Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM @ f/1.4

[kmb]

Hi,

I'd be interested to see shots taken with the canon 50/1.4 lens at its largest aperture size. Images that leverage the shallow DoF would be interesting, as well as images that were shot @ f/1.4 because of the lack of light. Thanks!

[Lester Wareham]

You might be interested in this http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm which looks at the three 50mm lenses.

[kmb]

Thanks :) I'm actually more interested to see how the large aperture is used in real-world situations. I happen to own the 50/1.4, but I've never gotten around learning how to properly use it, and I'm embarassed of how little I use it. So, I'm basically looking for some motivation :)

[George Chew]

Greetings,
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f367/gckw8833/Cityscape/_MG_6154.jpg

f1.4, 1/160. no sharpening, shot raw.

[SuzyView]

Nice shot, George. Great example!

[Carzee]

http://mishuna.image.pbase.com/g3/58/572458/3/55380130.IMG_6129v1.jpg

[Andy_T]

Only one I have up at the moment ...

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19158&d=1121515808

Canon 20D with EF 50/1.4
ISO 100
1/3200
f/1.4

Best regards,
Andy

[schmoelzel]

Here's one from last year that I posted.....no longer own the lens only because I found that with my 1.3 crop 1D, 50mm just didn't seem 'right'. Great optic though........hard to find a sharper piece of glass for that price!!

http://theteahaus.netfirms.com/Canon/nfpicturepro/albums/userpics/10001/50f1.4-1D-B.jpg

Camera: Canon 1D
Shutter speed: 1/500 sec
Aperture: 1.4
Exposure mode: Manual
Flash: External E-TTL
Metering mode: Evaluative
Drive mode: Single frame shooting
ISO: 250
Lens: 50.0 mm
Focal length: 50.0mm
AF mode: One-shot AF

[jyrgen]

I have a little gallery here (http://www.zone.ee/canong3/Klassiohtu/) of our regular high-school reunionette, which was held at the darkest corner of a dark pub, lit mostly by few candles, so purely due to the lack of light all pics were shot at f/1.4 ISO 3200 and are yet underexposed. WB purposefully yellowish to maintain candle-lit atmosphere.

Now, the gallery is on a free webspace, so if you can't reach it, or have to go through an intermittent commercial page where you have to click the link again, I am sorry.

[Sean-Mcr]

http://k43.pbase.com/o4/87/571287/1/56041805.20D199.jpg

http://mk31.image.pbase.com/o4/87/571287/1/54652229.20D624.jpg

http://mk29.image.pbase.com/o4/87/571287/1/56041858.20D181.jpg

http://mk29.image.pbase.com/o4/87/571287/1/56053848.20D160.jpg

[busterboy]

Exif is embedded. 50mm @ f/1.4

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~tprocter/candids/tacksharp.jpg

[mebailey]

I have at least one. I will try to post when I get home....

[hemuni]

Here's a couple from the technical museum here in Copenhagen, Denmark. First is a sample of dof and the other for lowlight:

57426

57427

Let me just say this again, i dont understand why people complain about softness at 1.4 I really consider this more of a feature.

[TimOLondon]

Here is one taken in low light, and with the great shallow DOF of this lens. My daughter was asleep (while waiting for new year 2006 to come in !). Taken with EOS 5D, 50mm f/1.4, at 1.4, 1/80 sec, ISO 1600, no flash.

[DZ]

A few of mine:
http://zanelli.smugmug.com/photos/49705816-L-1.jpg
http://zanelli.smugmug.com/photos/49705784-L.jpg
http://zanelli.smugmug.com/photos/47600168-L.jpg


This one was low light, no flash ISO 1600:
http://zanelli.smugmug.com/photos/51502164-L-2.jpg

[pitabread]

Just a DOF @ f/1.4 test. The DOF does get pretty ridiculous on this lens wide open. Shot hand-held, f/1.4, 1/50, ISO 400. Cropped, sized down and slight USM in photoshop.

http://www.animecritic.com/_temp/photos/50_f1_4.jpg

[FretNoMore]

http://www.andersostberg.com/fotogalleri/albums/userpics/10001/C-Sharp.jpg

[jfred]

I am now officially lusting after this lens!

[In2Photos]

I am now officially lusting after this lens!

What took you so long?;)

[blue_max]

The only spec you need to look at is f1.4

That takes you to places that not many lenses will go. That guarantees it's place in anyones kit bag. There are those who go down the zoom route who would find it hard to justify, but if you shoot the sort of subject matter that makes it work, or just like to experiment, there's little alternative.

A gem for fools gold money.

Graham

[busterboy]

A gem for fools gold money.

Graham

Never a truer word spoken..;)

[mebailey]

This is the only one I have. I realize its not great. But hey, it may make you want to save your money rather than buy this lens. Just kidding... Its my fault!

[hemuni]

This is the only one I have. I realize its not great. But hey, it may make you want to save your money rather than buy this lens. Just kidding... Its my fault!

I think its a beauty mike, should make people fall over their feet to get a copy of this lense.

[René Damkot]

The 50/1.4 is a lens that allows you to take pictures where other lenses won't. It does offer quite heavy vignetting and is very soft wide open however. Depending on subject that may or may not be a problem. Bokeh is quite smooth (still not great), and *the* reason to choose it over the 50/1.8
To show DoF and lens quality to some students, I did a 'test' (nothing scientific ;)) a while ago:
http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/50mmLR.jpg (http://www.moonglade.net/rene/POTN/50mm.jpg)
(clicking the image should lead you to a larger version)

[mebailey]

I think its as beauty mike, should make people fall over their feet to get a copy of this lense.

You are too kind Heine... Thank you for your support. I enjoyed your site and especially your airshow pics...

[LightRules]

MS mouse, not wide open but f4.5, with a 31mm ET [greater than 1:1], just for fun...

http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/56198772/original.jpg

[busterboy]

How about looking at one for a change.. Please don't dribble on the picture..:lol:

http://www.timprocter.co.uk/photography/50mm-Lens.jpg

[ed2day]

Here's one from a dark restaurant. Not terribly sharp since it's shot at 1/10s, but I think it's pretty cool what you can do with available light.
300D, 50mm 1.4, f/1.4, 1/10s, ISO 800.

[Philco]

This is 1/50th @ f1.4, ISO 1600, due to terrible lighting in a small club.
I would be lost in this environment w/out this lense, though for small clubs I do sometimes wish for something wider.

[Carzee]

Ahhhh, rhythm and hues. I like it.

[Lotto]

I am happy with my copy:D

[tweatherred]

Here are a couple of mine; one is a friend at a party last fall (1/125, ISO 800), the other is my daughter this morning (1/90, ISO 400); both in available light with no post-processing. The shallow depth of field can be difficult for me because the focus is often just a little in front or back of where I want it (especially with a fast-moving subject like my daughter) but it is great for obscuring a busy background. I just got the 24 /1.4 and am thinking about the 85 /1.2; these fast primes are quite addictive.

[JulianL]

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9821/img4211crop4fz.th.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img4211crop4fz.jpg)

[lilmill]

f1.4
iso100
1-2500th

[yonni]

My brother @xmas. Iso 400 1/200sec.

[Mizaki]

Love it. Probaply best bokeh per buck in Canon line.

Anyhow. My contribution (And one thing. I changed computers, wherefore I am not sure these are 1.4 shots as I do not remember the exact EXIF-data for these pictures and didn't browse my backups. Well. in any case It is a good lens. I like it.).

[Fittipaldi]

Here's my effort.

http://images.fotopic.net/?iid=y9qzf8&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1

20D, 1/640s, f/1.4, ISO-200.

[kmb]

Thank you all! I really need start using this lens more :)

As a side note, it seems based on EXIF data that none of Sean-Mcr's images (first page) are taken at f/1.4. Others are OK or do not contain EXIF data.

[mebailey]

Thank you all! I really need start using this lens more :)

As a side note, it seems based on EXIF data that none of Sean-Mcr's images (first page) are taken at f/1.4. Others are OK or do not contain EXIF data.

Shame on you Sean!!;) ;) ;)

kmb - Teach me how check EXIF data on posted photos, please.

[sony23]

First one at f1.4 second at f2.0 on a 20d

Bruce

http://www.inframe.co.uk/photos/cat.jpg

http://www.inframe.co.uk/photos/cat2.jpg

[kmb]

kmb - Teach me how check EXIF data on posted photos, please.

1. If you're not already using Firefox, download it and start using it as your browser ;)
2. Install FxIF: http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/fxif/
3. Restart Firefox (close all windows)
4. Right-click on the image whose exif data you want to see, and select "properties". For an image which contains EXIF data, the essential information is shown (if the image doesn't contain the data, no notice is shown).

I guess Photoshop's "save for web" feature is to be blamed for all those images posted here that do not contain exif data :/. I find it really useful to be able to check aperture value and shutter speed...

[Nice Glass]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/itsameben/beer.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/itsameben/magics.jpg

Still learning to use it effectively.

[mtnwkr]

Thats some fine bokeh.. Ill be picking one up today!

[cdifoto]

I was going to postpone my purchase of this lens but damn... I just might have to forego the Sigma 30 and get this one instead!

[peatoire]

I am soooo gonna get one one these babies.

[JK]

http://www.westcoast-photography.com/pics/eyes.jpg

[mebailey]

1. If you're not already using Firefox, download it and start using it as your browser ;)
2. Install FxIF: http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/fxif/
3. Restart Firefox (close all windows)
4. Right-click on the image whose exif data you want to see, and select "properties". For an image which contains EXIF data, the essential information is shown (if the image doesn't contain the data, no notice is shown).

I guess Photoshop's "save for web" feature is to be blamed for all those images posted here that do not contain exif data :/. I find it really useful to be able to check aperture value and shutter speed...

Thanks Kalle!

[Mizaki]

The eyes are stunning JK, almost like mirrors. Nice work.

[Shabookie]

http://i.pbase.com/o4/44/242544/1/56270065.RopesTheHead_filtered.jpg

I hope it is just my copy, but I am finding that it is pretty SLOW to focus in low light.
Its also poor using Al Servo with low light and moving objects.

Please tell me its just my lens.
Has anyone had a problem with speed?

[blacksmurf]

I didn't found it slow to focus in low light... in the first 4 evenings of concerts in a very small venue, extremely low light, sometimes almost dark.

Attachment: Sara Luv, of Devics

[blacksmurf]

... but that evening I didn't used 50f1.4 at it's best, if we look at this shot taken with the G6.... :rolleyes:

58636

[superdiver]

Nice shots!

What size lens do most people use for portraits?

[mebailey]

Nice shots!

What size lens do most people use for portraits?

I use the 85 f1.2 mostly but I will use a 50 f1.4 if its too tight with the 85. If I have a large group shot to do I will use the 24-70 until I can lay my hands on a 35 1.4 :cool:

[kmb]

What size lens do most people use for portraits?

I use mostly the Canon 70-200/2.8. I really like how I get sharp eyes, the sofness of less relevant parts of the face and the blurred background:
http://www.bjorklid.net/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=18

[Andy_T]

What size lens do most people use for portraits?

I normally use a small-to-medium-sized lens like the 50/1.4.

However, there are situations where a larger lens (e.g. 80-200/2.8 ) yields better results :lol:

Kalle, I really like your concert pictures!

Best regards,
Andy

[quickben]

Here's my offering with a 100% crop.

Gary.

[quickben]

I use this lens the most out of the three I have. It's never let me down (I wish I could say the same about the Sigma 30 1.4 :-()

Gary.

[aparmley]

Here's my offering with a 100% crop.

Gary. Unbelievably good shots there Gary. Gotta be one of my favorite baby photos I've ever seen. I can't express enough how much I like the pose, angel, B&W conversion, DOF. . excellent job!

[tim]

The 50mm F1.4 is quite soft at F1.4, by F2.2 it's a lot sharper. I don't do wide shots with it, I only do close crops or images that need a shallow DOF.

[aparmley]

Having not seen this thread prior, I ordered the 50 1.4 this week and it will arrive by 10:30 am tomorrow. I am totally pumped now after seeing this thread - great shots from everyone - Canon reps have to love these kinda threads.

[sorashell]

I got this lens a few months ago and I adore it. Here are two favorites of mine...

[michael.luczkow]

I use this lens the most out of the three I have. It's never let me down (I wish I could say the same about the Sigma 30 1.4 :-()

Gary.
can you go into this a little deeper. I'm seriously considering the sigma (after I change my 50 1.8 for a 50 1.4). Anything you have to say about the sigma would be appreciated. Feel free to PM me if you'd like, I don't want to hijack the thread. :lol:

[kwsanders]

Fantastic shot, QuickBen! The 100% crop is great.

[sony23]

QuickBen are they at f1.4?

Bruce

[aparmley]

Took delivery this morning. took this tonight at work.

I'd say its usable at 1.4, very usable. straight out of camera.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57470600-L.jpg

[cdifoto]

Took delivery this morning. took this tonight at work.

I'd say its usable at 1.4, very usable. straight out of camera.



I dunno about that Andy. What can you really use a picture of your lens cap for? :p

[blacksmurf]

I dunno about that Andy. What can you really use a picture of your lens cap for?
Me, I know... if I loose the lens cap, then I could watch the picture of it, and sigh, thinking "I miss it so much"...

:D

[In2Photos]

I dunno about that Andy. What can you really use a picture of your lens cap for? :p

It is for insurance purposes.:D

[aparmley]

I dunno about that Andy. What can you really use a picture of your lens cap for? :p

Haven't you heard about the lens cap competitions, helllllllllooooo? :p

It is for insurance purposes.:D

LOL. :lol:

[gmazet]

Tis a great lens, indeed! You have to respect the super shallow DOF and take multiple shots with re-focuses to make sure you don't miss it unless you are far away), the DOF up close is about an inch

[I Simonius]

This is an 100 crop from about 10th of the image
Shot at f1.4

Note the detail in the mans hair, note the splendid CA of the boy's shirt!

[AeroSmith]

Here's one shot with the EF 50mm f1.4 on a 5D. Av was 1.4. ISO was 1600. Tv was 1/100. Cheers.
http://aerosmith.smugmug.com/photos/58314137-L.jpg

[willg]

Haven't you heard about the lens cap competitions, helllllllllooooo? :p



LOL. :lol:



http://www.spideronthefloor.com/upload/files/dcap.jpg

[willg]

This is an 100 crop from about 10th of the image
Shot at f1.4

Not the detail in the mans hair, note the splendid CA of the boy's shirt!

glad to see I'm not the only one with CA problems with this lens

[In2Photos]

This is an 100 crop from about 10th of the image
Shot at f1.4

Not the detail in the mans hair, note the splendid CA of the boy's shirt!

I guess there is a need for an L in this focal length.;)

[blue_max]

I really like this lens. Here's a shot for fun, but it shows the shallow depth of field. That's a blue pen, not CA!

Graham

http://www.mcreativeonline.co.uk/POTN/tinfoil.jpg

[I Simonius]

I guess there is a need for an L in this focal length.;)

yeah but as long its not an f1.0 costing a fortune!

[aparmley]

http://www.spideronthefloor.com/upload/files/dcap.jpg

Ah yes beautiful! Much more orginal and pleasing than mine! LOL

[aparmley]

The CA is a downer on this lens - Anyone have the 85 1.8 and has compared the two wide open? So far my 85's CA is far worse than the 50s. . . Not that less CA is better than more CA, afterall its CA so what can I say [remebering happy Gilmore] we can go down to the bay, make things out of clay, pixel peep some CA, what do you say, I think I just may? :lol:

[Ronald S. Jr.]

My little buddy that's with me a good portion of the time.

Forgive the crappiness. I set the camera on the floor, focused, and pressed the button. My eye never got anywhere near it for this shot.

60650

[Sean-Mcr]

Hard not to get a sharp shot in good light, with almost any lens. But the lens is a life saver in tough light

F2
ISO
800
1/45
http://i.pbase.com/o4/87/571287/1/56594095.20D354.jpg

[aparmley]

Caption for above photo should read: "Oh man, you really can see right through. . ."

LOL.

Great photo there sean

[blacksmurf]

I still haven't found a little time to check the 50f1.4 outdoor... always in low light, gigs in small venues...

61288
(http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=61288&stc=1&d=1141583469)

[Elton Balch]

This is just an amazing lens ESPECIALLY for the $$$$. I was experimenting with DOF and took this shot of artificial flowers on the dining table. F/1.4, ISO 100, 100th/sec. No post processing, just straight from the camera.

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a193/EltonBalch/IMG_2287.jpg

[jfred]

I am falling in love with this lens from seeing all these shots - awesome stuff.... thanks everyone!

[Mycroft]

Here's a shot I took last October in a candy store.

[Airedale1]

I don't use mine as much as I should either.

[I Simonius]

I don't use mine as much as I should either.

did you use extension tubes for that shot?

[kmb]

I don't use mine as much as I should either.

Exif of that image says 85mm and f/5.6.

[Airedale1]

Exif of that image says 85mm and f/5.6.

No extension tubes and yes it was my 17-85:o I took about 250 shots that day and most of the images were with the 17-85. I thought that one was w/ the 50.

[queenbee288]

My little buddy that's with me a good portion of the time.

Forgive the crappiness. I set the camera on the floor, focused, and pressed the button. My eye never got anywhere near it for this shot.

60650

Ronald, I love this shot.

[Lotto]

One more kitty pic couldn't hurt:o

[incendy]

http://www.smes.org/jesse/bookwormsmall3.jpg

[MichelleK]

wow...incredible shots

Michelle K

[DesignVHL]

Hey there, new to this forum and I am glad I came across this! I hope it's ok to post in here, as it is a *little* off topic...but you guy's seem to know what your talking about...and hopefully you can help me w/ some advice!

I am having a tough time deciding between 3 different lenses....I have to keep this under or around $400.00. I primarily shoot concerts and am in the pit/right up near the stage. Sometimes I go up on stage and shoot from there (better drum shots)...I'm trying to decide on a Prime lense - my first actually. :) And i'm having a tough time, because I want both a 50mm and a wide 28 (wish i could afford that 24L!!)

Here are the three Canon lenses I'm looking at:

28mm f/2.8 USM
50mm f/1.4 USM
50mm f/1.8 USM II

NOW here's the situation...if I go w/ the 50 1.8 I can get the wide angle lense which would be nice to have both...but if I get the 1.4 I can't afford to get the wide angle too..see my dilemma? If i go for the better(is it and will it make THAT much of a difference?) 50mm 1.4 lens then I don't have $$ left for a wide angle. If the quality on the 1.4 is that much better and worth spending the doe on, I can wait for a wide angle and just use my current 28-135 lense.

If you visit my website http://www.expandyourelement.com you can see the types of images I take. ALL images on my site were taken with the Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5 - f/5.6 USM lens and while I LOVE LOVE LOVE it, it doesn't let enough light in for me. I need sharper images and need to be able to get more light in...I want to be able to improve upon what I'm already doing. Any of your advice or feedback would be GREATLY appreciated! I look forward to particpating in these forums! Thanks so much!! :)

Valerie

[jbkalla]

Hey there, new to this forum and I am glad I came across this! I hope it's ok to post in here, as it is a *little* off topic...but you guy's seem to know what your talking about...and hopefully you can help me w/ some advice!

I am having a tough time deciding between 3 different lenses....I have to keep this under or around $400.00. I primarily shoot concerts and am in the pit/right up near the stage. Sometimes I go up on stage and shoot from there (better drum shots)...I'm trying to decide on a Prime lense - my first actually. :) And i'm having a tough time, because I want both a 50mm and a wide 28 (wish i could afford that 24L!!)

Here are the three Canon lenses I'm looking at:

28mm f/2.8 USM
50mm f/1.4 USM
50mm f/1.8 USM II

NOW here's the situation...if I go w/ the 50 1.8 I can get the wide angle lense which would be nice to have both...but if I get the 1.4 I can't afford to get the wide angle too..see my dilemma? If i go for the better(is it and will it make THAT much of a difference?) 50mm 1.4 lens then I don't have $$ left for a wide angle. If the quality on the 1.4 is that much better and worth spending the doe on, I can wait for a wide angle and just use my current 28-135 lense.

If you visit my website http://www.expandyourelement.com you can see the types of images I take. ALL images on my site were taken with the Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5 - f/5.6 USM lens and while I LOVE LOVE LOVE it, it doesn't let enough light in for me. I need sharper images and need to be able to get more light in...I want to be able to improve upon what I'm already doing. Any of your advice or feedback would be GREATLY appreciated! I look forward to particpating in these forums! Thanks so much!! :)

Valerie

Unless you have a full-frame camera, a 28mm is not a wide angle and a 50mm is a telephoto (slight). You might want to go down to 17mm or so. Unless you have the 5d, then ignore me! :-)

On a RebelXT or 20D or 30D or most digital cameras, a 17mm will actually be a 27mm lens (1.6 x 17 = 27), I THINK... (somebody please correct me if I'm figuring this wrong!) The 30mm is actually a 48mm, which is close to the standard 50mm view. A 50mm is actually an 80mm, so it is a telephoto lens.

[hemuni]

I have both the 28mm f/2.8 USM and 50mm f/1.4 USM and i like both.
The 28mm is a fine little lense, and so is the nifty fifty aka 50/1.8, but slower and sometimes inaccurate AF is the weaker points of these.

So my recommendation would be 50/1.4 because of faster AF, IQ is almost identical between the three, from 2.8 and up.

[I Simonius]

Hey there, new to this forum and I am glad I came across this! I hope it's ok to post in here, as it is a *little* off topic...but you guy's seem to know what your talking about...and hopefully you can help me w/ some advice!

I am having a tough time deciding between 3 different lenses....I have to keep this under or around $400.00. I primarily shoot concerts and am in the pit/right up near the stage. Sometimes I go up on stage and shoot from there (better drum shots)...I'm trying to decide on a Prime lense - my first actually. :) And i'm having a tough time, because I want both a 50mm and a wide 28 (wish i could afford that 24L!!)

Here are the three Canon lenses I'm looking at:

28mm f/2.8 USM
50mm f/1.4 USM
50mm f/1.8 USM II

NOW here's the situation...if I go w/ the 50 1.8 I can get the wide angle lense which would be nice to have both...but if I get the 1.4 I can't afford to get the wide angle too..see my dilemma? If i go for the better(is it and will it make THAT much of a difference?) 50mm 1.4 lens then I don't have $$ left for a wide angle. If the quality on the 1.4 is that much better and worth spending the doe on, I can wait for a wide angle and just use my current 28-135 lense.

If you visit my website http://www.expandyourelement.com you can see the types of images I take. ALL images on my site were taken with the Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5 - f/5.6 USM lens and while I LOVE LOVE LOVE it, it doesn't let enough light in for me. I need sharper images and need to be able to get more light in...I want to be able to improve upon what I'm already doing. Any of your advice or feedback would be GREATLY appreciated! I look forward to particpating in these forums! Thanks so much!! :)

Valerie

Valerie, If you're going to start getting primes it's probably best to decide now whether you intend buying the best or what you can afford at the time, because you might not always want to be looking to upgrade the same lenses?

Have a look at your pics and decide which focal length you used most often and go for that one first. Remember you can still use your zoom AS WELL so you wont lose out by getting just one prime (e.g. the 50 1.4) for now,

Also ask youyrself whether you need a higher shutter speed (i.e.faster lens) more for close up shots (close crop) than for the wider angle shots, in which case better go for the 50mm 1.4 (if that was me that is what I would get anyway!;) )

Hope that helps you decide:D

[BGrounds]

My 50mm f1.4 should be here today, I can't wait!!!

[Ciqala]

My 50mm f1.4 should be here today, I can't wait!!!

mine arrives tommorow. me neither :D

[Krapo]

Here is my contribution.
Not the best example of shallow DoF, but shot @1.4 still.

68738

Did I mention I loved this lens? (and the model...?) :D

[jbkalla]

Here is my contribution.
Not the best example of shallow DoF, but shot @1.4 still.

68738

Did I mention I loved this lens? (and the model...?) :D

Gorgeous photo! Very nice! :-)

[I Simonius]

Here is my contribution.
Not the best example of shallow DoF, but shot @1.4 still.

68738

Did I mention I loved this lens? (and the model...?) :D

Awwwww.......

(cue violin music....:D )

[In2Photos]

Hey there, new to this forum and I am glad I came across this! I hope it's ok to post in here, as it is a *little* off topic...but you guy's seem to know what your talking about...and hopefully you can help me w/ some advice!

I am having a tough time deciding between 3 different lenses....I have to keep this under or around $400.00. I primarily shoot concerts and am in the pit/right up near the stage. Sometimes I go up on stage and shoot from there (better drum shots)...I'm trying to decide on a Prime lense - my first actually. :) And i'm having a tough time, because I want both a 50mm and a wide 28 (wish i could afford that 24L!!)

Here are the three Canon lenses I'm looking at:

28mm f/2.8 USM
50mm f/1.4 USM
50mm f/1.8 USM II

NOW here's the situation...if I go w/ the 50 1.8 I can get the wide angle lense which would be nice to have both...but if I get the 1.4 I can't afford to get the wide angle too..see my dilemma? If i go for the better(is it and will it make THAT much of a difference?) 50mm 1.4 lens then I don't have $$ left for a wide angle. If the quality on the 1.4 is that much better and worth spending the doe on, I can wait for a wide angle and just use my current 28-135 lense.

If you visit my website http://www.expandyourelement.com you can see the types of images I take. ALL images on my site were taken with the Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5 - f/5.6 USM lens and while I LOVE LOVE LOVE it, it doesn't let enough light in for me. I need sharper images and need to be able to get more light in...I want to be able to improve upon what I'm already doing. Any of your advice or feedback would be GREATLY appreciated! I look forward to particpating in these forums! Thanks so much!! :)

Valerie

Based on the majority of your shots I would go with the 50 f/1.4. You seem to take more shots of head and shoulders, close ups, and some full body, with very few group shots. The 28 won't allow you to take these shots without being VERY close. Also, keep in mind that with fast glass like this that your depth of field (DOF) will be very shallow so don't count on getting 2 people in the picture in focus unless they are in the same plane. If one is behind the other they will be out of focus (OOF).

[fivegallon]

Ok, i'll play the game

Original Pic 3072*2048
http://fivegallon.fotopic.net/p27682701.html

Reduced Size 800*533
http://fivegallon.fotopic.net/p27682702.html

[DesignVHL]

WOW this is a beautiful photo! Great contrast! I think you just sold me on the 50 1.4 - infact I am going to order this thing by lunchtime so I can hopefully get it for my weekend shoot! :) My ONLY concern is that I won't be able to get as sharp group of shots (which I know I can use 28-135 for) because the 50 will be acting like an 80 - telephoto. I feel like I am going to be missing out some other sharp shots I could take w/ a wide...(I can always crop down on shots that would be good closer up-right!)...What would you compare to that concept for a 50mm - a 28 1.8?? What lens could give me a better DoF? I'm going for some really dynamic shots, and I've read that in concert photography that the 50 can sometimes give flatter images....so I'm just concerned about that....

thanks again for all your replies to my indecision! :)

Here is my contribution.
Not the best example of shallow DoF, but shot @1.4 still.

68738

Did I mention I loved this lens? (and the model...?) :D

[kmb]

I've started loving this lens since I started this thread. Mostly because one really needs faster than f2.8 (zoom) lenses when shooting concerts.

The following shot was taken in shutter priority (to ensure hand-holdability) with safety shift on. EXIF says it was taken @f1.4:

http://www.bjorklid.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal__MG_2137%7E0.jpg


Larger image + exif here: http://bjorklid.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-323

(if you wonder what I've photographed, look here: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=154073)

[DesignVHL]

What lens was used on this shot? I love your shots btw, great stuff! Were most of your concert shots taken w/ the 50 1.4? I am going to get that today - esp. if you took this shot w/ it....I'd like to be able to get some body shots, and group shots too that are sharper - because I can't get them this sharp w/ my 28-135 f3.5-5.6 USM lense.

http://bjorklid.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/normal__MG_8550.jpg

[A&RDESIGNS]

(if you wonder what I've photographed, look here: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=154073)

I know what that is.....thats me in the morning before I've had my coffee. The resemblence is scary:lol:

[kmb]

What lens was used on this shot? I love your shots btw, great stuff! Were most of your concert shots taken w/ the 50 1.4? I am going to get that today - esp. if you took this shot w/ it....I'd like to be able to get some body shots, and group shots too that are sharper - because I can't get them this sharp w/ my 28-135 f3.5-5.6 USM lense.

Thanks for the praise :D.

The lens for that shot was Tamron SP 28-75/2.8. At that time I had only a backpack (which is bad if you need to change lenses while in the middle of the crowd), so I didn't even plan to change lenses in the middle. I had only two lenses with me, the other being 70-200/2.8 IS because I though I'd choose between the two of them before the cocnert started. However, I was able to change lenses, so about two thirds of the concert was shot with the tamron and the rest with the canon. Only for the latest concert have I used other lenses besides the two I mentioned. I really should have had the primes with me in the second gig (Silentium/Fall of the Leafe), as the lighting conditions were very bad.

Anyhow, if I had the choice of taking, let's say, 50/1.8 or the zoom you mentioned to a concert shoot, I wouldn't hesitate to go for the fifty. It has way more "stopping power". Even if you can hand-hold the zoom, the chances are that lighting is not enough to freeze the performer's motion.

Unfortunately I have to ask you not to hotlink (or copy, for that matter), the Indica-pictures. I have promised to the band's manager that the images will be shown publicly only on my personal web site. So could you please replace the image with a link? Thanks in advance.

[sanil]

Beautiful composition Andy.

Cheers
sanil














Only one I have up at the moment ...

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19158&d=1121515808

Canon 20D with EF 50/1.4
ISO 100
1/3200
f/1.4

Best regards,
Andy

[ddelallata]

Quick Q? are there any sharp copies at 1.4, or do they all have to be stopped down a bit?

[I Simonius]

Quick Q? are there any sharp copies at 1.4, or do they all have to be stopped down a bit?

they are sharp at 1.4. *for f1.4* but do sharpen up a LOT by 5.6

[DesignVHL]

OK Just purchased the 50 f/1.4 can't wait to shoot this weekend! I did 2-day shipping at B&H I hope it comes by friday! I am pretty sure I won't regret this purchase..most of my images do seem to be closer up - 65-85 mostly...HOWEVER that COULD only be because my current lense focuses better and lets more light in at that range...i'm still all over the board for the most part, so adding the 28 would give me a nice round about collection. Since w/ the DREB, a 50mm lens acts like a telephoto 80mm lens...I am afraid I won't get the full body shots I'd like. The 28 1.8 acts as a 44.8mm (50mm i guess) lense...which would be perfect for me as well. I don't regret this purchase either way because I know I can use this lens for a variety of subjects and industries. I guess I'll just have to move further back in the crowd and outta the pit for the full body shots... :) Thanks again for all the advice...

PS All this talk about good copies vs bad copies is making me nervous...may be a silly question...but how do I know if I've gotten a bad copy? My images come out looking like crap?

[I Simonius]

OK Just purchased the 50 f/1.4

Congrats!:D

PS All this talk about good copies vs bad copies is making me nervous...may be a silly question...but how do I know if I've gotten a bad copy? My images come out looking like crap?

you can just go and shoot a couple of normal shots or you can do the paranoid thing ( :oops: - yes folks that's me) and shoot a newspaper page

Ever since I realised the QC is NOT perfect from dear ol Canon I now test resolution and focus of each lens the day I get it.

very simple to do, pin a newspaprer to a flat surface (I hang it off the TV) shoot at 1.4 and 5.6, IN GOOD LIGHT

Check the edges at 5.6, check the centre at 1.4. The centre should be reasonably sharp (not super sharp , but in focus and readable) at 1.4 and the centre should be pin sharp at 5.6 and there should be no odd blurring at the edges. You will need to do some sharpening first if shooting RAW

If everything's nicely in focus you can relax. if not do it again with a tripod and mirror lock up and self timer. My 50mm was fine, but my 85 back focussed badly ( replaced with anew one next day) and my 17-40 zoom has one side fuzzy ( currently being repaired under warrenty)

[DesignVHL]

Thanks so much for that little tidbit of advice...as a perfectionist, I probably will do that! Except for the fact that I have a shoot on friday night, and HOPEFULLY the lens will come during the day on friday w/ that two day shipping...

I'm just about to start shooting RAW. I have Photoshop CS2, but am considering Adobe Aperture as this program is supposed to be great for organizing and working w/ RAW Images. Why would shooting in RAW give the need to sharpen? I was under the impression that RAW retains the image quality and sharpenss better than JPEG...

[kmb]

Thanks so much for that little tidbit of advice...as a perfectionist, I probably will do that! Except for the fact that I have a shoot on friday night, and HOPEFULLY the lens will come during the day on friday w/ that two day shipping...

You might also want to check this page:
http://www.canon-dslr.com/Canon_Jan05/Canon_SLR_Focus_Test.htm

Why would shooting in RAW give the need to sharpen? I was under the impression that RAW retains the image quality and sharpenss better than JPEG...

RAW data retains everything, but the thing is, there is not much sharpness to retain in the first place - so to speak. This is due to how most of digital camera sensors are constructed. See this page:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sensors.htm

So the image recorded by the digital sensor is imperfect because its pixels contain only one of the R/G/B-values. This image needs to be converted to a full RGB-image before it can be displayed. This conversion will make the image soft. JPEGs are just RAW-files converted by the camera's internal converter. Sharpening is applied in camera for JPEGs.

[I Simonius]

Thanks so much for that little tidbit of advice...as a perfectionist, I probably will do that! Except for the fact that I have a shoot on friday night, and HOPEFULLY the lens will come during the day on friday w/ that two day shipping...

I'm just about to start shooting RAW. I have Photoshop CS2, but am considering Adobe Aperture as this program is supposed to be great for organizing and working w/ RAW Images. Why would shooting in RAW give the need to sharpen? I was under the impression that RAW retains the image quality and sharpenss better than JPEG...

RAW retains the RESOLUTION, this needs bringing out with sharpening, otherwise it will appear soft because of the low pass filter designed to elimiate various artifacts

If you have enough space on your CF cards I suggest shooting RAW and Jpeg for a bit, together, so you can see the results immdeiately from te jpegs but get extra from the RAW and experience post processing

[DesignVHL]

I set that up last night actually....if I am shooting both, in the preview window on the camera...is it the JPEG i'm previewing? IF i only shoot raw and NOT jpeg, then it's the RAW preview right? Does that question make sense?

[I Simonius]

I set that up last night actually....if I am shooting both, in the preview window on the camera...is it the JPEG i'm previewing? IF i only shoot raw and NOT jpeg, then it's the RAW preview right? Does that question make sense?

I believe so - Im fairly sure you will be seeing the jpeg version in the VF on camera, but you really cant tell a lot except whether somethings in focus in te VF its not really detailed enough

[BGrounds]

OK Just purchased the 50 f/1.4 can't wait to shoot this weekend! I did 2-day shipping at B&H I hope it comes by friday!....

I ordered mine Monday at 2 pm with 2-day FedEx economy shipping And I just got it today at 4pm. Can't wait to get some shots with it.

[htbyron]

If you have enough space on your CF cards I suggest shooting RAW and Jpeg for a bit, together, so you can see the results immdeiately from te jpegs but get extra from the RAW and experience post processing

Note that this may not be necessary, as the RAW file includes an embedded JPG at a smaller size (1536 x 1024for my 20D). If you have BreezeBrowser, extraction is very easy, as discussed in this thread: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=152130
I believe the JPGs can also be extracted using Canon software, but I've never tried, as I have used BB since I began shooting raw about three years ago (first with G3, then DRebel, now 20D).

Tom

[jesusdelallata]

I have this lens. I don't use it much. But when I use it...oh boy does it rock!

[Lord_Malone]

Okay, so it's not with the 1.4, but it's shot with a 50. ;)

My little monkey...
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5373/img2207a3mc.jpg

[jbkalla]

Okay, so it's not with the 1.4, but it's shot with a 50. ;)


LM, that's one happy looking kid! :-)

Babies are funny!

[tim]

F1.4
http://mrwild.co.nz/unprotected/wp/50-1.4-1.jpg

[I Simonius]

Okay, so it's not with the 1.4, but it's shot with a 50. ;)

My little monkey...


definitely a cheeky one!
So Sweet!:D

[blacksmurf]

Okay, so it's not with the 1.4, but it's shot with a 50. ;)

My little monkey...
(pic)


:D :D :D

;)

[Nicky D]

Here is one of mine at f1.4, the picture definitely could be much better. It is not focused properly, but I still think that it turned out cute. It is ashame that I focused on the bridge of her nose instead of her eyes, if it was focused right I think this would have been a great shot, oh well. Now I do have some great 50mm shots, just at higher f stops. I don't use this lense as much as I would prefer, but I would highly recommend it to anyone thinking about purchasing it.

http://www.pbase.com/nickyd/image/58270983

[Ciqala]

my 50 f1.4 arrived today (woo-hoo)

heres a quick photo i took out in my garden just before dusk and also a 100% crop

resized for web:
http://www.ciqala.com/potn/new50/50_1_4_resized.jpg
100% crop:
http://www.ciqala.com/potn/new50/50_1_4_cropped.jpg

exif data should be intact.

[superdiver]

LOVE that kid shot!

[dissembled]

GRRRR.
I can't believe I'm gonna get the 1.4 as my first lens instead of the 50 1.8 just like everyone else did.

Thanks guys. :P

No seriously. The bokeh that baby produces is something to die for. Soffft as sillk.

[xanctus]

I also thinking of getting 1.4 but more likely will get the 1.8 instead...

[DesignVHL]

i thought i would regret getting the 1.8...so i got the 1.4 and am very happy with it...that xtra stop (FOR ME) made a difference...

From all the reading i've done on this lens..most upgrade...so if you don't mind spending a few xtra...go for the 1.4! :) jmo

[GTogs]

I had the 50 f/1.8, didn't like the feel, noisy auto focus but loved the IQ. Bought the 1.4, it is everything the 1.8 isn't!

Now with the 5D it's even better!

[Carzee]

"...so i got the 1.4 and am very happy with it...that xtra stop (FOR ME) made a difference..."

http://camerajuice.com/tia/medium/0021.jpg

[Jarrad]

http://xs304.xs.to/xs304/06311/_MG_2445-2-2.jpg

[malla1962]

First shot taken with it,It was in the camera shop.:D

[superdiver]

Just waiting for mine! these pictures are geting me even more excited!

[Ty H]

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j288/98stang/IMG_0412Party5.jpg

[CED]

Here comes a shot of mine~

F3.2 - 1/320 - ISO100

80748

[grego]

^^The idea of this thread was for at f/1.4

[Dew]

Here's a few of mine... :)

First shot I took with the lens -

http://static.flickr.com/49/127026944_bb41da5824.jpg (http://static.flickr.com/49/127026944_bb41da5824_o.jpg)

A P&W radial engine...

http://static.flickr.com/53/146358881_a260ccc678.jpg (http://static.flickr.com/53/146358881_a260ccc678_o.jpg)

...and one from a marina in Maryland...

http://static.flickr.com/47/144572941_2a0188dc2a.jpg (http://static.flickr.com/47/144572941_2a0188dc2a_o.jpg)

[malla1962]

2 more.Both at 1.4:D

[superdiver]

Got mine yesterday, now I have to figure out how to get good pictures with it...

[Freff]

Also got mine yesterday, here's my first effort at f1.4. Hope you approve.

[gregjp48]

http://k43.pbase.com/o4/87/571287/1/56041805.20D199.jpg

http://mk31.image.pbase.com/o4/87/571287/1/54652229.20D624.jpg

http://mk29.image.pbase.com/o4/87/571287/1/56041858.20D181.jpg

http://mk29.image.pbase.com/o4/87/571287/1/56053848.20D160.jpg

How do you get such clear pictures (like the last two)
mine come out looking like they're in a fog.

and everybody elses they're wonderful.

How do you get such clear images with saturated unflat color?

[cosworth]

Post processing Greg. The fog removal for me comes with two passes of unsharp mask in CS2.

resize using bicubic only.

first at (100% to 200%), 0.3, 0 --->adjust first number to suit

next to get some contrast at 15%,100,0

[gregjp48]

so what you're saying is that you use USM two times in small amounts instead of one time in a larger amount?

[Samiad]

No, it looks like the second pass of USM is to add contrast. I find the low contrast is what makes things look 'foggy'. Dial in some contrast and you'll see the image come to life.