Printable View
I love this lens!! the nifty fifty was great but this was a welcome upgrade, speaking of which, anybody want a 50mm f/1.8??
1/50s f/1.4 ISO 400
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/S2...2/_MG_4031.JPG
1/80s f/1.4 ISO 400
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/S2...2/_MG_4047.JPG
Enjoy!
My 50 1.4 just went on the auction block with hood and crappy canon UV filter.
Why are you getting rid of it Keith? (And my 50 f/1.4 has a B&W MRC on it!) :-)
mattsartin - It really helps capturing the shot indoors in low light, doesn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsartin
Yes, but saving up for a telephoto has all my pennies in the same jar. Enjoy your 1.4!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsartin
Just curious, what do you like more on the 1.4 compared to the 1.8 (apart from the build quality of course!)?
Love the cat yawning shot BTW!
Tony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Never use it. If I have taken 300 shots with it I'd bee surprised. I use to use it for portraits on my 40D, but on FF it is just kid of a blah range. I much rather use my 35 1.4.
Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. If you've got Ls in f/1.4, you might as well use them instead....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
<div>
I never really had any complaints about it. Image quality was fine, focused fine I just like a wider perspective. I tried to convince myself I liked the focal length just because of the price. I bought it brand new for $289 and my 35 1.4 cost me $1400.
</div>
hehehe....well, for that price, it is a dandy...
Yet again, I think we've hijacked another thread.....*sigh*
Yes it helps out tremendously with indoor lowlight shots!
Tony Printezis: <span>For starters the wideraperture is fantastic, also better color and better bokeh, makes for much better portraits
<span>And Keith if I could've found a 35mm L for $350 I would've bought it instead also [:D]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
I know I'm pretty bad at that. It's like I have my own agenda.[*-)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsartin
If I find a 35L for $350 now I jump out a window.[8o|]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Better yet, buy it and sell it to me for $400. [:)]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
How about $450. Gotta make it worth my while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Careful Keith, people will actually think you're selling your 35L for $450...I wouldn't kid around like that with a bunch of camera junkies. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Very good point! Junkie is quite right too. I was cold, sweaty and shaking when I bought my 35L and now the images make me quite euphoric.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
So your a 35 1.4L addict uh? I know a nice place in VA where you can de-tox.While your recoveringI'll help you out and hold onto that lens for ya....[:D]
Personally, I like the 50 1.4 on my FF 5D. I used it the other dayto photograph aretirement farewell at the place where I work during the day. Shot at f4 with flash and the photos turned out great.
Someof you remember that was the focal length of the standard "kit lens" for most of the SLR film days.
Many, many, many, many incredible photos were captured at the 50mm focal length on 35mm film. I would even fare tobet that more photos were taken at thatfocal lengththan any other in 35mm film SLR history.
35mm wasthe focal length of the 220 film pocket camera. I always felt like I couldn't get close enough. Great for landscapes and group portraits but not so great for head shots and close ups.
Matt, congrats on your purchase. That's a great all around lens. Nice first shots. My only suggestion would be to comp up a little and/or use a little bounce flash to highlight your subjects better. Indoor lighting never seems to favor faces. The lights seem to always be above and behind the subject. I have found that even with the great low light capabilities of the 50 1.4,a little extra color balanced bounced light really goes a long way in improving myindoor portraitphotos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Lee
It's so funny. I started out with a Pentax K-1000 and a 50 2.0 lens and I always felt like I had to get so far away. I was always trying to get that Anton Corbijn/U2 Joshua Tree look and 50 was never wide enough. Not that 35 is, but that is what I have my 16-35 for. 35 is perfect for what/how I shoot in low light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattsartin
I'm glad you like it. I'm sure you will enjoy it a lot. Nice pet photos.