50... and Proud...

kumate_champ07

mloc wrote: »

Going for the f/1.2? Wish my pay days were as nice as yours!

(I did get a 24-70 f/2.8 yesterday mind you...)

Im very close to buying an ef 135mm f2L, my credit card is a couple of euro short so I'll prob have to wait a few days before more funds get in there

I think my other lenses might get a lot less use one I get my hands on the new lens!

Anouilh

I continue to use the 50mm, despite having a very good 70-300 zoom. Street photography at night is particularly rewarding.

This is a cluster of some of the recent shots:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anouilh/tags/50mm/

I'll continue to upload there for quite some time to come.

squareballoon

I LOVE my canon 50mm 1.4. I use it a lot. I would love to get the 1.2 but there's no way I could justify the money. I tend to use mine exclusively for portraits.

Hugh_C

As a matter of interest, why would you bother going to f/1.2? I have both a 50 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.4 and the depth of field on the 85 is ridiculously shallow at f/1.4. Even f/1.8 is almost absurd.

I'm using the 50 f/1.8 more than anything else right now for portraits but generally at about f/3.5 in its "sweet spot" - focus is at a maximum and vignetting at a min a couple of stops short of wide open generally, so the interwebs tell me (well, Ken Rockwell actually).

Here's a load of 50mm stuff I've shot ...

Chorcai

Im gettin me niffty on Wen. afternoon !!! sweet

Jackobyte

Christmas I'm getting a canon 500d w/ the IS 18-55mm lens. I was planning to but a second lens myself. Should I buy an nifty fifty or a 70-300mm IS lens. This will be my first DSLR.

Kintarō Hattori

Jackobyte wrote: »

Christmas I'm getting a canon 500d w/ the IS 18-55mm lens. I was planning to but a second lens myself. Should I buy an nifty fifty or a 70-300mm IS lens. This will be my first DSLR.

Get the nifty fifty and chances are the kit lens will rarely be on your camera. Has the mass praise for the lens around here not convinced you? It really is a stunning lens.

The detail is amazingly sharp for so little money:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/liamandagnieszka/3622845763/in/set-72157622542678723

Jackobyte

but which 50mm???

Slidinginfinity

Jackobyte wrote: »

Christmas I'm getting a canon 500d w/ the IS 18-55mm lens. I was planning to but a second lens myself. Should I buy an nifty fifty or a 70-300mm IS lens. This will be my first DSLR.

Jackobyte wrote: »

but which 50mm???

I have to buck the trend here, I love my 50mm, but I really wanted more zoom after I got used to my kit lens. Since this is your first DSLR go for a larger zoom it will allow you to learn what kind of shots you interested in and a bit later buy a 50mm (used).

Kintarō Hattori

Jackobyte wrote: »

but which 50mm???

Not being a Canon user I can't advise you of which one to go for but I'm sure some good advice will be along shortly.

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

I have to buck the trend here...

Troublemaker.

Slidinginfinity

Ha...:p

Chorcai

I have 50mm F1.8, wish I had the f1.4 :P

enda1

Quick question.

Do people talk about 50mm now that most people use cropped digital SLRs?
Is the 50mm what the 80mm was for film and full frame SLRs?

Or is there just something about the quality of the lens that even though the "zoom" of the lens is different on cropped and full frame cameras, there is still something special about the 50mm?

Anouilh

The fact that a 50mm prime becomes the equivalent of an 80mm on a crop body is useful for portraiture.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/topic/50mm+prime+lens/

There is so much written about prime lenses at the moment that really the best thing is to just get one and see how it works.

I'm amazed at how much I like the 50mm f1.4.
This is not only for the sharpness, which is impressive, but for the lovely smooth night photos it produces.

It really came into its own in the gloomy interiors of the churches in Rome. With the camera I began to see details that were not visible to the eye.



Does anybody know what the technical reason is for a prime lens to be so sharp? Some writers claim that good technique can enhance sharpness in many lenses that have the name of being "soft".

I use a small travel tripod to steady the camera and it helps.

Captain Flaps

Chorcai wrote: »

I have 50mm F1.8, wish I had the f1.4 :P

Why? Yer wan's face is already oof in that pic, the 1.4 would only be worse there :P

I like my nifty fifty but I'ts a good while since I've used it. I have 24-200 covered on various lenses at 2.8 the whole way, the focus on the 50 is roughly the same (very impressive for a 90 euro lens vs 1500-2000) or slightly worse than my other lenses. I find that 1.8 is unnecessary for most practical situations. Most people who buy a faster lens than 1.8 are just reinforcing the misconception that faster lens = better. There's pretty much no reason to drop that much money on the 1.2 when you can get a 1.8 for a tenth of the price. Deal.

petercox

Prime lenses are generally sharper because they only have to do one thing well - a zoom lens is sort of a 'jack of all trades, master of none' because it has to perform well at every focal length between it's shortest and longest focal length.

A prime lens only has to perform well at one focal length.

Technique is always the primary concern in image sharpness. It doesn't matter how good your lens is, if your technique is sloppy you'll get images that are not sharp. If you have a poor quality lens and poor technique you're worse off, but a top quality lens and poor technique is almost as bad.

The most important factor is a solid tripod and knowing how to use it well. After that, using the optimal aperture for the lens will give you that little bit extra.

Here's one of my favourite images made with my Minolta 58mm f/1.2 - it's replaced my Canon 50mm f/1.8.



Cheers,
Peter

Anouilh

This gives a list of reminders:

http://www.ehow.com/how_5591039_sharp-crisp-photos-dslr-camera.html

I often forget to use manual focusing rather than automatic in very low light settings. Sometimes the AF in the 50mm hunts a lot and the only way to over-ride this is to change to MF.

It can mean the difference between having a photo and none.

petercox

One of the crucial mistakes many people make is to use manual focus instead of auto. Modern cameras are not designed with manual focus in mind, and you simply cannot see well enough in the viewfinder to determine if the image is actually sharp.

You can see if it's close, but you can't tell the difference between 'almost sharp' and 'sharp'. Autofocus, if it's working at all, will give you a sharper result.

Now, if your camera has live view, and you're working on a tripod, you can usually do as well or better than autofocus - if you magnify the live view to 5x or greater.

If you can't do that, then use autofocus wherever possible.

Peter

Anouilh

This may look like a very sad attempt, but it took several shots, all MF, before I could get it almost right.





The ceiling was so black that the eye could not discern the patterns, notably the illusion of a coupola. I did not dare choose less than f2 because the patterns would dissolve totally.

In AF the camera just would not read the subject, so I made the best of it.

Any suggestions on how to improve with such dark ceilings would be very welcome indeed.

petercox

You can do a couple of things. A strong torchlight on the thing you want to focus on, autofocus on the light, switch to manual focus and turn off the light, make your exposure (obviously not touching the focus ring).

Otherwise, use live view, although this scene was probably so dark that even at max. ISO live view wouldn't show you an image.

Cheers,
Peter

Chorcai

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Why? Yer wan's face is already oof in that pic, the 1.4 would only be worse there :P

Wasn't saying it would improve the shot more but wish I could go out and buy an f1.4 in the morning !

kumate_champ07

Anouilh wrote: »

Any suggestions on how to improve with such dark ceilings would be very welcome indeed.

use the distance scale on the lens, thats what its there for!

Fionn

on some Canons I've noticed when using MF when you do achieve focus - one of the red focussing squares will light indicating that the image is in focus.

@Anouilh you could maybe use your onboard flash to achieve focus then switch to manual and take the photograph from a tripod - it's be similar to shining a torch at it and getting the focus that way.

tullie

got my nifty at the weekend, its amazing

Anouilh

DeVore

I freakin love this lense... I'm addicted.

DeV.

njburke

I get good use out of mine, in and out of doors, great for portraits of kids, just as useful on film or a cropped digital sensor.

eire54

H Peter,

sorry to budge in like this , but could you please tell me if I can use my Sigma 105mm DG EX Macro from my former Dynax SLR on my new Canon 500D ?? I know it doesn't fit , but is there something I can buy to adapt it ???
Sorry for my ignorance . Have tried to read up on it , but get confused between reversing and adapting and the lot..........
Thank you kindly
Ulla

Crispin

Shot with my 50 a while back

Chorcai