Lenses: 50m Prime f/1.8
- Nigel
- Stupid Retard
- Posts: 9246
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:50 pm
Lenses: 50m Prime f/1.8
Going to get one of these, but I must as the simple question. Why are they so cheap ??
The f1.4 is $500ish yet the 1.8 is $130
norbs you have one of these don't you ? What do you think of it ??
The f1.4 is $500ish yet the 1.8 is $130
norbs you have one of these don't you ? What do you think of it ??
Flickr Gallery
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
- norbs
- fucking right wing vegan lesbian
- Posts: 24216
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
- Contact:
Yes Nige, I do, and I think one Mr Dexter is getting one as well.
They are bloody unbelievable value for money imho. I paid $80 for mine and it is fantastic. Considering what I am about to pay for the 17-40 f4L the 50mm is awesome value.
I don't know alot about the f/1.4 or the f/1.2 apart from the fact they go up exponentionally (speeling) in price. The f/1.8 is great in low light. I love the warm in the photos in low light.
Overall, a great lense.
A couple of sample shots.
They are bloody unbelievable value for money imho. I paid $80 for mine and it is fantastic. Considering what I am about to pay for the 17-40 f4L the 50mm is awesome value.
I don't know alot about the f/1.4 or the f/1.2 apart from the fact they go up exponentionally (speeling) in price. The f/1.8 is great in low light. I love the warm in the photos in low light.
Overall, a great lense.
A couple of sample shots.
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
-
- Founder
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:55 am
- Location: Southern Highlands
That prime really is an amazing price, but a 17-40L, my God, Norbs has won the lottery
Look forward to seeing pics from both those lenses, might be tempted on the prime myself
Look forward to seeing pics from both those lenses, might be tempted on the prime myself
I don't know where I'm going but I'm on my way!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zedmacca/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zedmacca/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- CLP
- C grade super domestique
- Posts: 4928
- Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 1:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
-
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:16 pm
- Location: Canberra
Re: Lenses: 50m Prime f/1.8
I basically figure that the large aperture means that the lens has to be made a lot better to avoid distortions. A good analogy would be how squinting allows you to see better.fourthof5 wrote:Going to get one of these, but I must as the simple question. Why are they so cheap ??
The f1.4 is $500ish yet the 1.8 is $130
This guy kinda backs me up. From http://www.amazon.com/Canon-85mm-1-2L-L ... B00009XVDM - he talks about a f1.2 lens (so even more expensive). It's not really the best explanation though.
I bet if you are considering buying the 85mm 1.8 you came across this lens and thought to yourself why is the 85mm 1.2 so much more expensive? Is it sharper? Is it that much better?
Not necessarily. This is a specialty lens, and that's one reason I don't own it (I also can't afford it, lol). Photographers who buy it are aiming for a specific look that's created with 1.2 aperture. The look this lens creates tends to be very sharp at center and smoothly moves to dreamy blur towards the edges. It's that very special effect that you see in some of the top fashion photography that photographers seek in this lens.
Other than the special effect that the extra stop offers there are few basic differences. The 1.2 produces more contrast and saturated colors, but it isn't anything beyond what you can replicate in Photoshop. On the other hand the 1.8 focuses faster. Also, the 1.2 extra stop accounts for the huge size and weight difference. The 1.2 weight 2.3 pounds!! vs. the 1.8 which weight slightly under 1 pound. I am guessing that due to this weight difference the 1.2 focuses slower (much heavier and bigger glass), but that's just a guess.
Keep in mind that the 1 stop difference in aperture accounts for the stark difference in price. Both lenses are designed differently (element count for example). There are many other lenses that serve as an example of big difference in pricing due to only 1 extra stop. Take for example the 16-35 2.8 and 17-40 4.0; one stop difference doubles the price in the case of the first lens.
I hope that you found this information helpful in deciding if this great lens is for you or not. As for me, I decided to sacrifice the extra stop in aperture and go with the 85mm 1.8. It represents a better value for me plus if I ever need a higher aperture I would just buy the 50mm 1.4, which provides an 85mm field of view on my 1.6 crop factor camera. Defiantly a lower quality lens, but greater value for me!
Ps. many fashion photographers own both lenses (1.8 and 1.2). They use the 1.8 most of the time along with the 135 2.0 (another great lens!) and only pull out the 1.2 when the job calls for its special effects.
- DarrenM
- Posts: 7252
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:21 pm
- Location: Sydney
The 1.4 has an extra lens element, 8 diaphragm blades instead of 5 and a usm motor. Not entirely sure but it might have a metal body as well, while the 1.8 is all plastic because it's 160g heavier.
I bought one a while ago and the first few times I used it I though it was crap as the pics were worse than my 17-40, but when I tried it again later they were ok and I like it now
I bought one a while ago and the first few times I used it I though it was crap as the pics were worse than my 17-40, but when I tried it again later they were ok and I like it now
-
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:05 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
Here's a good comparison between the two:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
- Nigel
- Stupid Retard
- Posts: 9246
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:50 pm
Thats a good link bertie. Ta everyone, gonna get the 1.8 for a birthday present.
Flickr Gallery
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
- Nigel
- Stupid Retard
- Posts: 9246
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:50 pm
OK so I know a bit about media and I know a bit about photography. I have always assumed that a prime lens with a static f/stop was just that. ie f/1.8 is it. Thats what the lens does. While a lens which states that f/2 - 5.6 has a shifting fstop. I was apparently wrong in that assumtion.
Flickr Gallery
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
- norbs
- fucking right wing vegan lesbian
- Posts: 24216
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
- Contact:
Not sure what you mean Nige. But my understanding of a prime was its focal length was static, not its aperture.fourthof5 wrote:OK so I know a bit about media and I know a bit about photography. I have always assumed that a prime lens with a static f/stop was just that. ie f/1.8 is it. Thats what the lens does. While a lens which states that f/2 - 5.6 has a shifting fstop. I was apparently wrong in that assumtion.
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
- Nigel
- Stupid Retard
- Posts: 9246
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:50 pm
Its ok. My brain failed. I was thinking of the fact that on some lenses focual lenth effects the apature, while others don't. Never mind all sorted now.
Flickr Gallery
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
-
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:05 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
- norbs
- fucking right wing vegan lesbian
- Posts: 24216
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
- Contact:
Yup, thats how I see it Bertie. And just tried it on the 28-135mm and thats how it works.bertie wrote:My understanding is that the variable f/stop measurements relate to the maximum aperture for the zoom range. e.g: a 25-100mm f/2-5.6 lens would mean a max of f/2 at 25mm, and max of f/5.6 at 100mm, but you can still step down to f/22. Does that sound right???
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
- Nigel
- Stupid Retard
- Posts: 9246
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:50 pm
Yep thats right. For some strange reason my brain failed to realise that, and assumed that a 50m f/1.8 was a constant f/1.8. I was dumb.bertie wrote:My understanding is that the variable f/stop measurements relate to the maximum aperture for the zoom range. e.g: a 25-100mm f/2-5.6 lens would mean a max of f/2 at 25mm, and max of f/5.6 at 100mm, but you can still step down to f/22. Does that sound right???
Flickr Gallery
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
-
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:05 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
- norbs
- fucking right wing vegan lesbian
- Posts: 24216
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
- Contact:
Nope. Not at all. I love just grabbing the backpack and heading out. Bertie, maybe a night out in Sydney will help.bertie wrote:kewl - some of this SLR stuff is starting to make sense to me
Just need to find the time and motivation to get out and practice more. Find it hard to go out and take pics for the sake of taking pics, if you know what I mean. Anyone else suffer this?
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
-
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:05 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
- norbs
- fucking right wing vegan lesbian
- Posts: 24216
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
- Contact:
bertie wrote:I think you're on the money there, champ
That's the thing I struggle with - knowing what to shoot when just "shooting". Different if I have something in mind (like a party, or day at the races or something). It's a skill I'm keen to learn though, oh master
Mate, Im not a master, thats for damned sure. Macca and I had a couple of photo outings and I reckon I learnt more than he did. Was great fun.
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
-
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:05 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- Contact:
- Nigel
- Stupid Retard
- Posts: 9246
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:50 pm
Walk around. What ever takes your interest you shoot. The More you do it, the more you shoot things of interest. And yes going out an shooting in a group does wonders. I have only been out once with others (that was with norbs for about an hour) and I still learnt something. Even if its just the self confidence you get shooting in a group, you will learn heaps.
Flickr Gallery
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
- norbs
- fucking right wing vegan lesbian
- Posts: 24216
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 6:01 pm
- Contact:
Don't sound so surpised Nige.fourthof5 wrote:Walk around. What ever takes your interest you shoot. The More you do it, the more you shoot things of interest. And yes going out an shooting in a group does wonders. I have only been out once with others (that was with norbs for about an hour) and I still learnt something. Even if its just the self confidence you get shooting in a group, you will learn heaps.
Sarc ; my second favourite type of gasm.
- Nigel
- Stupid Retard
- Posts: 9246
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 7:50 pm
wasn't suprise at all. More that even a hour of group shoot has benifits.
Flickr Gallery
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.
Fourth Photography
"There is nothing funny about a clown in the moonlight." - Lon Chaney, Sr.