Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

[Rhinotherunt]

Looks like the setup did well for you.

[macobee]

hey nothing wrong with trying to do it on the cheap! only coment i have on these is that the shirt you use as background, tuck it under the baseboard at the end so it will not be a visible blurry line, but straight cut off.

[just12]

40d, ISO 1000, f/5, 1/125

http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/2386/mg0811app9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[macobee]

just12 how did you get the eyes so shiny and colorful?

wondeful kid!

[just12]

just12 how did you get the eyes so shiny and colorful?

Well, this lens did the magic...
There is almost no PP (I only sharpen a little bit and brighten this image.)
PS - I was suprised that at ISO 1000 there is very little noise, even when looking at 100% crop..
I guess if scene is bright you can shoot with 40d at iso 1000-1600 and do not worry about noise :)


wondeful kid!

Thanks!
:)

[jcp2000]

Looks like the setup did well for you.

yea i was surprised on how they ended up coming out. not bad for being a small lamp that i had sitting around.


hey nothing wrong with trying to do it on the cheap! only coment i have on these is that the shirt you use as background, tuck it under the baseboard at the end so it will not be a visible blurry line, but straight cut off.


yea i know i should have let it drape down a little more and tucked it under but it was just a practice run, before i headed out for the night.

[ieatstars]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/2986513372_4518c78435_o.jpg

[greg_w]

I love that setup jcp2000. We've obviously got very similar photography budgets. Even our gear list is nearly identical.

[Sublimejoe]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/2986513372_4518c78435_o.jpg

Looks very Holga.

[shingo43]

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f317/shingo43/IMG_0636.jpg
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f317/shingo43/IMG_0657.jpg
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f317/shingo43/IMG_0661.jpg
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f317/shingo43/IMG_0659.jpg

[jcp2000]

ahhhh omg i just used my 50 and the usm is dying!!!! its slower then its suppose to be man im so bummed and today is the 30th day i have had im gonna try and take it back to get a new copy!!!!


if that doesnt work what should i do im so angry.....

[Sfordphoto]

a few from an engagement shoot i did for my sister

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Mrv3L9m4RAg/SQlaWKB8W5I/AAAAAAAADFI/OdR_lwABjdQ/s640/IMG_6932.JPG

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_Mrv3L9m4RAg/SQlaVX510MI/AAAAAAAADFA/wG64UDMZ8kE/s640/IMG_6913.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Mrv3L9m4RAg/SQlaXmtvxiI/AAAAAAAADFY/upHsXvA5alY/s640/IMG_6962.JPG

[tonylong]

SFordPhoto,

Great shots! I love the background! Nice use of off-camera lighting as well!

[Radiohead369]

Very nice photographs Sford:D

[Sfordphoto]

SFordPhoto,

Great shots! I love the background! Nice use of off-camera lighting as well!

Haha thanks!

I actually didn't use any lighting at all...all ambient light. Shot wide open, ISO 1600...and was still getting shutters of about 1/50.

The sodium streetlamps were really orange in terms of white balance, so cooling off the white balance had two effects: less orange skin and a bluer background ;)

[jcp2000]

i got a new copy today since the first one started to act up already after 30 days!!!! aha here is a test shot from the new copy


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2988033765_1950100b68_o.jpg

[macobee]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/2989523334_9b4c5e75a8.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3017/2988691293_dff1c3ce85_o.jpg

[just12]

Nice tower :)

[BlueTsunami]

Used 1.4 here to my advantage. Captured my nieces face in the middle and at 1.4, it allowed me to blur the foreground and background. I like the general tone it gave to the image...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3180/2990363469_9295526764_o.jpg

Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT
Exposure: 0.025 sec (1/40)
Aperture: f/1.4
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: 0/2 EV

I'm satisfied with this shot but my Rebel XT seems to have trouble with critical focusing at odd angles like that. I don't know if its indicative of limits with the XT AF or if that's just a scenario that's tough for a camera (I focused on her visible eye).

Edit: Or it could be that I'm looking for such sharpness from this lens when it isn't as sharp wide open (on a crop camera). Doh!

[ieatstars]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3226/2990865497_1a1103bf20_o.jpg

[BlueTsunami]

@1.4
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/2991817077_6e88f2b6c5_o.jpg

[shima]

Flower girls hair after she got it done. I love how sharp this lens can be but then at the same time it can create some awesome bokeh in the background. All ambient light here, no flash.

http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/397662594_Yf8Hz-L.jpg

[macroshot]

A couple from last weekend, playing around at f/1.4

The daughter

316847

The dog

316848

[macroshot]

Two from yesterday, walking in the woods. We are having spectacular weather and photography is a great excuse not to rake leaves! Both @ f/1.8


316906


316907

[p360]

A couple from last weekend, playing around at f/1.4

The daughter

316847




Is that Miley..??

[macroshot]

Is that Miley..??

hehe - I showed that to her and she walked away shouting "why does everyone think I look like Miley!!"

[BlueTsunami]

These are @ 1.4

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/2994961431_a28587791f_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/2994961115_03f303eaa2_o.jpg

[jcp2000]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/3002861761_f15c9e6deb.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/3003705906_aece799bc9.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/3002866337_860b01da12.jpg

[Cali Agent]

Wow all of these photos are awesome and i've only seen a couple of pages

[jcp2000]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/3004192493_8278c277ba_o.jpg

[RowdyReptile]

^ I like!

[jcp2000]

^ I like!


thanks it looks a little over exposed to me but im very critical with my own photos.

[strobe monkey]

Here's one taken this afternoon. f1.4

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/3006638664_b7f9e50c44_o.jpg

[ieatstars]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/suuupra/IMG_1216copy.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/suuupra/IMG_1220copy.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/suuupra/IMG_1223copy.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/suuupra/IMG_1279copy.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/suuupra/IMG_1461copy.jpg

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d140/suuupra/IMG_1463copy.jpg

[macroshot]

^^ ieatstars - where are these from? I can't place any of them.

[macroshot]

Won't be seeing these bright colors for much longer - the snow is driving towards us from the Dakotas... it was a nice fall while it lasted.

f/2
317738

[GrahamBlackall]

this lens is soooo nice.
awesome depth of field.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/3006483859_f7c9504b5f.jpg?v=0

[droopy1592]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2751271624_44f2f60caa_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3011/2783745033_3c525a4c49_b.jpg

[jcp2000]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2751271624_44f2f60caa_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3011/2783745033_3c525a4c49_b.jpg


1 is soft and seems to be a little oof

[davo_robbo]

^^
its foccused on his hands,
try using manual selection AF..
most people generally focus on the eyes for portraiture

[droopy1592]

It was an issue with poor low light focusing. The light is from a strobe, but i couldn't get the lens to focus well and didn't have time to manual with this kid. Center point was used. Did the best I could. I kept the shot because I thought it was still acceptable for print 4x6. Sorry it isn't up to you guy's standards :)

[strobe monkey]

It was an issue with poor low light focusing. The light is from a strobe, but i couldn't get the lens to focus well and didn't have time to manual with this kid. Center point was used. Did the best I could. I kept the shot because I thought it was still acceptable for print 4x6. Sorry it isn't up to you guy's standards :)

Yes I agree it would still look good on a 4x6 print, I also agree with you children can be very difficult to take picture of. I also agree with them that the focus was on the child's hands. And davo's suggestion to focus on the eyes is good. My advice (I'm not an pro) is if you can't focus on the eyes, just focus on the forhead between the eyes.This way you get better results that your sample above.

[spelunker]

It was an issue with poor low light focusing. The light is from a strobe, but i couldn't get the lens to focus well and didn't have time to manual with this kid. Center point was used. Did the best I could. I kept the shot because I thought it was still acceptable for print 4x6. Sorry it isn't up to you guy's standards :)

The picture would've been great if it had just focused correctly! :eek: Though unfortunately, I must say, as it is now the viewer is still drawn to the kid's eyes, so the point of the hands being in focus is lost.

[davo_robbo]

It was an issue with poor low light focusing. The light is from a strobe, but i couldn't get the lens to focus well and didn't have time to manual with this kid. Center point was used. Did the best I could. I kept the shot because I thought it was still acceptable for print 4x6. Sorry it isn't up to you guy's standards :)

hey i never said i didnt like it ;)
you could have shot manual selection centrepoint on his eyes and then recompose :D

its a very nice shot :) just has the potential to be wow

[shima]

Love this shot.

this lens is soooo nice.
awesome depth of field.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/3006483859_f7c9504b5f.jpg?v=0

[droopy1592]

hey i never said i didnt like it ;)
you could have shot manual selection centrepoint on his eyes and then recompose :D

its a very nice shot :) just has the potential to be wow


You guys miss the point. I have no problem getting eye focus, when I'm catching a camera shy kid turning his head to look at the camera and then the notoriously difficult to focus in NO light 50mm f/1.4 decides to hunt, i click the shutter as soon as I could before he quickly turned his head for the 20th time and this turned out to be the best shot. I could have recomposed after proper focus was verified, if the kid would let me, and I could have focused on the eyes for certain if there was more light so the cam/lens could focus where I pointed. I had to take what I could get. It was so dark that the only light on the kids face was from the TV.

If the kid had just sat his bean head there then the advice would be warranted.

[BlueTsunami]

Some I had taken earlier today...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3148/3010543251_691979b223_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/3011379076_8c852b50fe_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3242/3011379240_c9c5144487_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3160/3011379554_87e25e4ce9_o.jpg

[John Photography]

@1.4
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3207/2991817077_6e88f2b6c5_o.jpg

hello. with a subject like this, where exactly would you set the AF point(s)?

[BlueTsunami]

hello. with a subject like this, where exactly would you set the AF point(s)?

In that shot, I focused on the Left Yin/Yang with the first Left off center AF point (I shoot with an XT, I manually chose that AF point). I tried to put the AF point on the Gold trimming on the ball so it could bang out the AF correctly.

If there's one thing I've learned with using fast lenses, using all the AF points at your disposal will help with the keeper rate of your pictures. I rarely do "Focus and Recompose" with anything faster than f/4.

[John Photography]

In that shot, I focused on the Left Yin/Yang with the first Left off center AF point (I shoot with an XT, I manually chose that AF point). I tried to put the AF point on the Gold trimming on the ball so it could bang out the AF correctly.

If there's one thing I've learned with using fast lenses, using all the AF points at your disposal will help with the keeper rate of your pictures. I rarely do "Focus and Recompose" with anything faster than f/4.

thanks. i'm ready to pull the trigger on this lens. i've been debating between this and the 1.8. i think i'll benefit from teh faster lens with better low light performance.

[John Photography]

how important is the hood for the lens? is it neccessary?

[BlueTsunami]

how important is the hood for the lens? is it neccessary?

I don't own one but I've heard that you can get better contrast out of the camera with one (due to protection from flaring). I've noticed that my pictures tend to be flat when taken outside during grey and sunny days... I have a feeling that a lens hood would help with this issue. I'm planning on getting one at some point.

[John Photography]

I don't own one but I've heard that you can get better contrast out of the camera with one (due to protection from flaring). I've noticed that my pictures tend to be flat when taken outside during grey and sunny days... I have a feeling that a lens hood would help with this issue. I'm planning on getting one at some point.

i will use this lens to take outdoor, sunny pics of cars at car shows. so i think i will pick one up with my lens today.

[jcp2000]

I don't own one but I've heard that you can get better contrast out of the camera with one (due to protection from flaring). I've noticed that my pictures tend to be flat when taken outside during grey and sunny days... I have a feeling that a lens hood would help with this issue. I'm planning on getting one at some point.



so true and i am buying a hood for mine today to see how much better with will make my outdoor shots

[strobe monkey]

how important is the hood for the lens? is it neccessary?

It also helps to protect the lens front element from fingers and accidental bumps.

I bought a cheap one from ebay and it works well.

[runninmann]

hello. with a subject like this, where exactly would you set the AF point(s)?Same as when you take a shower. Focus on the balls :lol::lol:.

[n1as]

Here's a shot at f/1.4 under poor lighting conditions. I know this lens is not that sharp wide open, but this photo looks pretty good to me!

[BlueTsunami]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/3014681470_127103a11b_o.jpg
@2.8, 1600ISO, 1/30th sec Shutter (Rebel XT)

This was a picture I had taken a couple of months back. Having acquired Noise Ninja, I've been looking back at pictures that have been marred by high ISO noise. I'm amazed at how well this picture cleaned up.

[jcp2000]

got my hood but didnt make it back on time before the sun went down i guess i have to wait and do some tests tomorrow

[strobe monkey]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3043/3014681470_127103a11b_o.jpg
@2.8, 1600ISO, 1/30th sec Shutter (Rebel XT)

This was a picture I had taken a couple of months back. Having acquired Noise Ninja, I've been looking back at pictures that have been marred by high ISO noise. I'm amazed at how well this picture cleaned up.


This works well for me. I like the framing, colors, depth of field.
Really nice!

[n1as]

We really need to change the title of this thread from "Canon EF 50 f/1.4 USM at f/1.4" to just "Canon EF 50 f/1.4 USM" since so many of the images are shot at apertures other than 1.4.

[photobitz]

I did suggest that about 20 pages back... lol

[davidinjp]

I got this lens a few months ago. Always thought it produced a unique look, especially wide. For some reason I usually reached for the 35L though.

So today I took ONLY the 50 1.4 to the park with me since I have been debating getting that new huge Sigma 1.4 that everyone is talking about. But... I just decided that I like the tiny Canon 50mm f1.4 enough to keep it!

My top three from today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3002/3014894075_9b15c5f2fb_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3071/3014894099_2884ecc09e_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/3014893965_265c83edc1_o.jpg

[BlueTsunami]

Here's a wide open shot...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3063/3017391626_55f9412189_o.jpg

Used Manual Focus on my XT to get the shot (the AF kept hunting). I'm happy I nailed it.

[screxer]

So I have been debating the f/1.8 and the f/1.4 over the past week or so and purchased an f/1.4 tonight. I currently have the 18-55 IS kit lens and a Sigma 28-300mm DG Macro (which gets majority of the use on my new XSi...first DSLR that I purchased a couple of weeks ago). is this a good purchase given the lenses I currently have and do you see it getting a lot of use given that I do a lot of landscape and nature shooting as opposed to urban, city shots?

[jcp2000]

uhh the 1.4 is mainly used for portraits i dont do to much land scape with mine but its does ok i guess this is the newest one i took with it (landscape waise)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3293/2963558214_3955d72196.jpg

[screxer]

Well, I'm definetely loving the Sigma for the wide zoom capabilities, but everyone that I talk to has told me that if I REALLY want to become a better photographer, I need to get a prime lens and the f/1.4 or f/1.8 would be a good choice. I'm looking forward to getting it, I'm just worried that the price per number of shots done with it won't be there....probably just a stupid sense of buyer's remorse before I've even used it....haha!

[BlueTsunami]

Primes force you to work within a focal length and find a perspective that accommodates it. With that said, you can do this with a zoom lens too.

The real perk of shooting with primes is how fast the lens are. As far as worrying whether you'll use the lens or not. I think it would be a good idea to find out what Focal Length your drawn too (via a zoom) and buy a prime in that area. I've read lots of posts that has the user stating that "I've used so and so zoom and noticed I shoot at this certain focal length".

50mm is pretty "middle of the road" though, so in that sense, I guess its good to have it in your lineup.

[screxer]

Well, I was going through my pictures and many of my pictures are at 28mm, but that is to utilize f/3.5. I know some of them could have taken advantage of the 50mm at f/3 or lower so I think I'll be able to make use of it....or I'll just make myself utilize it somehow...haha!

[photobitz]

To be honest I think the 50/1.4 is one of the best bang-for-buck lenses around. I personally found it a little long on a 1.6x crop but on the 1.3x it is much better.

[Collin85]

hey i never said i didnt like it ;)
you could have shot manual selection centrepoint on his eyes and then recompose :D


Bad, bad, BAD! Focus & recomposing at large apertures on close subjects is a sure-fire recipe for OOF shots.

[GrillZ]

Hello. I recently purchased this lens. I have been playing around with it for like the past week since I bought it.

Well, I have a small concern. Maybe I got a defective lens, but the pictures are coming out soft.....
I have read multiple reviews on this lens and heard that the "sharpness" is amazing....But, I'd have to say otherwise.
And through the ViewFinder the picture looks good and clear but then once it's taken it's all blurryish/soft......(and no, I am not mistaking the blurryness for Depth of Field)....

Any suggestions ???
Please Help......
Should I contact Canon's Warranty Dept. to try to exchange the lens or what ?
Will they honor the warranty even though I didn't buy it directly from them ?? (I bought it from this photo shop near my house.)


THANKS!
-Jordan

[davo_robbo]

what aperture are you shooting at?
where and what are you focusing on?
have you done a focus test?

[GrillZ]

what aperture are you shooting at?
where and what are you focusing on?
have you done a focus test?

Hello, and thanks for your response.

I have been shooting at 1.4 the whole time since I got it.
I focus I my main subject of the photo. I mean...like for a portrait, the persons face. Sometimes some shoes (I collect Air Jordans).

No I have never done a focus test. Unfortunately I am currently unaware of what that is. I have never heard of a "focus test". Please let me know how I do a focus test and I will do it.

Thanks!
-Jordan

[itsallaboutgary]

Try shooting f/2.0 and above and see if that helps. At f/1.4 your pictures will come out some what soft. Anyway here are some pics i took this weekend. let me know what you guys think.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/itsallaboutgary/tracbowlings.jpg
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/itsallaboutgary/justintree1.jpg

[GrillZ]

Hello. I recently purchased this lens. I have been playing around with it for like the past week since I bought it.

Well, I have a small concern. Maybe I got a defective lens, but the pictures are coming out soft.....
I have read multiple reviews on this lens and heard that the "sharpness" is amazing....But, I'd have to say otherwise.
And through the ViewFinder the picture looks good and clear but then once it's taken it's all blurryish/soft......(and no, I am not mistaking the blurryness for Depth of Field)....

Any suggestions ???
Please Help......
Should I contact Canon's Warranty Dept. to try to exchange the lens or what ?
Will they honor the warranty even though I didn't buy it directly from them ?? (I bought it from this photo shop near my house.)


THANKS!
-Jordan

Try shooting f/2.0 and above and see if that helps. At f/1.4 your pictures will come out some what soft. Anyway here are some pics i took this weekend. let me know what you guys think. I took both of these at f/2.8

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/itsallaboutgary/tracbowlings.jpg
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h297/itsallaboutgary/justintree1.jpg


hmmm....I'll give it a try.....
but this kind of pisses me off, lol....I pay for f/1.4 and cant even use it unless I want a blurry sh!tty photo.......

THANKS!
-Jordan

[davo_robbo]

unless you pay 2k and get the 50L you really wont see anything razor under f2
shoot at f5+ and there is just SO much detail..

heres one from me at 1.4

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3211/3012473274_cee3c4a125_b.jpg

[jcp2000]

yea dont shoot at 1.4 it is pretty soft i shoot at 2 on up unless i need 1.4 which is hardly ever

[BlueTsunami]

My lens isn't as soft wide open as people state theirs are. Its definitely softer than it would be closed down but viewing the picture at its normal resolution and not pixel-peeping, its perfectly fine. I think, when there is a case when absolute sharpness isn't the deciding factor in a picture and thin DoF is... then f/1.4 is what I would use.

My issue with shooting wide open is that the lens is prone to being not as punchy in the contrast department.

[GrillZ]

Ok.....

Well, after looking over that page that Gary showed me I have learned a few things about this lens.
( http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/140/cat/10 )

The main thing is that it's f/1.4 but you really don't get a decent shot until f/2.0.
f4.0 on this lens will give you a CRISPY photo. But you can still get a very good shot in the f/3.'s....
The ability of f/1.4 is pretty much useless unless you intentionally want a soft photo or unless you really need that extra bit a light and you are willing to sacrifice the sharpness of your photo.

All in all.....I still like the lens....and I don't see myself letting it go (selling it) any time soon.

Thanks again Gary....

-Jordan

[tonylong]

hmmm....I'll give it a try.....
but this kind of pisses me off, lol....I pay for f/1.4 and cant even use it unless I want a blurry sh!tty photo.......

THANKS!
-Jordan

Back to the idea of a focus test -- you want to set the camera on either a tripod or other stable surface. Enable the Mirror Lockup function (you can look it up in your camera manual). Then set the camera to the self-timer mode (again in the manual) if you don't have a cable release.

Focus on an object with good light and detail farther than the Minimum Focusing Distance and shoot a series of shots at various aperture settings from wide open to say f/22. This will give you a good view of what your lens is capable of at various apertures. Typically, a lens is at its best from a couple stops down from widest to the f/8-f/11 range.

Many if not most lenses are a bit soft at their widest, and that can be true with the 50 f/1.4, but it's not "really soft". It can be very tricky, though, to get a good image at f/1.4 because the depth of field is so narrow that any movement of the camera can throw the focus off. That's why you want to test with a tripod -- it will show what the lens can do...from that it's up to your technique.

If, though, shots taken with the tripod are really soft then your lens could have a problem. Try manually focusing after you get an AF focus confirmation and see if you improve the focus. If so, you should return the lens (or exchange it).

[BlueTsunami]

This lens is very sharp sharp at 2.8 and Center Sharpness is perfectly fine at even f/2. This is based off real world shooting with my own 1.4.

This is @f/2.2
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/2995804606_a3bcc03c90_o.jpg

At 100%, you can see very fine detail. This is why MTF data should be taken with a grain of salt in some regards. Its good at giving you a basic idea of how it performs at certain apertures and whatnot but you should strive to look for real world shots.

[leftofedge]

WOW. I need to buy another 40D now so I can leave this lens on there permanently.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/leftofedge/photography/Specter-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v289/leftofedge/mini-IMG_6826.jpg

[jacobsen1]

how important is the hood for the lens? is it neccessary?

i will use this lens to take outdoor, sunny pics of cars at car shows. so i think i will pick one up with my lens today.

get it. Even if you don't care about flare, it's worth it for working in crowded areas anyway.

I just decided that I like the tiny Canon 50mm f1.4 enough to keep it!

great shots, and I agree on the size. Smaller and lighter is a good thing. Especially when it's also lighter on the wallet.

unless you pay 2k and get the 50L you really wont see anything razor under f2
check out the test I did with the L -vs- the 1.4... Suffice to say, I still have the 1.4 and the L was sold quickly... Sure the L is a great lens, but it also has focusing issues that are real, even on a tripod, and it's not sharper to my eye. Sure looking at 100% crops wide open things won't be tack sharp, but in prints and processed shots online it's got more than enough sharpness. That's all that really matters.

[screxer]

Got to try it out for the first time today and as much as I bought the 28-105 to be a walkaround lens, I have a hard time taking this one off the camera...haha!

f/2, ISO 100, 1/1600 sec.
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j157/screxer/IMG_0921.jpg

f/1.4, ISO 100, 1/4000 sec.
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j157/screxer/IMG_0937.jpg

f/2, ISO 100, 1/3200 sec.
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j157/screxer/IMG_0953.jpg

[tonylong]

screxer,

I like the horse shot! Taking wide-open shots is an art-form and can often come across as just "hmmm", but if you can get an effective "portrait" (like that of the horse) you have room to play with the aperture to "get it right"!

[screxer]

Thank you, yeah, that was just a quick snapshot I took thought it turned out nice...I'm loving this lens, but can see it being difficult for an absolute rank beginner (I was lucky enough to have found this site the day I bought my DSLR, and had a lot of fundamentals in place from my point and shoot days) because there is little room for error on this lens. Focus on the wrong point and your entire photo is shot, but focus on the right point and the images will be amazingly sharp and if composed right, they can be stunning. Other lenses may come and go from my lens collection, but I don't see this one leaving because of how fun it is.

[BlueTsunami]

If your under good lighting, make use of the DoF preview when you stop down. It really does help when your trying to nail the DoF, up close on a subject where exact DoF is needed. Its one of those underutilized functions, I would think.

[geekaleek]

Linkzi
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/3034490712_2d0d90b0fa.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3034490712/)

Samanax
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/3033650831_96c53905f0.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3033650831/)

tiarehi
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/3034490904_d1b6efd604.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3034490904/)

ZENGHOST
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/3033650649_9451c6e6d6.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3033650649/)

[alvinpaul]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/3034259196_453791046b_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3295/3034259184_4e00aedc7e_o.jpg

[therealmr]

http://fc84.deviantart.com/fs39/i/2008/321/f/8/Nicole_by_therealmr.jpg

f/2.8 (various adj., no sharpening)

http://fc85.deviantart.com/fs39/i/2008/317/b/a/Explorers_by_therealmr.jpg

f/2.0 (levels)

http://fc19.deviantart.com/fs38/i/2008/317/3/2/Hannah_by_therealmr.jpg

f/2.0 again (color adj.)

http://fc30.deviantart.com/fs35/i/2008/297/3/5/Bike_workshop_by_therealmr.jpg

f/1.8 (unprocessed)

http://fc15.deviantart.com/fs33/i/2008/300/3/7/Noelle_by_therealmr.jpg

f/2.2 (unprocessed)

[John Photography]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/3034259196_453791046b_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3295/3034259184_4e00aedc7e_o.jpg

Alvin,

Ganda pare! anak mo ba sya?

I'm just starting out and i recently picked up this lens. can you give me some Exif info on these two pics above? I love how sharp his eyes look. any post production work?

John

[alvinpaul]

Alvin,

Ganda pare! anak mo ba sya?

I'm just starting out and i recently picked up this lens. can you give me some Exif info on these two pics above? I love how sharp his eyes look. any post production work?

John

Hi John,

Inaanak ko boss :)

I tweaked it using DPP (bundled Canon software) to further sharpen the picture. I am sure you will enjoy your new toy! ;)

Picture 1

Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/500)
Aperture: f/2.8
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0/3 EV
Flash: Flash did not fire

Picture 2

Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture: f/1.4
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0/3 EV
Flash: Flash did not fire

Regards,
Alvin

[Markitos]

My contribution (to this thread and to the world!) This lens gets what I need when it counts (and I've got other things on my mind):

http://beltie.smugmug.com/photos/419466990_ugitU-O.jpg

[shima]

This lens rocks my world. Both were taken at f1.4

http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/419540260_N5DBf-L.jpg

http://photos.cathoffman.com/photos/419544247_MEofy-L.jpg

[trevstro]

Do you think the 50 1.4 has is too much reach for indoors? I am planning on picking up the 17-55 and was considering the 50 1.4 as well for low light indoors...thoughts? Canon 50D..

[runninmann]

Do you think the 50 1.4 has is too much reach for indoors? I am planning on picking up the 17-55 and was considering the 50 1.4 as well for low light indoors...thoughts? Canon 50D..What do you plan to shoot? How big (or small) is "indoors?

welcome to POTN!

[davo_robbo]

@ 1.8

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/3039934501_0955bd54e7_b.jpg

[trevstro]

Indoors would be mainly be the home. Have a baby on the way so will have a lot of shots of her inside. I'm sure there will be a lot of other uses for it as well but I am mostly concerned with low lighting inside the house.

[Markitos]

Indoors would be mainly be the home. Have a baby on the way so will have a lot of shots of her inside. I'm sure there will be a lot of other uses for it as well but I am mostly concerned with low lighting inside the house.

My baby was just born this past weekend (see my photo above). My experience in this first couple of days is that 50mm is pretty good on a FF camera, but I'd often like even wider (like 24mm) for my indoor baby shots. I have used my 15mm FE, my 50mm f/1.4, and my 135L for baby shots, with the 50 getting the bulk of use.

So, all that considered, if I were you I'd be looking for a lens in the 24-30mm range to fill the same need, and potentially something wider as well. I have not been able to use my 17-40 much because it is too slow for what I've been shooting.

And, just to add to the thread as well:

http://beltie.smugmug.com/photos/418999601_39iEN-O.jpg

[BlueTsunami]

All @ f/1.4 off a Rebel XT, ISO200

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/3045849849_497be27eb7_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/3045851429_02d656f432_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/3046685216_0c89c4f1c4_o.jpg

[jcp2000]

taken with the 18-55mm kit lens @ f5.6

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3020/3046065467_305c1d0eb9_b.jpg

[dtngo]

http://www.dtngo.com/temp/SuongIvan_day02.jpg

[Mum2J&M]

http://www.dtngo.com/temp/SuongIvan_day02.jpg

Nice shot. Do you use your 430EX as fill for these types of shots? What do you set it on? I'm coming from the D80 and SB800, so I'm re-learning Canon. I'm also not used to not having a pop-up for fill. Thanks.

[jcp2000]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3251/3046346317_2855831cc0_b.jpg

[dissembled]

How's the AF? Accurate but slow? Fast but inaccurate? Fast and accurate?

[gary88]

How's the AF? Accurate but slow? Fast but inaccurate? Fast and accurate?

Relatively slow but accurate

[jcp2000]

i think the af is a good speed not slow but not super fast and it is pretty accurate

[Markitos]

i think the af is a good speed not slow but not super fast and it is pretty accurate

+1... not as slow as some, but not the fastest, either.

[sunnygirl]

Relatively slow but accurate

Agree, except when AF dies ......

[jacobsen1]

I'd also say the AF is as fast or maybe even faster than the L? But maybe that's just me...
(I took an L on trade a few weeks ago and compared the 2 for a weekend, sold the L)

[geekaleek]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3187/3051588646_eb4fcc82d0.jpg

[Mark-B]

50mm f/1.4 @ f/2.5

http://bienvenu.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p397152668-5.jpg

[jcp2000]

newest one taken today first time i tried a action shot came out ok imo what do you guys think?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3237/3051361215_cb650b7b39.jpg

shutter speed: 1/200sec
aperture: 2.8
ISO: 100
focal length: 50mm
on board flash used

[madhatter04]

Looks like a good one! ^^
Is that Old Towne Orange? CSULB?? It looks so familiar but I can't put my finger on it...

[jcp2000]

thanks its actually in pasadena a street before samys camera

[jcp2000]

1 more i just finished editing c&c is welcome

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3018/3052426568_fd99688801.jpg

[madhatter04]

thanks its actually in pasadena a street before samys camera
Of course... I was just over there on Friday :confused:

[Mr Tiles]

1.4
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x90/MR_TILES/IMG_7289.jpg

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x90/MR_TILES/bike/IMG_8899.jpg

[Jannie]

Linkzi
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/3034490712_2d0d90b0fa.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3034490712/)

Samanax
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/3033650831_96c53905f0.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3033650831/)

tiarehi
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/3034490904_d1b6efd604.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3034490904/)

ZENGHOST
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/3033650649_9451c6e6d6.jpg (http://flickr.com/photos/geekaleek/3033650649/)

I love this series, it's just fun to look at the people and wish I knew them, nice job. That is one happy fellow with his camera and the bottom photo, well the enthusiasm is really great, fierce warrior but not really.:D

[John Photography]

i love this lens, but i'm a bit at a loss for how to use it for indoor situations - such as a party.

here's a pic i took of my god daughter this wknd:
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh228/jsalangs/Emma%202nd%20Birthday%20Party/IMG_4005.jpg

Exp: 1/25
f/2
ISO 800

thank you in advance on your advice and suggestions on how i can get the sharpest pictures in a indoor party setting.

[geekaleek]

i love this lens, but i'm a bit at a loss for how to use it for indoor situations - such as a party.

Exp: 1/25
f/2
ISO 800

thank you in advance on your advice and suggestions on how i can get the sharpest pictures in a indoor party setting.
up the shutter. generally try to at least match the shutter speed with focal length. it looks like camera shake is the main problem here. it would probably be sharper at shutter 1/50 and f/1.4 (even though faster aperture). i have no problem with the sharpness of mine at 1.4

I love this series, it's just fun to look at the people and wish I knew them, nice job. That is one happy fellow with his camera and the bottom photo, well the enthusiasm is really great, fierce warrior but not really.:D
haha thanks. it's always nice to hear positive feedback. these guys all usually post in this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=605059). here's some candids (http://flickr.com/photos/samanax/sets/72157609186893172/) that samanax (happy man with a cam) shot during the meet. their flickr streams: linkzi, (http://flickr.com/photos/linkzi) tiarehi, (http://flickr.com/photos/lwn/) samanax, (http://flickr.com/photos/samanax/) zenghost (http://flickr.com/photos/zenghost/)

[Markitos]

Because you were at a party and kids move quickly, I might even have bumped the ISO to 1600 and the aperture to f/1.4, which would give you a much more usable shutter speed of 1/100th.

[dtufino]

I love my 50 f1.4

http://tufinophotos.smugmug.com/photos/422776651_smghK-L.jpg

[BlueTsunami]

I find that with this lens, when used in lighting where f/1.4 is barely enough, I just go to Tv mode and set the shutter for 1/60 or 1/80th a second, exposure be damned (within reason). If the shots are a bit dark, I'll fix it in post. You can fix certain exposure issues but not obsessive hand shake issues.

[tepic]

From the plane. The blur is caused by the engine exhaust.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/3058227704_e2c3c94c7d_o.jpg

[gary88]

^^ The blur almost gives it a tilt-shift looking effect, nice.

[John Photography]

up the shutter. generally try to at least match the shutter speed with focal length. it looks like camera shake is the main problem here. it would probably be sharper at shutter 1/50 and f/1.4 (even though faster aperture). i have no problem with the sharpness of mine at 1.4


yeah, i do have shakey hand....especially after a few drinks!lol

Because you were at a party and kids move quickly, I might even have bumped the ISO to 1600 and the aperture to f/1.4, which would give you a much more usable shutter speed of 1/100th.

i was just practicing in Tv mode at 1/50 and ISO1600 - looks so much better.

[geekaleek]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3063095704_b8784e2807_b.jpg

[macobee]

geekaleeek awesome shot i wish i had such a model!

[John Photography]

ok, been practicing shooting in low light with still subjects - for now.

thoughts?

f/2.5
ISO1600
EXP: 1/30
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh228/jsalangs/IMG_4199.jpg

F1/4
ISO1600
EXP: 1/80
http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh228/jsalangs/IMG_4246.jpg

which looks better in your professional eyes?

[catalanus]

Another few "fifties":

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3186/2988294115_b96c8270c0.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/3010860643_639dc19f69.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3273/3059697554_38f1c69502.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3189/3066171595_7515cf023f.jpg

[screxer]

Couple of new ones playing with DOF. Both are shot at ISO 200, f/2.5, 1/4 sec. handheld. PP done in Lightroom:

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j157/screxer/Ninerhat.jpg

http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j157/screxer/Niners.jpg

[Jannie]

This may be a different approach but a photographer recently commented that one of the places you get more for that money you're spending on a lens is at the higher f stops, that a lessor lens will turn to mush at f16 where a good lens will keep the image better.

This is a very important part for me in considering this lens as my prime purpose unlike needing excellence at both ends of the aperture ring would be stopped down and using it with extension tubes for being very close up but still giving me close to the perspective of 50mm.

Is the 50 1.4 good stopped all the way down, I assume it goes to 22?

Othewise I'll simply keep using my 24-70 but sometimes the lens extending so much makes for more messing around.

[Markitos]

^ Save your money. The minimum aperture of the 50 f/1.4 is f/16, and it's fine at f/16, but this lens was designed to be useful in low light and wide apertures.

[EdBray]

Just bought a S/H EF 50mm f1.4, arrived yesterday so I thought I would test it's focussing capabilities this morning.

Using the neck of my Strat I aimed the centre focus point on the b of the 3rd string (4th fret for the non guitarists among you) and let the AF do it's stuff.

Well chuffed, seems very good.

http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m338/EdBray/GuitarNeck-1.jpg

[Mr Tiles]

I got a tele with the same neck. Nice.

[echo]

While on the music theme a snap taken with my 50 f/1.4

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/426879981_AjsHJ-XL.jpg

I sold it to get the 1.2 but still saving.

[geekaleek]

geekaleeek awesome shot i wish i had such a model!
yeah he's my morning model everyday before school/work. usually the only time i get to shoot :mad:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3242/3070495276_6c220ae148_o.jpg

[Radiohead369]

Just bought this glass to replace my broken 1.8. Liking this glass much more!

[John Photography]

While on the music theme a snap taken with my 50 f/1.4

http://recordproduction.smugmug.com/photos/426879981_AjsHJ-XL.jpg

I sold it to get the 1.2 but still saving.

love the sharpness! can you give me some Exif info pls? hand held or tripod?

[echo]

love the sharpness! can you give me some Exif info pls? hand held or tripod?

Just found the info - f/5.0 at 1/30th 400iso on 5D hand held. I found it very sharp from f/2.2 but more than acceptable wide open.

I was silly selling it really.

[John Photography]

Just found the info - f/5.0 at 1/30th 400iso on 5D hand held. I found it very sharp from f/2.2 but more than acceptable wide open.

I was silly selling it really.

impressive! any post production work?

[echo]

impressive! any post production work?

A bit but not much. Added a bit of vignette for mood and not much sharpening etc.

:)

[Mr Tiles]

@ 1.4
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x90/MR_TILES/scheile/IMG_6253_low.jpg

[macobee]

oysters
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/3082620910_ec58b74043_b.jpg

[EdBray]

oysters
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/3082620910_ec58b74043_b.jpg

No way is that at f1.4. Never in a million years.

[Markitos]

No way is that at f1.4. Never in a million years.

he never said it was.... but it was taken with the 50mm f/1.4, which is what this thread is about... ;)

[leftofedge]

he never said it was.... but it was taken with the 50mm f/1.4, which is what this thread is about... ;)

Actually, the thread is titled 50mm f/1.4 @ 1.4 but who cares. All pictures are welcomed in my opinion. I know the ones I posted weren't at 1.4

[Markitos]

Actually, the thread is titled 50mm f/1.4 @ 1.4 but who cares. All pictures are welcomed in my opinion. I know the ones I posted weren't at 1.4

True, but it's in the lens archive, so it should be more representative! :p