to buy expensive lenses, I would say that practice with your existing kit lens. The thing you want to achieve is definitely not impossible. Also as a matter of fact, if you shoot sensibly and with proper technique, you can very well outsmart a photographer with any prime lens with your photographs with a complete standard kit.
In my experience, obtaining the effect above with a lens that goes to f/1.4 is completely effortless while using a lens that stops around f/1.4 is absolutely possible, but requires intentionality and will only work in certain circumstances. It’s definitely not ideal to have to always get so close to the subject or position them so far from the background when you’re just walking around and taking lots of photos.
Like you say, it’s definitely not rocket science, but you simply can’t argue that you don’t get much better results much easier with a wide aperture lens.
whoops, typo:
In my experience, obtaining the effect above with a lens that goes to f/1.4 is completely effortless while using a lens that stops around “f/4″ is absolutely possible.
Love that Nifty 50.
I’ve taken some of my favourite pictures with it. I can’t believe everyone doesn’t own it.
Hmm, an interesting lens for that list the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I don’t own any nikon lens so i can’t tell about that, but i compared it to a canon f/1.4 and, to my great surprise, the Sigma is definitely ahead under almost any aspect. It’s pretty heavy though ^^’. I think it retails at 450-500 euro, so almost the price range considered in the arcticle.
I absolutely love the 50mm f/1.8 that you recommended in the post. It’s the only lens that I own at the moment, but it’s still an amazing one and all my friends are shocked when they see how sharp all my images are. Little do they know it’s not only the lens but also the bokeh in the background!
This is a great informative post. There are some details that are important in choosing a lens. Most beginners are starting with canon rebels or d40′s, probably xsi’s and 3000/5000′s now but you should note some of those lenses don’t work with those bodies because of the different autofocus systems. So it only allows for manual focusing.
and yes I agree with tilak 35mm 1.8 AF-S is a must have and its <$200. update the post haha
Josh,
Great introduction to lenses and aperture. I personally shoot with a Canon 50mm f1.4 and adore the selective focus effect with easily attainable shallow DOF.
Remember that DOF decreases as you zoom or get closer to your subject. (Apparent Magnification). The further away you are, the harder it is to achieve the selective focus effect you have in the second picture.
So you are totally right, but for those shooting with a kit lens, if you get closer and fill your frame you’ll get a blurrier background – the first photograph could have had the background more out of focus if the photographer was closer to the subject.
This only counts for the same aperture. If both were shot at f3.5 for instance, the one where the photographer was closer would have a blurrier background. Opening the aperture does do exactly as you state and give you shallower depth of field.
Just thought I’d add those thoughts in the comments for anyone reading along and wondering how they can do what Rish suggests above with a comparably narrower maximum aperture lens such as the kit lenses referenced.
(PS – I’m so very, very happy to read this article and not have to correct aperture theory! Thanks!)
We triple checked this one to make sure that everything was technically perfect. Thanks for your comments, and hopefully we can keep aiming to improve the standards of everything we publish!
I love love love the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8. Its just an amazing lens for the price you pay. The glass is amazing, its tack-sharp at focus points and the bokeh and specular highlights are incredible, especially against an interesting background. There’s been times when I’ve only used this lens for a shoot….you can see here at my website…all the shots at this senior photo session were on the 85 1.8…
http://tagthatphoto.com/casey-senior-photos/
Its a great lens for someone like me, who loves sharp close up portraits.
Its great this article sprang up today. I’m actually debating right now whether to get the 50mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/2 for my canon t2i. My main concern is getting good low light video and photos, many of which will more than likely be taken outside. I understand that the 50mm f/1.4 will allow more light in but only at f/1.4 which gives me an extremely small area of focus, so I might as well go with the 35mm f/2 b/c I’ll be able to capture more in the frame due to it being a wider lens. As far as low light goes, would the quality be the same with the 50mm and the 35mm if they’re both used at f/2? Thanks.
I bought the 35 mm f/2 and 50 mm f/1.4 (to replace my f/1.8) at the same time. On my cropped sensor 40D, I actually prefer the 35 mm f/2 because of the focal length and also, I felt it was sharper on my camera than the 50 mm (the 50 mm is incredibly sharp on my 5DmkII, though).
There were many times I would try to shoot a group of people or something in tight spaces like indoors and not be able to get everything in the frame. The 35 helps with those situations a lot.
I’ve never run into an issue where the f/2 aperture wasn’t enough. Part of this is because it has a shorter focal length. The rule of thumb is to have a shutter speed equal to or greater than your focal length (when shooting the 35 mm, you should be shooting at a shutter speed over 1/35th of a second, whereas on a 50 mm, you need faster than 1/50th).
I would go to the store and try both, but I would strongly recommend the 35 mm f/2.
I agree in every single point! I have the 35mm 2.0 myself and its just an awesome lens! my friend has the 50mm 1.4 and is already jealous, because hes shooting on a cropped format himself and the performance of the 35mm is better on a cropped sensor camera! Just get it, its not even a big investment compared to other lenses, you wont regret it!
My favourite lens is:
Tamron 17-50mm 1:2.8
I have the one without vibration compensation and I paid about 350€ (you can get it from Amazon Germany for 290€ now), but amazon.com takes $460 for it. That’s about as much as I paid and nearly 25% more than Amazon Germany wants, but you’ll probably find it for less somewhere else.
I can definitely recommend that lens, I bought it together with my camera (which is a EOS 450D, or Rebel XSi as it’s called in America), and compared to the kit lens, it really knocks your socks off. You can find some photos in my stream (see link). It also allows for a really nice bokeh: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lorenzhs/3870321915/
I acquired a couple of vintage film cameras (from the 60s-70s) and so I got used to the effect the standard 50mm lens would give…when I bought my D40, I got the kit lens (and a zoom), but the first additional lens I bought was a 50mm 1.8. It’s manual focus, but so worth it!
I shoot almost everything with my Nikon 50mm F1.8 which only cost me $99 a few years ago. It’s the best investment I’ve made in my gear!
For under $500, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is a great walkaround lens. Not as fast as the 50mm primes, but sharp and 2.8 throughout (as opposed to the f/5.6 at the far range of the kit lens). Can’t get better sharpness than primes of course, but the versatility here is worth considering. Excellent upgrade from the kit lens:
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-28-75mm-Aspherical-Canon-Digital/dp/B0000A1G05/ref=pd_cp_p_1
All the lenses you mention are excellent. And they are all primes, which take a reasonable bit of experience to use well. How about mentioning something like the Tamron 17-50 2.8?
It has mounts for all systems, not just Canikon. It has excellent bokah and sharpness. And it runs $459 at the big online retailers. For the person moving up from a kit lens, it is an excellent choice.
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is awesome too and under $500 too.
I’m not one to comment very often on articles but I have to wholeheartedly disagree about the comparison between the 1.4 and 1.8 50mm Canon lenses. I own both and I definitely agree about the build quality being better on the 1.4. It is sturdier by far. Its auto focus is also faster. Where I have a hangup with this lens is between the 1.4 and 1.8 range. IMO (and slrgear.com) there is something “off” in the appearance of the photos. As a result I still find myself shooting portraits most often with the 1.8 “plastic fantastic”
Great! Really enjoyed this. I’m picking myself up a thrifty fifty soon!
Great article.
Just a quick note for nikon users with a D40/D40x/D60.
I got a nikon nifty fifty 1.8 for my D60. Because the d60 has no motor in the body this lens is manual focus. If you want auto focus for a camera like this you need to go with the 1.4.
In saying that having to focus manually has actually taught me more about photography than anything amount of books! It really makes you think about what you are shooting.
Plus it was only a 100 euro and the shots are so super crisp.
For crop-cams i absolutely recommend the 50mm 1.8 if youre into portrait photography, if you want proper construction quality though, go for the 50mm 1.4.
I own the canon 1.8 and i must say it is stunning for portraits (on crop-cams)… For full-frame i would go for a 85mm or 100mm, i for instance use the 100mm macro 1.8 (no-is) for portraits with the 5dmkii and it makes quite cool pictures + has the macro advantage (save money, use 1 lens for 2 purposes).
otherwise naturally if you have money to burn go for the 135 f2 or 85 f1.2 =D
cheers
Great article, I’ve been looking to buy new lenses for a while and I really think this article has given me the right direction and some great advice in which lens I’d like to buy.
How lazy do you have to be to only mention Canon and Nikon!? How about making the colossal effort to do a quick google search, you might find there are more than two quality camera brands out there…
The Canon Nifty 50 1.8 should have been the first lens I bought with my Canon Rebel. You would think at $99 the lens would suck but my creativity soared after purchasing it. (It was my third lens).
Since I owned a APS-C sensored body I wanted to get a lens that would closely mimic a 50mm on a full framed sensored camera. I purchased a 35mm 2.8 (Tokina) which also works as a Macro. Nice sharp lens.
These two lenses are my most used.
first, this is a GREAT article.
second, you forgot a few lenses, such as the sigma 50 1.4, sigma 30 1.4, canon 35 2.0, canon 28 1.8, and nikon 35 1.8 (the latter four of which are normal primes on APS-C. and most people shoot with APS-C cameras)
I love my Thifty Fifty, even if its made out of plastic and Ive already broken one of them.
If I could afford other primes I would! Though they start getting expensive….I do recommend anyone picking up the 50mm f1.8 (canon/nikon) when they can. Great to use in low-light
Got me a ‘thrifty fifty’. It’s awesome as hell for the price.
This article was of particular interest to me because just last week I accidentally destroyed my 18-55 kit lens that had become my go-to because of the obvious versatility. That created the opportunity to step it up and buy a better piece of glass.
Im currently shooting at an advanced amateur/semi-professional level and my goal was to find a quality short range zoom that would get me down into the f/2.8 range with a budget just south of a grand. (I already own the nifty 50…its all that you say it is.) Also, right or wrong, I have a bias against the Canon EF-S lenses, mostly because of my recent experience with the kit lens. They just feel cheap to me.
Needless to say, I was a little dissapointed to find only prime lenses listed in the article because it confirmed what Ive discovered in my own research- that lenses that meet my criteria begin in the $1500 range. Am I missing an obvious sollution thats out there somewhere?
For portraits, take a 70-200mm zoom. South of a grand, take the f4 one *without* IS – according to pros like Kirk Tuck (see http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2010/05/business-decisions-versus-personal.html) its the sharpest of the bunch anyway. And the nifty fifty of course, for low light.
The zoom should be available for around or under 650$, like at http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5?ie=UTF8tag=thev0c1-20link_code=btlcamp=213689creative=392969
Of course you know that on crop cameras like a Canon Rebel xyz up to the 7D, 70-200mm translates to 105-300mm.
cheers,
Wolfgang
Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 for 2k$ or €.
Olympus 50mm f2.0 macro for about 500$ or €.
If youre on a budget, get an OM Zuiko 50mm f1.8 and an adapter. I paid around 72€ for both together, and for portraits, that is my preferred one, tho its manual focus only.
Also a good piece of glass from what I have seen: the Rokinon 85mm f1.4 for about or under 250$ or €. Manual only as well, but available for most systems including Olympus (other than Tamrons which arent). And 85mm on full frame bodies means around 130mm on APS-C, or 170mm on 4/3rds.
On 4/3rds cameras with a crop factor of 2, these 50mm ones have the same effect like a 100mm lens on a full frame camera.
You not only forgot to mention other systems, you also left out such simple things as the crop factor. You dont even tell people whether you shot that woman with an 5D or a crop camera like an APS-C one.
cheers,
Wolfgang
I picked up my Nikkor 50mm for $75 on Craigslist and I LOVE it!!!
Hi, now I’m using a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens. But very hard to taking a clear photo when wide apeture = 1.8. May you pls help me fix this problem ? Thanks in advance !
– H.A.Tuan
I have a Nikon D200 with a Nikon 50mm 1.4D (first lens I ever bought) and love it. It’s a great first lens if you can afford it. Will be upgrading to a Nikon 16-85mm in September when I go to NY.
I’ve never heard it called the Thrifty Fifty before I’ve heard it called “plastic fanstatic” and “nifty fifty” but regardless of the name it’s still one hell of a lens for the money. My next sub-50mm prime will probably be the Canon EF 28 f/1.8.
Thank you very much for this awesome tutorial. Can’t wait to mess around with the (limited) aperture I got.
I do miss Sony (minolta) lenses personally. I have a Sony alpha 200 myself. I know nikon and canon are the mostly used brands, but Sony isn’t bad either. Just a suggestion.
My favorite lens by far is my Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 prime lens. It’s been attached to my D90 since I bought the lens. Definitely recommend buying it (normally only $130-$200!).
Great article. Can I ask why all the Canon lenses listed are EF and not EF-S? I thought EF-S would be better suited for a wide angle lens.
Sigma 50MM f1.4 on SALE its just under $500.. (for Canon mount)
Several M42 Mount Pentax Super Takumars and SMC Takumars all under 90$.. usually 1.4-1.8
All Canon Mounted
Contax Yashica mount Carl Zeiss 35MM Distagon 1.4 SICK!! (but – VERY xpensive lens) $1900
Contax Yashica mount Carl Zeiss 50MM 1.4 Planar T* only $322
Contax Yashica mount Carl Zeiss 85MM 2.8 Sonnar T* only $350
Contax Yashica mount Carl Zeiss 135MM 2.8 Sonnar T* only $370
get adapters with the chip so it will beep upon focus – at FOTODIOX.COM best adapters and best customer service and really decent prices.. A variety of grades of adaptor.
Just my input
I bought a flawless Pentax SMC Takmar 50mm 1.4 not too long ago… I love the lens. Got it for about $120 + $14 for the adapter w/ chip!
There is some great discussion here. Of course, you don’t necessarily need a lens with f/2.0 or wider to get great bokeh (this was pointed out in several of the comments), but wide apertures sure make getting a blurry background so much easier to accomplish. I think I read all 85 comments and no mention of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 – available for several models including Canon and Nikon. Of course it’s a bit more money than the “thrifty-fifty” at $900+, but in comparison to the high end Nikkor and Canon models of equal quality, it really rocks.
I have a nikkor-o 50mm f/1.4 lens .. bought it with 3 other lenses in a pack, for less than 50€. Its manual focus, and manual exposure only, but man ! I love it, and it’s almost always on one of my 2 camera bodies ^^
So, look for 2nd hand nikon lens, because event pretty old ones like mine (1975 !) can fit your recent camera bodie.