first up with the 50mm 1.8

Calina

As most of you know, I didn't own a 1.8 until very recently. I took it to a christening yesterday and it did quite a bit of work except when I did some work with a 10-20mm for a group shot.

Here is some of the output.



and this:



I am still not sure how I feel about the lens. I think of the recent purchases, I prefer the flash unit but that may change.

ThOnda

The first one is just excellent! Enjoy fantastic lens.

Dodgykeeper

That first pic is great, how big are those eyes, I myself bought a 50mm 1.8 and a flash at the same time, took a while for me to get to grips with the lens, find it best for baby pictures and get a lot of practise as am surrounded by babies and pregnant women!

pete4130

The more you use the 50mm the more you'll get to like it. It's my favourite lens pretty much

AnimalRights

Pictures are perfect, you're just too finnicky.

whyulittle

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

That first pic is great, how big are those eyes, I myself bought a 50mm 1.8 and a flash at the same time, took a while for me to get to grips with the lens, find it best for baby pictures and get a lot of practise as am surrounded by babies and pregnant women!

Do tell!! :P

Buzz Lightyear

I love the first one Calina. The eyes are crisp and the conversion is lovley.

I'm picking up my 50mm 1.8 on Thursday, so I'm looking forward to trying it out too.

pete4130

I'm actually thinking of upgrading to the 50mm 1.4 when I'm in NYC next month....thats how much I like my 50mm!

mikeanywhere

1st one is a cracker and nice conversion too.

2nd is slightly on the dark side but ok and can be salvaged. Lady slightly cropped out so bring the camera more to the left to ensure she is in the frame.

Well done for having a go tho!!

murpho999

I recently got a 50mm f/1.4.

It's a fantastic lens and on my camera all the time now.

Pictures are razor sharp. Bokeh with 1.4 is amazing, really is fantastic for portaits.

I think the build quality and wider aperture are worth the extra €200.00

But the best thing I find about it is that it is my first prime lens and stops me doing lazy zooming and makes me think more about framing and composition. You just can't beat foot zoom.

Cabaal

first one looks very well,

lafors

Calina the first one is great, I find it hard to get the B&W settings rights in my pictures, this one really emphasizes her big eyes

I got myself a 50mm f1.8 a couple of weeks ago, I'll put a couple of pics up when I get time. After the first hour of using it and getting use to manually setting it (I only have a D40 so no auto for me!) I beginning to love it, for some reason it just captures so much atmosphere in portraits that my regular 18-55 can't do

Calina

Thanks guys.

Life ain't cooperating with me. Apparently I might have enjoyed life at the beach lastnight if I didn't happen to be processing christening photos.

I still amn't sure about the lens but the other thing is you're looking at photographs of a type that I just don't tend to do (but which I've been doing more often than the bread and butter sports lately thanks to the weather) between a wedding, a christening and a party. All of them have been greatly facilitated by the flash and without it, nothing is happening. With the 50mm I still have alternatives to make the photos.

Mike, she was out of frame - there's no moving back to the left with her; given a choice she wasn't even supposed to be in it.

Murpho999, with respect to discipline, I don't buy the comment that a prime lens makes you think more about it. It's lazy to blame your equipment for what you do or do not do with a zoom. I also had a look at a 1.4 from sineadw (Hi sineadw) and she will tell you that my automatic response was that the DOF was unworkable for the photographs I took. If you're taking sports photographs, particularly in water, foot zoom is limited in what it offers.

AnimalRights - I'm being given the impression by some people that I am far too hard on myself. I guess in some respects they are probably right but mostly I look for what I can learn and I am terrified that I'll reach a point where it's all perfect and no fun any more.

I need to read the manual for the flash some more. Sometimes it's trying to communicate with me by flashing or telling me stuff and I have no idea what it means. Does anyone else have this issue with a Speedlite II?

kjt

Love the first shot Treasa!

5uspect

Calina wrote: »

I need to read the manual for the flash some more. Sometimes it's trying to communicate with me by flashing or telling me stuff and I have no idea what it means. Does anyone else have this issue with a Speedlite II?

The entire LCD normally flashes when you are using the wide angle diffuser and have the bounce angle set to anything other than direct.

If individual elements are flashing its because you can set them much like you would set a clock radio!

Calina

See. that helps. Initially I wondered if it meant "battery low".

thanks.

PopeBuckfastXVI

+1 on the comments about the first photo... nifty fifty is great for portraits... congrats & enjoy!

paddylonglegs

Calina that is a beautiful portrait. I would have loved to have seen what her left hand was resting on, and the lamp above her head is only slightly off-putting but her face is so engaging that its only a minor distraction. Its so well caught and a crisp image with perfect contrast, I hope you don't mind that very small constructive crit!

Calina

It's not a lamp as far as I remember. I am getting a Fisher Price kitchen vibe from the deepest recesses of my memory and I think she was leaning on the floor. The details escape me.

But thanks. I get your point. She messed up so many perfect photographs :pac::pac::pac: Have you ever tried to get a 1 year old to pose? Heads flying all over the place and every once in a while a crisis ala Jan Greenberg.

RoryW

great first photo and B&W conversion

murpho999

Calina wrote: »

Thanks guys.

Murpho999, with respect to discipline, I don't buy the comment that a prime lens makes you think more about it. It's lazy to blame your equipment for what you do or do not do with a zoom. I also had a look at a 1.4 from sineadw (Hi sineadw) and she will tell you that my automatic response was that the DOF was unworkable for the photographs I took. If you're taking sports photographs, particularly in water, foot zoom is limited in what it offers.

I think you have misunderstood me.
Before I had the 50mm, f/1.4 my main lens was a Sigma 28-200mm zoom. It's an ok lens.
Now I have the 50mm and I definitely notice the colours are better and pictures are shaper. I think this is due to better quality glass, being a prime there are less groups so you get less degradation than a zoom and also the autofocus is sharper and quicker.

I was not 'blaming my equipment' as you put it but I do notice how the 50mm has changed my photography.
With my zoom I would arrive at a scene, pick what I want to shoot, and zoom in on it. Now, I have to think more, as I cannot change the zoom, I will try to frame the picture differently. This has lead to my photos having a completely different perspective and my eye has definitely improved.

Many books and websites would also advise beginners to start photography with a 50mm prime as it is the best lens for learning the trade.

As for your comments about DOF, I don't see what the problem is with the f/1.4 dof. When I shoot a portrait at f/1.4, I just love the bokeh, something you cannot achieve with a slow zoom, and if I drop down to f22 the DOF is great.

Agree about it not being suitable for sports but that's why Canon have a huge range of lenses, as different situations require different lenses so I don't see how this can be a minus point on a 50mm.

AnimalRights

Reading this thread make me take my 1.4 back out of mothballs!
Messing around in work tonight with it and wow the bokeh/background blur!

MagicMarker

First photo is fantastic.

Calina

murpho999 wrote: »

I think you have misunderstood me.
Before I had the 50mm, f/1.4 my main lens was a Sigma 28-200mm zoom. It's an ok lens.
Now I have the 50mm and I definitely notice the colours are better and pictures are shaper. I think this is due to better quality glass, being a prime there are less groups so you get less degradation than a zoom and also the autofocus is sharper and quicker.

I want to address these points singly.

I own several zoom lenses, three of which cover the 50mm range. There is no argument against this point because that is a feature of prime lenses. However when spending money on lenses, you have to look at what you need for them, and practical considerations about how much equipment you are going to carry around. A range of zooms gives you flexibility that a collection of primes does not. It comes with a cost in some respects - aperture/money is generally the main one. I can't, however, wax lyrical about the autofocus and less degradation on a 50mm if I can't take the photographs I want to take because it falls outside the range I need to shoot the subjects I shoot.

murpho999 wrote: »

I was not 'blaming my equipment' as you put it but I do notice how the 50mm has changed my photography.
With my zoom I would arrive at a scene, pick what I want to shoot, and zoom in on it. Now, I have to think more, as I cannot change the zoom, I will try to frame the picture differently. This has lead to my photos having a completely different perspective and my eye has definitely improved.

You see, I have a problem with this idea. I know that a lot of people claim it for themselves, but I've never believed it. I strongly believe that your starting point should be with "what you want to create" and then choose the tool accordingly. An example are these ones - I knew what I wanted before I left the house and provided the conditions were okay, I knew I would get them. As it happens they were done with the 50mm but they would equally have been done with either of the two zooms that cover that range also. It just happened to be the 50mm because it was on the camera and fitted what I wanted to do.

murpho999 wrote: »

Many books and websites would also advise beginners to start photography with a 50mm prime as it is the best lens for learning the trade.

I'm not really sure what your point is here. The best lens for learning the trade, in some respects, is the one you have and for many people, particularly in the Canon world, that lens is a 18-55. I'm more a fan of saying to people who buy brand new cameras and are looking for lens advice is "use the one you've got until you work out what it is it doesn't have that you want". For a lot of people that's range and zoom, for a lot more people that's speed, for a lot more people it's the lack of freedom to shoot insects. So I know what the books are saying but frankly I don't buy it any more. In any case, what lens you have is going to change nothing if you don't move the switch on your camera from Automatic to some semblence of manual.

murpho999 wrote: »

As for your comments about DOF, I don't see what the problem is with the f/1.4 dof. When I shoot a portrait at f/1.4, I just love the bokeh, something you cannot achieve with a slow zoom, and if I drop down to f22 the DOF is great.

I didn't say there was a problem, I said the DOF was unworkable for what I shot and what I meant was at 1.4. I realise that may not have been obvious however, I take it for granted that if you're discussing 1.4, this is a place to start with. If I'm not going to be using it much/at all, I am not convinced that the extra 200E or so is worth it when I also happen to need another two flash units for other projects, a waterproof casing and probably yet another camera bag.

One of the points that gets forgotten in many gear related discussions is that many - most - people are limited by financial considerations. I understand, for example, why Sineadw has a 1.4. She shoots photographs that warrant it, or even require it. I don't and the features that make you love it are not high priorities for me. When saying that the lens is worth 200E extra, you have to bear in mind that to other people, it may not be.

murpho999 wrote: »

Agree about it not being suitable for sports but that's why Canon have a huge range of lenses, as different situations require different lenses so I don't see how this can be a minus point on a 50mm.

It's a minus point for this reason: You talk about how you can't beat foot zoom. I am just making it very clear that for a lot of photographers, this is not true, and not even practical.

jackdaw

The first one is great ... im amazed you got so much in focus at f1.8

I've noticed some of my pics are a bit too blurry at f1.8 .. I usually go
for f2.8-3,2 for portraits..