Here's two samples. No post-processing other than basics in Picasa; WB was set to something pretty high manually, perhaps 9000K.
http://photos.templin.org/albums/tgi...0007.sized.jpg
http://photos.templin.org/albums/tgi...0038.sized.jpg
Printable View
Here's two samples. No post-processing other than basics in Picasa; WB was set to something pretty high manually, perhaps 9000K.
http://photos.templin.org/albums/tgi...0007.sized.jpg
http://photos.templin.org/albums/tgi...0038.sized.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3451/...2e99976a21.jpg
Taken on a Rebel XTi at f/2.5
the nifty 50 is a must have, just because its so cheap :P
I'm a big fan of the nifty 50. I get it out quite a bit. Here's a self portrait I did last night using it - very different from my usual stuff. Some slight photoshopping involved. [:P] I'd like to revisit something like this again but put a bit more work/ timeinto it.
Still, shows how sharp this lens can be.
40D, 50mm, f/8.0, 1/250, on camera flash bounced off white wall camera left.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/Zombie-Me.jpg[/img]
I feel left out...I've never owned the Canon 50mm f/1.8. I was shooting with a friend once and he let me borrow it. I was so disgusted by the build quality, slow focusing, and displeasing bokeh (his copy created oval OOF highlights near the edges of the frame) that I skipped the nifty fifty entirely and went straight for the 50mm f/1.4. I've really enjoyed it.
Sean - why so harsh? Rather than putting down this thread contribute to it! Lets keep this forum positive - even for those of us with lesser gear.
Here is a shot from the lens you mentioned - the original 50mm f/1.8 Date UB0700 - it's still holding it together after all these years.
40d 50mm 1.8 1/400 ISO 1600 - Buckwheat Festival - Kingwood WV
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.30/IMG_5F00_5740.JPG[/img]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Agreed - the built quality is mediocre at best andthe focusing is slower than a wet week. BUT it costsa mere$100! At the end of the day you do get what you pay for and the f/1.4 is certainly a better lens... but it certainly doesn't cost $100.
I've not had any major issues with the bokeh as you saw Sean but either way I've had a lot of fun with the little piece of plasticy goodness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Gilley
I apologize if I pulled down the thread. I certainly didn't mean to. I merely pointed out why I passed on the lens after trying it out. It's possible that his copy exhibited traits that are atypical (like the oval OOF highlights). I feel left out because I do see some great looking shots taken with the lens--and maybe that's more of a testament to the person behind the camera rather than the lens in front of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Oval OOF highlights, or "cat's eye bokeh", is normal for this lens at f/1.8. Many other lenses have it too; it's caused by vignetting. See the excellent info from Paul van Walree:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html