 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / April 2005Canon 50mm 1.4
I am considering a Canon 50mm 1.4 prime lens for 'people' shots. This will be used on a 20D, so in reality it has a 35mm equivalent of 80mm, which I think is probably the right focal length for this kind of use. I have heard it is a good lens, but would like to hear from users 'in the field'. Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? >I am considering a Canon 50mm 1.4 prime lens for 'people' shots. > >This will be used on a 20D, so in reality it has a 35mm equivalent of 80mm, >which I think is probably the right focal length for this kind of use. Perfect, in fact. I use the 50mm/F1.8 on my 10D for almost all my people shots: <http://lo.ve.ly/gallery/NightClubs> >I have heard it is a good lens, but would like to hear from users 'in the >field'. Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? I've heard nothing but praise for it. The only reason I don't have one myself is because the F1.8 is good enough that I'm reluctant to spend 3-4 times as much money on the F1.4 when there are so many other lenses that I need more urgently. Given the incredibly cheap price of the F1.8, you might consider getting one yourself. Once you've used it for a while, you might also find that it meets your needs very well on the 20D.  SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > >I have heard it is a good lens, but would like to hear from users 'in the > >field'. Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > one yourself. Once you've used it for a while, you might also find that > it meets your needs very well on the 20D. Currently, I have both the EF 50 f1.4 & f1.8 (Mk I). I started off with the "very affordable" EF50 f1.8 Mk II. Despite the very loose and wobbly construction, optically it was fine around f4 / f5.6 and downwards. Mounting the lens hood was a pain, and there was no footage/meterage scale. As soon as I saw a s/h f1.4 at a decent price, I bought one, and was impressed. It's even sharp at full aperture but only after I had my 10D's AF "calibrated". However, its focus motor died after a mere 3 months use, and needed an expensive repair, so I ended up paying more than a new copy would have cost. (Canon UK informed me that not all EF50 F1.4s can still be repaired due to internal changes in parts, and they only hold parts upto 10 years after cessation of production.) More recently, rave reports and curiosity got the better of me and I bought an EOS620 so as to get the f1.8 Mk I on its front! I wasn't disappointed. The Mk I is well constructed, and performs well, and is somewhat smaller, if size is an issue. (I gave the Mk II to my daughter who had just bought an EOS300D. There's paternal love for you.<g> ) The EF50 f1.4 is special in that it is the only EF lens without USM which allows FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing. One day I must try some film in the EOS620! SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm >However, its focus motor died after a mere 3 months use, >and needed an expensive repair Have I misunderstood Canon lenses to have a 7 year warranty? > >However, its focus motor died after a mere 3 months use, > >and needed an expensive repair > > Have I misunderstood Canon lenses to have a 7 year warranty? My understanding is that if bought new, you get a one year Canon warranty, valid at Canon or Canon authorised service centres. (In some cases, it may be extended for extra cost.) Don't know whether it covers you if you need warranty service in a different country to where purchased. I think lenses are handled differently to camera bodies. My point was that my S/H EF50 f1.4 failed in a known weak area, the focus motor, and that I was lucky that parts were available to repair my lens. A friend found that his EF 24 f2.8 was too old for repair, and it became an expensive paper weight. SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm > More recently, rave reports and curiosity got the better of me and I bought > an EOS620 so as to get the f1.8 Mk I on its front! I wasn't disappointed. > The Mk I is well constructed, and performs well, and is somewhat smaller, if > size is an issue. (I gave the Mk II to my daughter who had just bought an > EOS300D. There's paternal love for you.<g> ) I wanted a 50mm for use in low light situations when shooting indoor volleyball. I bought a Mk I on eBay for $115. I like it a lot. >I am considering a Canon 50mm 1.4 prime lens for 'people' shots. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I have heard it is a good lens, but would like to hear from users 'in the >field'. Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? Been using one on a 20D for about a month and its a very good lens but don't think it's "equivalent" of an 80mm. It's just a reduced field and some times that puts you within some people's personal space at least for a close up. At least for Candid people shots I've found the 85mm F1.8 more useful but that maybe just my shooting style. I do use the 50mm F1.4 for low light indoors and outdoor landscapes. *********************************************************** "The pig cleaned up his webbing, and he shined his bayonet. Some people started shooting, so he shot them with regret. He couldn't work an office, and he couldn't be a clerk For pigs who like to whistle, like to whistle while they work." "The Whistling Pig From Robert Frezza's "A Small Colonial War" >I am considering a Canon 50mm 1.4 prime lens for 'people' shots. The focal length is perfect, yes. The 1.4 (around $300), simply looks and feels like a much better lens than the ($60) 1.8. There is no comparison between these lenses. One is awesome (I don't have it, but several colleagues do, and it's on my want list), and the other is merely "worth having for $60". >I am considering a Canon 50mm 1.4 prime lens for 'people' shots. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I have heard it is a good lens, but would like to hear from users 'in the >field'. Anyone have any feedback on using this lens? Get one! I use it on a 10D - it's lovely for portraits, and does absolutely magical things when shot wide-open on contrasty scenes. Here's a landscape done at f/1.4: http://www.narcissus.uklinux.net/angbridge.jpg One of my very favourite lenses on any of my cameras. >>I am considering a Canon 50mm 1.4 prime lens for 'people' shots. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Get one! I use it on a 10D - it's lovely for portraits, and does absolutely > magical things when shot wide-open on contrasty scenes. What makes it perform well for contrasty scenes? I'm not sure what quality you are reffering to, the soft blurry glow? Soften the harsh edges? > Here's a landscape done at f/1.4: > > http://www.narcissus.uklinux.net/angbridge.jpg > > One of my very favourite lenses on any of my cameras. >>>I am considering a Canon 50mm 1.4 prime lens for 'people' shots. >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >What makes it perform well for contrasty scenes? It seems to impart a wonderful dreamy quality to the images. May be something to do with spherical abberation, I can only speculate. >>>>I am considering a Canon 50mm 1.4 prime lens for 'people' shots. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > It seems to impart a wonderful dreamy quality to the images. May be > something to do with spherical abberation, I can only speculate. That's what I saw in your sample, a really really soft glow. I wasn't sure if that was just mist in the air or not. >>>What makes it perform well for contrasty scenes? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That's what I saw in your sample, a really really soft glow. I wasn't >sure if that was just mist in the air or not. It's all from the lens. Believe it or not, the air on that day was crystal-clear. I don't have either yet (still dreaming of purchasing the camera) but I've read a lot of reviews and from what I've read, mainly the reviews at Fred Miranda's website, the 50mm 1.4 seems to be worth the extra money. Everyone that has the 1.4 says it's worth it, and the ones who have the 1.8 simply don't know what they're missing. I plan to purchase the 1.4. You can look at it as 4x the price or you can look at it as $240 more. I prefer the latter. There's something about a $60 lens that makes me a little suspicious. >I don't have either yet (still dreaming of purchasing the camera) but >I've read a lot of reviews and from what I've read, mainly the reviews [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >at it as $240 more. I prefer the latter. There's something about a >$60 lens that makes me a little suspicious. I saw some prints from a colleague who has this lens on a 20D, and they were simply outrageously good. Granted, they are images taken by a highly skilled photographer, but, this lens really shines for natural light. It's next on my wish list. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.