50mm, what's all the hooplah

[Mitchkitter]

Okay, so this has probably been already answered, and i just couldnt find it via the search button...

What is the advantage to going to this 50 mm lense vs the kit lense, or any other lense that hits 50?

Mostly, I'm more than willing to go buy a new lense, but my mom, who likes to think she knows a lil about photography wants to know why my 18-55 won't do:P?


she's not buying the "cause it looks cool" or "EVERYONE has one" lines

[DReb-MO]

Your search button must have been broke. This is a weekly posting.

[dtrayers]

It is generally held that the 50mm f/1.8 is one of the sharpest lenses you can put on your camera. When you factor in the cost (about $70US), there's no reason not to have one. At f/1.8 max aperture it's excellent for low light situations or when you want a really small DOF.

More opinions HERE (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=172&sort=7&thecat=2).

And this was last week:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35852

[c0ntr0lz]

cause the kit lens is fstop 3.5-5.6
the 500mm is 1.8

[PekkaM]

cause the kit lens is fstop 3.5-5.6
the 500mm is 1.8
Whoa! :shock:
I gotta have one of those! :lol:

[c0ntr0lz]

just ordered mine 79 bux at B&H

[drisley]

cause the kit lens is fstop 3.5-5.6
the 500mm is 1.8
Whoa! :shock:
I gotta have one of those! :lol:

Yes, where do you get one of those 500mm 1.8's?!!

[c0ntr0lz]

cause the kit lens is fstop 3.5-5.6
the 500mm is 1.8
Whoa! :shock:
I gotta have one of those! :lol:

Yes, where do you get one of those 500mm 1.8's?!!


no where!!!!

[dtrayers]

cause the kit lens is fstop 3.5-5.6
the 500mm is 1.8
Whoa! :shock:
I gotta have one of those! :lol:

Yes, where do you get one of those 500mm 1.8's?!!


no where!!!!

Actually, here's one:

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ddsmm/equipment.html

http://users.hunterlink.net.au/~ddsmm/images/finished.jpg

[CoolToolGuy]

cause the kit lens is fstop 3.5-5.6
the 500mm is 1.8
Whoa! :shock:
I gotta have one of those! :lol:

Yes, where do you get one of those 500mm 1.8's?!!

I think it comes from the same place that sells the 28mm f.18 that I mentioned in another thread. I would try online at &BH or Odorama. :roll:

Have Fun,

[c0ntr0lz]

dtrayers hush!!! hahaha yeah never really thought of it that way
can't wait to hook up mine to me dads telescope

[timmyquest]

Most repatative threads annoy people (i'm rarely one of them) but i love the frequency that this thread pops up, because then i get to show off all my f/1.8 photos and if these arnt worth the $70 then i dont know what is.

http://www.antiwall.com/june2004/dakota.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/march2004/images/2aidan%20and%20meghan.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/march2004/images/14tigger5.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/march2004/images/5john.jpg

http://www.antiwall.com/april2004/images/zaunt.jpg

[img]http://www.antiwall.com/march2004/images/3meghan%20close.jpg

[c0ntr0lz]

timmy stop showing off!!!!!
great shots bud
can't wait to get mine

[CoolToolGuy]

Timmy,

So I was wondering why this thread took so long to load this morning. :? Now I know. :roll:

They are some great shots that show the value of the 'nifty fifty', but you may want to consider posting them once in the 'Share Photos' forum, and then pointing folks to it each time the discussion comes up. :wink:

Have Fun,

[Conk]

I'm sorry people. I know I said I wouldn't say it again but I just have to.
Before reading all these posts and threads on the 50mm f1.8, I had no clue it was so popular. It makes me even more excited of the fact I stole my MI for $25.00.
Ok, that's it. I'll (try and) say no more. :mrgreen: Next time I post about the 50mm, f1.8, I'll let the photos speak for itself.

[CyberDyneSystems]

cause the kit lens is fstop 3.5-5.6
the 500mm is 1.8
Whoa! :shock:
I gotta have one of those! :lol:

Yes, where do you get one of those 500mm 1.8's?!!

I think it comes from the same place that sells the 28mm f.18 that I mentioned in another thread. I would try online at &BH or Odorama. :roll:

Have Fun,

Don't forget Scotte's famous 70-200mm f/28 Zoom... no larger than a tube of lipstick!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Timmy,

So I was wondering why this thread took so long to load this morning. :? Now I know. :roll:

They are some great shots that show the value of the 'nifty fifty', but you may want to consider posting them once in the 'Share Photos' forum, and then pointing folks to it each time the discussion comes up. :wink:

Have Fun,

LINKS!

Use links!

Images are for Share... :wink:

[Tom W]

Don't forget Scotte's famous 70-200mm f/28 Zoom... no larger than a tube of lipstick!

Ummmm, rumour is that it is a tube of lipstick. ;)

[forrest64]

....because it's there, that's why.

[Steveo31]

cause the kit lens is fstop 3.5-5.6
the 500mm is 1.8
Whoa! :shock:
I gotta have one of those! :lol:

Yes, where do you get one of those 500mm 1.8's?!!

I think it comes from the same place that sells the 28mm f.18 that I mentioned in another thread. I would try online at &BH or Odorama. :roll:

Have Fun,

Don't forget Scotte's famous 70-200mm f/28 Zoom... no larger than a tube of lipstick!
Hahahaha!!!! Too funny!!!

I remember reading somewhere that Leica made a f/.91, yes, .91 as in less than 1, purely for bragging rights, or scientific adventure, somethin. Pretty crazy!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Canon had a .95 in a manual focus lens many moons ago...

[Guillermo Freige]

Canon had a .95 in a manual focus lens many moons ago...

Canon had an EF 50/1.0L lens 10years ago, the father of the actual 85/1.2L. You can see it here:
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_50_10l_usm.html
Regarding the f/0.95 lens, probably it´s this S mount model (circa 1961):
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/s_50_095.html
Of course both were 50mm lenses :)

[dtrayers]

Doesn't Tom (belmondo) have a 50mm f/1.0?

[Guillermo Freige]

Doesn't Tom (belmondo) have a 50mm f/1.0?
I think he had one but sold it because the lack of use.

[Belmondo]

Yup. I sold it. I have since bought the 85mm f/1.2L. It's very similar in size and weight, but is a bit sharper than the 50 f/1.0L.

[Olegis]

I really love my 50mm f/1.8 MkII. Here is the photo I shot yesterday (wide open) :

http://www.pbase.com/image/30873404.jpg

[piku]

vote to make an "OFFICIAL 50MM F/1.8" THREAD, say "I"

...I

[drisley]

Well, just to add fuel to the fire on just how amazing the 50mm F1.8 is, I found this thread (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008Z2V&unified_p=1)about a guy looking at a bunch of Canon's top L lenses, only to decide that he already had a lens with much better quality... the 50mm F1.8.

I think the best thing about this long thread is the guy's post at the very end, after 2 weeks of trying out the best L lenses Canon has:

"Well guys, in the past 2 weeks, I have literally tested the 24-70, 70-200 and the 17-40. All 'L' lenses. I also played around with my 50mm 1.8. I bought each of the lenses and returned it after testing. I had a budget of $3000 dollars. After testing, I would examine each picture at full resolution. I shot the all pictures on a tripod with cable release. Shot at apertures and shutter speeds. My result was not to get a zoom lens at all. Not even a 'L' zoom lens. Why? Because I was browsing my pictures last night and stumbled upon my 50mm/1.8 pictures. They were tack sharp at full resolution. I didn't have to search for a sharpness like I had to in all the 'L' lenses. My 50mm was unused only for a few times I shot with it. My point is that I was so happy that I had the money for my first 'L' zoom and was scrutinizing all the lenses I bought. Little did I know the 50mm in my bag was so amazing. I shot with it alot this week and the images were awesome, indoors and outdoors. The sharpness in the hair was there at full resolution... I didn't have to search for it, it just poped out of the picture.... So here's what I've decided, since my focus is tack sharp images, I went out today and purchased the 85mm/1.8 lens. I cost me around $400.... I took about a 100 photos today and guess what, it's is as sharp as the 50mm/1.8. Now I know what type of lenses that satifys me. I was spoiled by zoom lenses, but I've actually found what I was looking for and I don't mind sneaker zooming because I know I will get the shots. So I have $2600 left in my budget, I just need a wide angle and I'm happy. I have a 28-135 IS lens, but I will never use it. I'll leave it for my wife to use because she doesn't care what type of lens is on the camera. I can say that I have converted to 'primes' after testing the 3 'L' zooms. They disappointed me, the 50mm which costs $65 bucks impressed me. Thank god I found it hiding in my camera bag all the way on the bottom. I struck gold..."

[Andy_T]

Pretty amazing ... that it took him so long to realize.

Obviously, he was reading the wrong forum :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[CoolToolGuy]

Its not a bad theory - I discovered something similar with auditorium (theater) environments. Until high ISOs can produce less noisy images, the best solution is small f/stop numbers, and 2.8 is just not quite 'small' enough. 8)

Have Fun,

[drisley]

I do alot of shooting in dark theatres, and I even though I use F1.8 primes, I prefer to goto about F2.8 and increase the ISO, and slightly overexpose. The result, even at ISO1600, is almost no noise.
I find F1.8 to be too shallow DOF.

ISO1600, 100% Crop, C1 Pro, Noise Suppresson OFF
http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/iso1600crop.jpg

[CoolToolGuy]

I do alot of shooting in dark theatres, and I even though I use F1.8 primes, I prefer to goto about F2.8 and increase the ISO, and slightly overexpose. The result, even at ISO1600, is almost no noise.
I find F1.8 to be too shallow DOF.



I haven't had that kind of luck with ISOs that high, but I haven't tried overexposing. What I did find is that the primes are usually sharper at 2.8 than my 24-70 f2.8L is at the same aperture (the softness at f2.8 was the thing that drove me to the primes), so when the light does come up they shine. At the distances I have shot from, the DOF did not seem to be an issue.

I'll have to experiment with the overexposure.

Have Fun,

[Olegis]

Sometimes there simply isn't enough light to even slight overexpose. At this concert (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/rita__live_in_caesaria&page=5) I shot with my 70-200 at a/2.8 and was forced to increase the ISO to 1600 in order to maintain 1/200sec exposures. Even then the photographs came out a little bit underexposed with a great deal of a noise in dark areas, so I had to remove it in PP.
Personally I wouldn't care for a shallow DOF in concerts because the main subject is almost always the singer or one of the other band members, so it's like taking portraits - shallow DOF is most welcome ! 8)

[drisley]

OMG!
Great pictures Olegis!
:shock:

Thanks also for the info. I've been contemplating getting the 70-200 F2.8, maybe with IS, to replace my 85mm F1.8 in theatres. I mainly shoot bodybuilding/fitness shows, and I too use approx 1/200s at ISO1600, F2.8 which works great. I found a shallower DOF wasnt good when there was more than one person on stage. The only problem with a prime in a theatre environment is that your stuck in position. This too made it hard to get shots of more than one person at a time. So I'm in a bit of a conundrum. Either get the 24-70 F2.8L and sit where I have been (around row 4), which often results in heads in the pictures, or get the 70-200 F2.8, hopefully with IS, and sit farther back.
I guess the big problem is $$$$, as always. :wink:

One thing I cant complain about is the image quality of the 85mm F1.8. It's AWESOME. Well, I guess one complaint... slight blue fringing sometimes.