Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 Feb 2005 (Friday) 16:28
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which 50?

 
Citizensmith
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,386 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 7
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA USA
     
Feb 11, 2005 16:28 |  #1

I'm sitting here with a 17-40 and 85 1.8 as my normal combination. I've got a 24 2.8 as my mini walkaround lens. I've got a 70-200 4 as my long lens. All on a Rebel D. As the gap between 40 and 85 is a fairly significant one I'd like to fill it with a prime (no more zooms wanted at all).

I've previously had a 50 1.8 and was pretty bored with it and used the 85 instead. I'd like a little better low light ability (the 1.4) and also some macro ability (the 2.5). Can't make up my mind though to go for the fast 1.4 or the multipurpose 2.5. I'd like thoughts on either please, particularly the 2.5 as there isn't too much info out there on it.

And no, I really don't want another 50 1.8 :)

Thanks in advance


My POTN Gallery, Complete gear list,
Tradition - Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
cactusclay
Goldmember
1,610 posts
Joined Jan 2005
     
Feb 11, 2005 16:48 |  #2

I used to own a 55 nikor macro which I think I got to do double duty as a normal and a macro lens. I just had a chance to see it the other day at a friends house. I had sold it to hime about fifteen years ago. Anyway after picking it up again and rolling the focus ring back and forth a few times, I remembered why I sold it. The dang thing just about doubles in size when you go to focus it and just really wasn't the perfect small double duty lens that I thought it would be. I really never shot macro much with it, so basically I just had a very slow 50 mm lens that had a very long barrel. Now I have never held the canon AF version in my hand, however, I have read that it tends to hunt a bit, because of it's close focusing function. I have also heard that if you don't try to go from extreme close ups to infinity it might not be too much of a problem.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RJSorensen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,706 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Near Tin Cup, Wyoming, USA
     
Feb 11, 2005 19:32 |  #3

I just got the 50 1.4 and just love it. However I am not much help on the other lens. I used it inside a museum that was dimly lit and the shots were better than I would ever have hoped. Clear, sharp, color seemed to be good and the background blur I was able to make hid a ton of 'junk' that I had no interest in . . . most likely you know this already. Oh, and I thought it focused quick as well.


"With Some Practice . . . I Am Able to Believe Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast!"
5D, 20D, EF 50 f/1.4, EF 16-35 L, EF-S 17-85, EF 24-70 L, EF 100-400 L, 1.4 TC II, Tubes, 550 EX, 580 EX.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ W
Canon Fanosapien
Avatar
12,747 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
     
Feb 11, 2005 19:45 |  #4

I have the 1.4 and wouldn't trade it for the macro. If you want Macro badly, the 1.4 is not the lens to get, but for that low-light capability, the 1.4 is unbeatable.


Tom
5D IV, M5, RP, & various lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DocFrankenstein
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,324 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Apr 2004
Location: where the buffalo roam
     
Feb 11, 2005 19:48 |  #5

After trying 3 50/1.8 and having the macro50 for a week...

1.8's bokeh sucks... Macro 50's working distance is way too slow for "practical" macrophotography (non chloroformed insects)

1.4 is the only way.


National Sarcasm Society. Like we need your support.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Adam ­ Hicks
Senior Member
Avatar
952 posts
Joined Apr 2004
Location: Ft. Worth, TX
     
Feb 11, 2005 20:00 |  #6

What's so wrong with a zoom? It's pretty hard to have a prime walk-around lens. 28-75 or so is just so handy for walking around. Seems kinda silly to me to be so hard set on a prime for everthing. I'd rather get the shot and apply a little USM than miss the shot because my lens was too long or not long enough.

I'd say find a good copy of the Tamron 2.8 zoom. It takes as good or better shots as my 50 1.8, and it's a helluva lot more flexible.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
defordphoto
MKIII Aficionado
9,888 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2002
Location: Pacific Northwest
     
Feb 11, 2005 20:02 as a reply to  @ DocFrankenstein's post |  #7

Simply said: The 50 1.4 is the "L" of the 50's.

The bokeh of the 1.8 does not "suck", but it is significantly less desireable than the 1.4. The 1.8's bokeh can be a bit chunky as it only has 5-blades as opposed to the superior 1.4 version that boasts 6-blades.

The 1.8 is as sharp as the 1.4 and is a very good value. The 1.4 also has the standard distance meter that other high-quality Canon lenses have.

I have the 1.8 and never use it. It is a cheap, plastic lens but the color, contrast and sharpness are second to none. But the bokeh is a weak point for sure.

I have not purchased a lens in awhile, but the 50 1.4 will be my next.


defordphoto | Celebrating the art of photography®
SD500, 10D, 20D, 30D, 5D, 1DMKII, 1DMKIII
www.ussbaracing.com (external link) | www.rfmsports.com (external link) | www.nwfjcc.com (external link)
An austere and pleasant poetry of the real. Ansel Adams

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ W
Canon Fanosapien
Avatar
12,747 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Chattanooga, Tennessee
     
Feb 11, 2005 20:37 |  #8

Actually, I think that the 1.4 has a sharpness edge on the 1.8 below f/2.8, though it probably isn't much. Stopped down beyond that, they're very close.


Tom
5D IV, M5, RP, & various lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moments
Member
178 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2005
     
Feb 11, 2005 21:11 |  #9

I'm new to this board and see this often. What does the slang "bokeh" stand for? I've been a working pro for 20 years and never heard or seen this slang before.
Pete


Pete
www.memorablemoments.n​et (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RJSorensen
Goldmember
Avatar
1,706 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Near Tin Cup, Wyoming, USA
     
Feb 11, 2005 21:43 |  #10

Bokeh is the out of focus area behind a subject. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=56972 Is perhaps the quickest way to show you. I suspect that you know, just not the term used here.


"With Some Practice . . . I Am Able to Believe Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast!"
5D, 20D, EF 50 f/1.4, EF 16-35 L, EF-S 17-85, EF 24-70 L, EF 100-400 L, 1.4 TC II, Tubes, 550 EX, 580 EX.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pyromaniac
Senior Member
Avatar
539 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2004
Location: Mt Washington in Cincinnati, Oh
     
Feb 11, 2005 22:00 |  #11

I have the 50 F/2.5 macro. I use it quite a bit, both for macro and normal shots. It's pretty good in low light but the 1.4 would definitly be better. I don't really do much macro work with insects, but the AF on the macro can be a little slow close up and some time it seeks in and out several times before finally focusing. Thats doesn't really bother me since most of the macro stuff I shot doesn't move. However I have had it as close as 4 inches from what I was taking pictures of which is a lot closer that you will get any of the other 50's. The 1.4 is only about $60 more than the 2.5 at B&H. I would use the 85 f/1.8 for low light and get the 2.5 for the macro capabilites and to help fill the gap.

Moments,
There was just a thread about that. https://photography-on-the.net …p?t=57113&highl​ight=Bokeh


www.actionstills.com (external link) | Ohio POTN Google Calendar (external link) | Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HKFEVER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,982 posts
Gallery: 143 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1326
Joined Oct 2004
Location: Hong Kong
     
Feb 11, 2005 22:37 as a reply to  @ Pyromaniac's post |  #12

50mm f/1.4 is normal lens with way better build quality than 50mm f/1.8.

100mm Marco f/2.8 is marco with very sharp and long range.

100mm Marco f/2.8 can replace 50mm f/1.4, but not 50mm replace 100mm.

100mm marco cost more than 50mm.

50mm f/1.4 is good for low light hand held than f1.8 or 100mm Marco.

So you can figure out the choice now.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HKFEVER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,982 posts
Gallery: 143 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1326
Joined Oct 2004
Location: Hong Kong
     
Feb 11, 2005 22:58 as a reply to  @ HKFEVER's post |  #13

Please check with these (no post process just re-size and save as web to reduce below 100K size in PS save for wab):

1st JPG is from 100mm Marco f/2.8:
2nd JPG is from 50mm f/1.4 shooting from my car's windows in midnight when I was driving (power of f/1.4.)::lol:


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stckciv
Member
Avatar
240 posts
Joined Feb 2005
Location: SLC Utah
     
Feb 11, 2005 23:32 |  #14

Hard answer!!!

I have the 50 1.4 and I love it!!! But looking at your set up I would go with the macro. It is fun to do and will get you into other areas of photography.

I have the mulitplier for the 50 but dont use it very much. If I get a macro it will be the 180.

Go for the macro 50!!!


There are always two people in every picture, the photographer and the viewer. ~Ansel Adams

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jyrgen
Senior Member
Avatar
259 posts
Joined Aug 2003
Location: Estonia
     
Feb 12, 2005 03:52 |  #15

50/1.4 is a great lens. Go for it! It also shares filter size with your 24 and 85, which may be of use. For macro, I suggest Kenko or other tubes and use them with your 85 and/or 70-200. You get more working distance than with 50 macro, which may be useful for living creatures.


Canon 35/1.4 | Canon 50/1.4 | Canon 135/2 | Canon 17-40/4 | Canon 24-105/4 | Canon 70-300/4.5-5.6
Canon 5D | Canon Speedlite 430EX | Manfrotto 055 ProB + 488RC2 | Kenko ext tubes & 1.4x TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,200 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which 50?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sunisland227
1035 guests, 293 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.