[naoto]

Boys and girls. I'm thinking about plunking down 100 for a portrait f1.8 50mm lens. Fast easy and always the type of shots I take. But I'm wondering, what is the advantage of going even lower like f1.2? I'm sure it will be more expensive but what would that be used for? Any suggestions on particular models, I'm using a good old rebel xsi.

[yuns]

Boys and girls. I'm thinking about plunking down 100 for a portrait f1.8 50mm lens. Fast easy and always the type of shots I take. But I'm wondering, what is the advantage of going even lower like f1.2? I'm sure it will be more expensive but what would that be used for? Any suggestions on particular models, I'm using a good old rebel xsi.

I've been thinking of getting one too for dinner parties etc. that aren't too well lit.

Does an f1.4 make that BIG a difference to warrant the extra 400-500 dollars?

jeffy Poms are the cutest dog breed ever!

[erure]

Boys and girls. I'm thinking about plunking down 100 for a portrait f1.8 50mm lens. Fast easy and always the type of shots I take. But I'm wondering, what is the advantage of going even lower like f1.2? I'm sure it will be more expensive but what would that be used for? Any suggestions on particular models, I'm using a good old rebel xsi.

I used all three 50 prime lenses from Canon: f/1.8, f/1.4, and f/1.2L. I think out of the three, f/1.8 is definitely the best for what you pay, which is very little. f/1.4 and f/1.8 are different mostly in build -- the f/1.4 just feels sturdier. I honestly didn't notice that big of a change in image quality between the two. And I was skeptical when I got the f/1.2L -- how different could it be? But the change is quite different... The amount of bokeh you get with f/1.2L is crazy and the depth of field gets extremely shallow (this also means that people who aren't used to taking photos will probably always get photos that are oof). Canon used to make f/1.0L before the f/1.2L but apparently it was super soft or something. I think for most people f/1.4 is the lens to get.

[awdark]

Here are some of my cousins' pomeranian, Shiny:

@@@

I like how those came out, how did you illuminate these shots? Of all of them, only one looks like you flashed them.
I need some of those skills to get pics of my ADD bunny

[[HyuNi]]

Boys and girls. I'm thinking about plunking down 100 for a portrait f1.8 50mm lens. Fast easy and always the type of shots I take. But I'm wondering, what is the advantage of going even lower like f1.2? I'm sure it will be more expensive but what would that be used for? Any suggestions on particular models, I'm using a good old rebel xsi.

f/2 to f/1.4 is a full stop faster, which means if you had a shutter speed of 1/250 with the f/2, you would get double the faster shutter speed of 1/500 at f/1.4. Since f/1.8 to f/1.4 is 2/3rds faster, that would mean if you had a shutter speed of bout 1/420.
It may not sound too significant to you, but when you're in low light and no flash, it could mean the difference of getting that perfect shot, or shooting a blurry mess.

The difference between the Canon 50 1.8 and the 1.4 is probably the most discussed lens debate.
Basically, it's not just about the wider aperture.
The build quality of the 1.4 is better, with a metal mount, studier build, and has a full-time manual focus ring.
It also has more aperture blades to make the bokeh more creamy and uniform.
Also, the 1.4 has the autofocusing USM motor (although it's the micro-USM, not the ring-USM)

If you think it's really worth the to spend 3x more for the 1.4 because of the reasons mentioned above, then you'll be happy with the 1.4. I decided to skip the Canon 50 primes all together and get the Sigma 50 1.4 because it offered a lens far beyond what the Canon 1.8 and 1.4 could offer.
Much better build than both,
more aperture blades than both,
Quiet and quick (ever so slightly slower than the micro-USM) autofocus
Bokeh, BOkeh, BOKEH! (Canon's 1.8 has hexagonal, odd looking bokeh and the 50 1.4 has a streaky-like and distracting type of bokeh)
But the best part of the sigma, is that you can actually use it at 1.4 and not worry about having to stop down to rid yourself of soft photos. A big complaint of the Canon 50 1.4 is that it doesn't become sharp until around f/1.8 or f/2.

If you're in the market for a 50 prime, and you're willing to spend more for better IQ and leaning towards the 1.4, check out the Sigma 50 1.4, too. It's slightly more expensive, but much better lens (build and IQ-wise) and has been considered to out-right beat the Canon 50 f/1.4 hands down in almost every way and even come close to the 50 f/1.2L.

Does anyone else have the Sigma? I feel like I'm the only cheerleader for this lens!

[albasian]

I've always wanted to buy a prime lens, specifically a 50mm one, but I own a Nikon D60, which means no internal focusing, so I have to find an AF-S 50mm. And I prefer to have VR because my hands are not the most steady. Even if lighting conditions are well and ISO is at optimum speed, my shots may still come out blurry if VR is turned off (on both my 18-55 and 55-200.)

But question:
I found this 50mm prime lens that Nikon recently released:
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-1-4G-Digi...U/ref=pd_cp_p_2

And it says it has a Silent Wave Motor for fast and quiet autofocus. Does that mean it has an internal autofocus, so it's compatible with the D60?

EDIT: I foundout it works with the D60!
But is there a VR version D:

[naoto]

erure, hyuni thank you both for all the info!!! I will get a 1.8 because the things you've mentioned are far beyond what I'm capable of at the moment, plus I'm a student so I don't have much to spend. I'm sure I'll still have a lot of fun with this one heh thanks again.

p.s. do either of you know anything about this lens:



my dad gave it to me on the weekend because he doesn't need it anymore. But I don't know how this is "better" compared to my 55-250mm or kit 18-55. Besides partially covering the range of my two lenses what do I need this for? It's damn heavy and if it doesn't produce a higher quality then I don't know what to do with it. The lens diameter is larger, that's all I know.

[[HyuNi]]

I had the 28-135 when I used to have the 40D.
It's a great general walk-around lens, covering quite a bit of focal length.
But for you, the only thing you're going to benefit by having that lens, is not switching from your 18-55 and 55-250.
The widest aperture is f/3.5, which is I believe as wide as your 18-55. Also, the f/3.5 is only at the 28-30mm focal lengths, I believe. Once you zoom out, the widest you'll get is f/5.6, which isn't very wide at all.

The bad thing about this lens is that it is neither a wide, nor a long lens.

I sold mine after about 2 months and get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

[d0wne]

For Canon users, I always recommend the 50 1.8. It's IQ is good enough to invest some money in, but it's also cheap enough so you don't feel like you made a bad lens choice.

It'll def. be longer for digital users which every Canon user here is. For dinner parties and etc., you'll want a wider lens. Slap on the kits lens for snapshots. The Sigma 30mm is wider lens and is really good even at 1.4


btdubs, I've been noticing a sort of circular bokeh on the edges of my pictures when using my 50 1.8 like its being edged over and squeezed from the middle outward

You'll notice it more on the edges. It's like a ripple effect. Any ideas?

[phantompc4]

on the night landscape shot.
make aperature high as possible with a reasonable ss. for example you dont wanna go f/40 and have a 2 minute ss.
but maybe like f/11?

anyways yeah it's because your iso is too high it came out all grainy and blown out.

some pictures i took






original copies were sharper but i think conversion to jpeg and uploading on flickr toned the quality down

[awdark]

For Canon users, I always recommend the 50 1.8. It's IQ is good enough to invest some money in, but it's also cheap enough so you don't feel like you made a bad lens choice.

It'll def. be longer for digital users which every Canon user here is. For dinner parties and etc., you'll want a wider lens. Slap on the kits lens for snapshots. The Sigma 30mm is wider lens and is really good even at 1.4


btdubs, I've been noticing a sort of circular bokeh on the edges of my pictures when using my 50 1.8 like its being edged over and squeezed from the middle outward
[img]http://farm3.static...._55137e8544.jpg[/]
You'll notice it more on the edges. It's like a ripple effect. Any ideas?

Do you have a filter on it? I think someone had that issue before and it was their UV filter giving that effect.

[dot1q]

I have the Canon Mount Sigma 50 1.4 and it is absolutely wonderful.

Not sure about the Nikkor 50 1.4, but the Sigma 50 1.4 beats the Canon 50 1.4 HANDS DOWN in almost every way.

Sooooooo true. If I had known this before I got my Canon 1.4, the extra premium for the Sigma 1.4 would have been well worth it. I've borrowed both the Canon 1.2 and Sigma 1.4 and the premium on the 1.2 simply does not justify it's cost. Actually, I couldn't find any noticeable real world differences comparing the two. The Sigma 1.4 is absolutely awesome. The only reason I don't upgrade to it now is that I shoot almost exclusively with a full frame body and I rarely shoot at 50mm. Regardless, this was the 2nd biggest mistake of my DSLR purchases. The first was getting the sigma 180mm macro to be used on a crop (having read awesome reviews but completely neglecting the crop factor). It's just way too zoomed. BUT, now that I shoot FF all the time, it's just an awesome lens (so not a mistake after all.. ). Macro work with the Sigma 180 is just absolutely awesome. The only difference I see between the Canon 180 is AF speed, but I can live without it. It's also an awesome prime lens in general and I also think IQ wise, its very comparable to the Canon 200/2.0 which incidentally costs like 4k+. Thats a HEFTY price to pay for 2-3 fstops (but hey like all expensive lenses, you generally pay the heavy premium for the niche capabilities). You only buy them because you need them.

[trashstar]

Great shots!

May I ask where the locations of your shoots were respectively? Toronto is pretty lame on scenery

Thanks
First photo - on top of Yellow Mountain in China; I hiked up 16 miles with my classmates, haha So worth it.
Second photo - Just a bouquet of roses I received at my hotel room
Third photo - The Great Wall of China, looking down Climbing the steeper side (my professor made sure we got our exercise)
Fourth photo - Just some flowers I saw while waiting for people
Fifth photo - Climbing up Yellow Mountain, there were of course trees everywhere and the higher we got, the cloudier it became, hence the foggy look

phantompc4 Although I hate spiders, I love that first pic

[imhitomi]

Well after a good several years with our family, my EOS digital rebel BROKE yesterday. In an unfixable way. I cried like a baby. In the end, my father decided to give me his Rebel XT and bought a replacement XT body (for him) off ebay for $250. Damn good deal.

Here's the last picture I got out of my old baby:



And here's a couple I took today with the new one. I love toys. And cereal.

[dhillman]

i have a question. im trying to make HDR photos, but when i change the exposure setting in my camera (no other settings are changed - no shutter speed or aperture change or ISO or anything else) and take photos, they all come out relatively the same. even with exposure 0, -5, and +5, they all come out the same. the only way to get the overexposed and underexposed was for me to change the shutterspeed and/or aperture. but if thats the case, why play with the exposure at all then?

[erure]

i have a question. im trying to make HDR photos, but when i change the exposure setting in my camera (no other settings are changed - no shutter speed or aperture change or ISO or anything else) and take photos, they all come out relatively the same. even with exposure 0, -5, and +5, they all come out the same. the only way to get the overexposed and underexposed was for me to change the shutterspeed and/or aperture. but if thats the case, why play with the exposure at all then?

I think you need to shoot in manual so that you can get overexposed and underexposed photos on purpose. Otherwise, the camera will adjust something to get proper exposure.

[[HyuNi]]

i have a question. im trying to make HDR photos, but when i change the exposure setting in my camera (no other settings are changed - no shutter speed or aperture change or ISO or anything else) and take photos, they all come out relatively the same. even with exposure 0, -5, and +5, they all come out the same. the only way to get the overexposed and underexposed was for me to change the shutterspeed and/or aperture. but if thats the case, why play with the exposure at all then?

Are you using AEB? There's an option (at least for Canon) to have auto exposure bracketing and it's idea for HDR. You set how much difference in exposure you want, and then the next three photos will automatically set the camera to the exposure you set. Do you mean 0, -.5 and +.5? Maybe it's just with my 1DmkII, but my exposure compensation doesn't go all the way to -/+5. If you did really mean .5, then you'll probably have to bracket it a bit more, depending on how much light available and your subject, it might need somewhere between +/-1 or 1.5.
There should be a pretty significant difference in the exposure by then.

[yuns]

Are you using AEB? There's an option (at least for Canon) to have auto exposure bracketing and it's idea for HDR. You set how much difference in exposure you want, and then the next three photos will automatically set the camera to the exposure you set. Do you mean 0, -.5 and +.5? Maybe it's just with my 1DmkII, but my exposure compensation doesn't go all the way to -/+5. If you did really mean .5, then you'll probably have to bracket it a bit more, depending on how much light available and your subject, it might need somewhere between +/-1 or 1.5.
There should be a pretty significant difference in the exposure by then.

I've got a 450D and mine goes from -2 to +2.

dhillman Check your camera's menu settings for the AEB function if you have a Canon.

[ajjang]

shot with 450D + kit lens. meh meh i think i'm getting better =]



witness florida's bipolar weather. it was literally raining on one side and sunny on the other

[jo3y]

Nanahikari - That picture of the bipolar sky is nice. Never seen weather like that before.


Check this out, Its a Canon EOS 450D and Canon 5D Mark II flash drives. :
http://www.gadgetvenue.com/wp-content/uplo...flash-drive.jpg
http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploa...os_450d_usb.jpg

Edit: wanted to add another pic:
http://www.slashgear.com/wp-content/upload...ns_calendar.jpg