Here's two samples. No post-processing other than basics in Picasa; WB was set to something pretty high manually, perhaps 9000K.
Here's two samples. No post-processing other than basics in Picasa; WB was set to something pretty high manually, perhaps 9000K.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
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]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_taylor_au/ www.methodicallymuddled.wordpress.com
Canon 5D Mark III | Canon 5D Mark II | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Canon 35mm f/1.4L USM | Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM |Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II |Canon 2 x Teleconverter III | Canon 580 EX II Speedlite | Really Right Stuff TVC 34L | Really Right Stuff BH55 LR | Gorillapod Focus | Really Right Stuff BH 30
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]
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.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ben_taylor_au/ www.methodicallymuddled.wordpress.com
Canon 5D Mark III | Canon 5D Mark II | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Canon 35mm f/1.4L USM | Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM |Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II |Canon 2 x Teleconverter III | Canon 580 EX II Speedlite | Really Right Stuff TVC 34L | Really Right Stuff BH55 LR | Gorillapod Focus | Really Right Stuff BH 30
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.
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