Next lens, need your thoughts

I am a fairly new DSLR owner (just over a year) and I am looking to start working on composition. I've spent the last year getting to know my gear and I am pretty comfortable with it now. I have a 30D, 18-55 kit, 50 1.8, and a 70-200 f4 L non-IS. My main subject remains, shooting my daughter's soccer team hence the 70-200.


However, way back in the day, I had an AE-1 with a standard 50mm lens on it. I have read a number of comments that working with primes helps with composition and finding your view/voice/style. I personally think I would be helped a lot if I could simplify things and concentrate on the composition aspects. So I am leaning towards a prime, something between wide and normal (considering FOVCF). I think this means something between 24mm and 35mm. My biggest issue is going to be money, I have to get my wife to agree so let's assume my budget is $500 or less.


Given the above, what would you recommend to me and why?


Thanks,


David

Well, you could theoretically get the same kind of benefit by shooting with the 18-55 set to a fixed focal length. That's sort of the thing about a zoom; you have the option of turning the ring but it is not by any means a requirement. If you buy a 24 or 35mm prime, there isn't any inherent compositional advantage, other than the fact that it forces you to previsualize a fixed perspective and field of view. In terms of image quality, however, a good prime will always beat even the best zooms in terms of contrast and sharpness. But that is not your stated intent.


Personally, I think you would not achieve your intended goals with a wide prime, given your choice of subject and existing equipment. Composition is best learned by simply slowing down, paying attention, and previsualizing. The near-instant feedback of digital photography has made it easier to analyze the relationship between what you thought you would capture, and what you actually did capture. This kind of post-exposure analysis is critically important to developing one's photographic skills.


If you want to really convince your wife to let you buy a sub-$500 lens, do some close-up/non-formal/environmental portrait photography of your family with an 85/1.8 or better yet, a 100/2.8 macro, shot wide open. That's really what's missing in your range--a nice, sharp, fast portrait lens. The 50/1.8 isn't really a portrait lens, even on a APS-C sensor. Non-photographers tend to respond very positively to well-executed portraits (more so than landscapes/still life).

I agree with wicker.


Composition is composition, zoom or prime. You'll just gain some image quality and lower light capabilities.


I have a prime 24 1.4 that I use to love but hardly use now. depth of field at 1.4 is ridiculously low so I hardly shoot below f-2 with and prefer 2.8. So I rather use my 16-35 2.8 II just because of the versatility.


I think just shooting with wide-angle lenses will force you to be more mindful of composition. So just shoot at the low end of the 18-55 and don't allow yourself to go into the normal range of it.