My new Nifty fifty

[Keiffer]

Hey guys here's a shot I took with my new Nifty fifty today.
The only post processing was adjusted color temp and upped exposure alittle.
Any tips on what the sweet spot on this lense is? indoor and outdoor tips are greatly appreciated.

[Dante King]

looks like you just about hit it. My old 50 1.8 was tack sharp form 2.8 and up. nice shot.

[Keiffer]

Thanks Dante, Glad to hear about it being Tack sharp through out the range, I could have sworn someone once said F4 was the sweetspot. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll keep playing with it to find out what gives best results.

[blue_max]

Hey guys here's a shot I took with my new Nifty fifty today.
The only post processing was adjusted color temp and upped exposure alittle.
Any tips on what the sweet spot on this lense is? indoor and outdoor tips are greatly appreciated.

I am curious as you mention you adjusted the colour temperature. It seems quite cool on my (calibrated) monitor – which it may have been in the flesh, of course.

I have never quite understood the meaing of the 'sweet spot'. Is that the aperture when everything is deemed to be in focus? Surely that would be the same for any lens. If the lens will shoot at f1.8, then one would expect a very shallow depth of field. That doesn't translate into a lack of quality.

Keep shooting.

Graham

[Keiffer]

Blue, I adjusted it with my unadjusted monitor:-( I will be getting a calibrater soon.
As far as the sweet spot, It was my understanding that normally between f8-f11 are the sharpest F stops for most lenses. IS this untrue? I understand the 1.8 and shallow depth of field, well not really experiemented with it being that this is my first 1.8 lense. So I guess your right in the sweet spot saying on this lense because if I use it for the intended purpose I bought it for(low light) I won't have much of a choice LOL.I am curious as you mention you adjusted the colour temperature. It seems quite cool on my (calibrated) monitor – which it may have been in the flesh, of course.

I have never quite understood the meaing of the 'sweet spot'. Is that the aperture when everything is deemed to be in focus? Surely that would be the same for any lens. If the lens will shoot at f1.8, then one would expect a very shallow depth of field. That doesn't translate into a lack of quality.

Keep shooting.

Graham

[DocFrankenstein]

looks like you just about hit it. My old 50 1.8 was tack sharp form 2.8 and up. nice shot.
Since I'm the owner of that lens now, I'd say it's tack sharp at f/2 already... just a pain in the neck to focus properly

I usually have to stop it down to f/3.5 to be able to hit that shallow DOF

[Dante King]

Since I'm the owner of that lens now, I'd say it's tack sharp at f/2 already... just a pain in the neck to focus properly

I usually have to stop it down to f/3.5 to be able to hit that shallow DOF

must be the canadian atmosphere taking its toll.

[RichardtheSane]

Blue, I adjusted it with my unadjusted monitor:-( I will be getting a calibrater soon.
As far as the sweet spot, It was my understanding that normally between f8-f11 are the sharpest F stops for most lenses. IS this untrue? I understand the 1.8 and shallow depth of field, well not really experiemented with it being that this is my first 1.8 lense. So I guess your right in the sweet spot saying on this lense because if I use it for the intended purpose I bought it for(low light) I won't have much of a choice LOL.

As far as I know In most cases the sweet spot is about 2-3 stops below max aperture...

[blue_max]

As far as I know In most cases the sweet spot is about 2-3 stops below max aperture...


Yes, that is what I have always been lead to believe. However, it did occur to me that some of the issues that are judged in a good picture, are sharpness and quality. Certainly the narrower depth of field would suggest that a picture was not as good.
In the hands of a great photographer, the depth of field issue is completely understood and allowed for, with great care taken to focus on the point of impact. With these lenses being so fast, there is much more potential to get it wrong. However, to some extent, the creative needs can outweigh the perceived quality issue.

Also, with lenses of L quality, much has been done to increase quality wide open.

As they say, rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

Bottom line - if they are better stopped down a little, then why not save a lot of money and buy a slower lens? I think it may be a general rule of thumb that maybe has less relevance to more advanced photographers.

Graham

[Keiffer]

Bottom line - if they are better stopped down a little, then why not save a lot of money and buy a slower lens?

You know I never bought a fast lense for this very reason LOL. But I got caught in a low light situation one day and boy I regreted not having atleast a 50 1.8.
Needless to say I got one now LOL. I haven't really tried it in low light yet but so far I'm impressed with the sharpness and clarity.

[skyphix]

On my Mk1 its F3.2 and up. Looks good to me.

Yeah, "saving a lot of money" over the 50 1.8 is hard to do, let alone keeping the optics good.

[Ogrt48]

Bottom line - if they are better stopped down a little, then why not save a lot of money and buy a slower lens?



because then you have to stop the already slow lens down even more to hit its sweet spot which can make it so damn slow sometimes.