Since we're being a bit pedantic here, you mean a cropped version of the same perspective. The 50mm lens is the same perspective, same image circle, etc. However, on the APS-C sensor you are getting approximately the same FOV as an 80mm lens.
Yes. We're saying the same thing.
But I think it's beyond just being pedantic. It's important to note the difference because many believe that changing the focal length automatically changes your perspective and that is not the case. My point is that the crop factor should only be a consideration for focal length and FOV and not perspective. The impact on perspective is indirect and depends on how the photographer ends up using the camera.
I love how Ziggy's answers always make the rest of us look like chumps....
me:
uh, me like 50, it good
ziggy: "Standard" lenses, which include most 50mm lenses from most dSLR (and SLR) manufacturers, are typically variants of a proven lens design, based on the "Tessar" formula. Tessar lenses are remarkably efficient and relatively simple in terms of number of elements and their arrangement.
A beautiful 50mm manual focus lens on my Canon 20D-the lens cost less than the adapter plate and is one of my favourites-don't listen to anti 50mm propaganda-this was shot at f2.0 and is also very good at night.
Sure a 35mm/f1.4 would be nice but can you buy one?
Thanks-finished up work 6 months ago and have since been spending time as a gentleman photographer and developing a tv show-have been posting in flickr cos last 6 months I have been shooting abstracts,which don't interest many in here.Its all coming to an end soon-either TV show gets up and all is right with the world(always a long shot) or will have to...can barely bring myself to say it...get a job...!
The article "Article: The Forgotten Lens" by Voth shows exactly why the 50mm or"normal"lens is the forgotten lens. If you look at his photos on the page you will see that every one of them has such shallow DOF that parts of the subject and in one photo all of the subject are out of focus. I agree with his dissertation on zoom Lenses, they are really inferior to prime lenses. I just think he picked the wrong prime lens to praise. for his posted photos the 35 or 40mm would have been better used and have given him better results. I have no idea what his credentials are to write an article such as this but I would never have faith in anything else he wrote after reading this one. I didn't even bother to read the second article as if it is on the same lines as this, and I expect it is, since both were praised by the poster as being exellent articles about the 50mm lens, it also isn't worth reading. If you want a good 50mm lens, get a russian Jupiter 61 L/Z ( or L/D) lens. They are sharp and made of lanthanum glass, the same thing Canon and Nikon charge you $1000 or more to buy. Cost for the Russian lens? Depends on from whom you buy it, but anywhere between $15 and $100 dollars. Hey, if you want a 50mm lens, I have some which came with the Ukranian cameras I bought and they are gathering dust on my shelf.
If you want a good prime lens, get a 75 or 80mm prime lens and use it, you will never shoot another 50mm lens. Couple this with a 28mm or a 35mm prime and you are set for walking around photography. Both lenses will fit in a jacket pocket and you don't even need a camera bag. I carry my camera and lenses in the basket on my walker or in a vest given me by one of my classes. I did line the bottom of the basket with foam to kind of protect the equipment. If you can find one of the old turrets from an old Leica or can fabricate one, just mount the lenses on the turret and spin the one you want into position.
Photography: the art of seeing the uncommon in the common.
+++++++ CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5 Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras. Tair 135mm 2.8 Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras
Wikipedia - In still photography, a normal lens is a lens whose focal length is roughly equivalent to the diagonal of the image projected within the camera. This roughly approximates the perspective perceived by the human vision
Actually wikipedia is incorrect about this. The "normal" lens has nothing to do with perspective. It was chosen as "normal" by Barnak way back in the 20s as most approaching the ANGLE OF VIEW of the human eye. Or you might even say the angle of coverage, but either way, it is incorrect. The 40mm lens is much closer to the angle of coverage of the human eye. Barnak made this decision with absolutely no physical proof that his assumption was correct. So, no, the 50mm lens is not the lens to use to replicate the angle of vision of the eye. In fact, the only lens which can come close is the Ultra Wide Angle lens having a coverage of 180 degrees. The human eye scans the area in frontof it from one side to another and covers a good 180 degrees of that area. In fact, my peripheral vision covers 180 degrees without moving my head. The problem with the UWA is the amount of distortion introduced by the lens, thus abnegating the use as a normal lens. If you keep the eye from scanning (ie. use blinkers) then the angle is roughly equal to the 40mm lens.
I seem to be using a lot of bandwidth here but there is a lot of misinformation and I would like to at least attempt to try correction, even if some of you don't want to hear what I say because it is more fun to buy expensive toys. Delude yourselves if you wish, I presume you have deep pockets the way you talk about this $1000 lens and that $800 lens, etc. For people like myself, we have to find out what is indeed best and get that if we need it. If i can correct these misconceptions and help even one person purchase the best equipment for him/herself at the least possible cost, then it will be worth it.
L'Chaim
Michael
PS: I am retired and on Social Security and thus can't afford the kind of toys you discuss, but I am not envious of you as if I had the money I would never spend it on the type of equipment you seem to love. I don't need USM to focus as I use my hands to focus manually since I have long ago discovered that auto focus is not as accurate as I am. The same is true of IS. I am able to shoot a 300 mm lens on my 300D hand held and have photos to show it. If you learn more about photography and how to use your body you don't need all the bells and whistles the manufacturers gleefully fob off on you as they wend their way to the bank your cash in hand.
I teach photography classes here and it is amazing how much better photographers my students become after I have them turn off all the automatic junk and learn to use the camera and their talents. Some of my students have been using a camera for years without having any photographic sense. When put on manual they learned to not depend on the idiot in the camera and depend on their senses. The learn to see, to visualize, and thus become better photographers. It isn't because I am such a great teacher ( although I am) but because they start teaching themselves. They ask questions and listen and try things they never have before and they learn what works and what doesn't. After all, that is the process of photography.
Photography: the art of seeing the uncommon in the common.
+++++++ CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5 Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras. Tair 135mm 2.8 Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras
A beautiful 50mm manual focus lens on my Canon 20D-the lens cost less than the adapter plate and is one of my favourites-don't listen to anti 50mm propaganda-this was shot at f2.0 and is also very good at night.
Sure a 35mm/f1.4 would be nice but can you buy one?
Its a French Bulldog puppy.
I just bolted out a hugh "awwwwww" to this one. How cute. Wonderful shot too by the way.
If you want a good prime lens, get a 75 or 80mm prime lens and use it, you will never shoot another 50mm lens. Couple this with a 28mm or a 35mm prime and you are set for walking around photography. Both lenses will fit in a jacket pocket and you don't even need a camera bag. I carry my camera and lenses in the basket on my walker or in a vest given me by one of my classes. I did line the bottom of the basket with foam to kind of protect the equipment. If you can find one of the old turrets from an old Leica or can fabricate one, just mount the lenses on the turret and spin the one you want into position.
Have fun
Michael
this bums me out. i just bought the nikon 50mm 1.8 this past week thinking it was a must. and you have just told me it's junk. i can't really afford buying more and more. should i return it? or should i make the best of it? i am not of the money to spend on an even faster model right now...one day. but not now.
this bums me out. i just bought the nikon 50mm 1.8 this past week thinking it was a must. and you have just told me it's junk. i can't really afford buying more and more. should i return it? or should i make the best of it? i am not of the money to spend on an even faster model right now...one day. but not now.
The Nikkor 50mm, f1.8 D (I'm assuming that's what you bought) is a fine autofocus lens for a bargain price. While a little soft in the edges at f1.8, it has superb qualities by f4. The bokeh at f1.8 is very nice and it makes a pretty decent portrait lens. The DOF control offered by the f1.8 to f22 is plenty to learn from, and enough to handle many different purposes.
I suggest holding on to the lens, and getting to know it with practice and experience. At very most, if you decide it's not for you, you will probably be able to sell it for around $50-$55, which should recover most of your cost in the lens.
You are right that most, if not all, other prime autofocus Nikkors are more costly, and I really think you will be well served by the 50. The other lenses will wait until you are ready for them, financially and photographically.
this bums me out. i just bought the nikon 50mm 1.8 this past week thinking it was a must. and you have just told me it's junk. i can't really afford buying more and more. should i return it? or should i make the best of it? i am not of the money to spend on an even faster model right now...one day. but not now.
I'm not saying it is junk, just that it is less flexible than any other lens. Ziggy says you have to get to f4 before you lose the soft focus so why buy a 1.8 lens? Why not buy a 2.8 or therabouts 75mm lens. I would recommend that you return the 50mm and use the money for a more useful lens. While I prefer something in the 75mm area, you might want to get a 35mm, depending on what type of photography you shoot. If you do street photog then the 35 would be best, for portraits then the 75mm. if you take a full frame photo of a head and shoulder shot with both the 50 and the 75 and blow them up to about 11X14 or even 8X10 and do a direct comparison you will see the difference. The 50 mm is good if you want to use the camera as we used to do with the old box cameras, just snap shooting.
Photography: the art of seeing the uncommon in the common.
+++++++ CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5 Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras. Tair 135mm 2.8 Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras
The Nikkor 50mm, f1.8 D (I'm assuming that's what you bought) is a fine autofocus lens for a bargain price. While a little soft in the edges at f1.8, it has superb qualities by f4. The bokeh at f1.8 is very nice and it makes a pretty decent portrait lens. The DOF control offered by the f1.8 to f22 is plenty to learn from, and enough to handle many different purposes.
I suggest holding on to the lens, and getting to know it with practice and experience. At very most, if you decide it's not for you, you will probably be able to sell it for around $50-$55, which should recover most of your cost in the lens.
You are right that most, if not all, other prime autofocus Nikkors are more costly, and I really think you will be well served by the 50. The other lenses will wait until you are ready for them, financially and photographically.
I'm not saying it is junk, just that it is less flexible than any other lens. Ziggy says you have to get to f4 before you lose the soft focus so why buy a 1.8 lens? Why not buy a 2.8 or therabouts 75mm lens. I would recommend that you return the 50mm and use the money for a more useful lens. While I prefer something in the 75mm area, you might want to get a 35mm, depending on what type of photography you shoot. If you do street photog then the 35 would be best, for portraits then the 75mm. if you take a full frame photo of a head and shoulder shot with both the 50 and the 75 and blow them up to about 11X14 or even 8X10 and do a direct comparison you will see the difference. The 50 mm is good if you want to use the camera as we used to do with the old box cameras, just snap shooting.
Michael
thanks for the advice. i'm still pondering. but i really like this lens and customers have been happy so far.
... Ziggy says you have to get to f4 before you lose the soft focus so why buy a 1.8 lens? ...
Actually, what I said was that the "edges" are a little soft wide open. The center is quite sharp and this lens is better than some other manufacturer's cheap 50's in this regard.
Using the lens wide open can be used to more quickly soften the border, lending to an excellent bokeh effect.
The article "Article: The Forgotten Lens" by Voth shows exactly why the 50mm or"normal"lens is the forgotten lens. If you look at his photos on the page you will see that every one of them has such shallow DOF that parts of the subject and in one photo all of the subject are out of focus. I agree with his dissertation on zoom Lenses, they are really inferior to prime lenses. I just think he picked the wrong prime lens to praise. for his posted photos the 35 or 40mm would have been better used and have given him better results. I have no idea what his credentials are to write an article such as this but I would never have faith in anything else he wrote after reading this one. I didn't even bother to read the second article as if it is on the same lines as this, and I expect it is, since both were praised by the poster as being excellent articles about the 50mm lens, it also isn't worth reading.
Michael
No offense Michael........but I think Gary Voth knows what he's talking about. Henri Cartier-Bresson shot nothing but a 50mm lens for years and his career turned out pretty good.
To prove a point......compare Gary Voth's photos with the photos on your web site. That should tell you plenty. Also....on his web site you can read his "About" section so you can learn about him.
On another note. You stated that you didn't even bother to read the article at the second link I posted. How can you make an informed judgment about something without reading it?
No offense but I honestly thought your post and your attitude and misinformation were harmful to photographers trying to learn and quite frankly absurd.
No offense Michael........but I think Gary Voth knows what he's talking about. Henri Cartier-Bresson shot nothing but a 50mm lens for years and his career turned out pretty good.
Playing a bit of devil's advocate here, I think Michael knows what he's talking about too. And I agree with him. And I don't.
I love my 50mm 1.8, and I don't. I love that it will let me get places using light I can't with any of my other lenses. I love using it because wide open, it has a depth of field so shallow folks accuse of me of dropping nasty photoshop filters on my shots. I love that it was near as makes no difference to an impulse buy, and its one of the sharper lenses I own.
But frankly, I do hate it on a 1.6x crop sensor. This has probably to do with that I have a 50mm 1.8 on my older-than-me Canon AE-1, and there it was near perfect. A touch wider than the human eye, which for the shots I was taking with that, was great. on the 1.6x, its awkward. Ideally, it should be my perfect lens for casual portraids when I'm out at dinner with friends or family, but most of the time, its too close for a good portrait, and too far to pluck out extreme close up details. But then, I love these things because when I use this lens, the compositional side of my brain has to work a lot harder, and it appreciates the exercise.
Technically, Michael's reasons for not liking the lens are spot on. but since my photographic endeavors differ from his, this lens can truimph for me in places where it has failed for him. Its not a garbage lens by far. its fantastic, to a purpose. Go and make that purpose work for you.
Playing a bit of devil's advocate here, I think Michael knows what he's talking about too. And I agree with him. And I don't.
I love my 50mm 1.8, and I don't. I love that it will let me get places using light I can't with any of my other lenses. I love using it because wide open, it has a depth of field so shallow folks accuse of me of dropping nasty photoshop filters on my shots. I love that it was near as makes no difference to an impulse buy, and its one of the sharper lenses I own.
But frankly, I do hate it on a 1.6x crop sensor. This has probably to do with that I have a 50mm 1.8 on my older-than-me Canon AE-1, and there it was near perfect. A touch wider than the human eye, which for the shots I was taking with that, was great. on the 1.6x, its awkward. Ideally, it should be my perfect lens for casual portraits when I'm out at dinner with friends or family, but most of the time, its too close for a good portrait, and too far to pluck out extreme close up details. But then, I love these things because when I use this lens, the compositional side of my brain has to work a lot harder, and it appreciates the exercise.
Technically, Michael's reasons for not liking the lens are spot on. but since my photographic endeavors differ from his, this lens can triumph for me in places where it has failed for him. Its not a garbage lens by far. its fantastic, to a purpose. Go and make that purpose work for you.
I shoot a full frame camera. Canon 5D. That makes the 50mm perfect for my taste. Michael is entitled to his opinion........I just think he was wrong for inferring that I'm some kind of an idiot by posting the Gary Voth link (he's a world renowned photographer by the way) and then he states that since that Gary Voth link I posted was so "wrong" he wouldn't even waste his precious time reading the second link I posted. Then I looked at Michaels photo gallery and web site and compared his work to Gary Voth's work. There is quite a difference. So if I'm looking for advice on how to play golf for example I would take the advice from Tiger Woods rather than some local hacker who "thinks" he know about golf.
But frankly, I do hate it on a 1.6x crop sensor. This has probably to do with that I have a 50mm 1.8 on my older-than-me Canon AE-1, and there it was near perfect. A touch wider than the human eye, which for the shots I was taking with that, was great. on the 1.6x, its awkward. Ideally, it should be my perfect lens for casual portraids when I'm out at dinner with friends or family, but most of the time, its too close for a good portrait, and too far to pluck out extreme close up details. But then, I love these things because when I use this lens, the compositional side of my brain has to work a lot harder, and it appreciates the exercise.
Technically, Michael's reasons for not liking the lens are spot on. but since my photographic endeavors differ from his, this lens can truimph for me in places where it has failed for him. Its not a garbage lens by far. its fantastic, to a purpose. Go and make that purpose work for you.
Tyler, using the 50mm lens on the 1.6 format makes it no longer a "normal" lens. It is the equivalent of an 86mm lens which is in the area I advocated. If that isn't doing what you want, go get a 35mm lens and with the 1.6 factor it becomes a 56mm lens; Perhaps that will give you what you want. Go to a near by camera store and try a 35 on your camera and see how it works for you. You could also try a 28mm which gives you a 45mm lens with the 1.6 factor. Steve Gandy at Camera Quest recommends a 24 or a 28 as a walk around lens on film cameras. Set it to hyperfocal distance at about f16 andyou just about have the world in focus. That would be great for street photography.
Do you ever use the AE1? I just bought an F1 as mine were (I had 2 of them) appropriated by my ex. I'm setting up a darkroom and want to get back into film.
Good luck in finding the right lens for you. If you think the 35 would be right for you, check out Adorama and B&H and if you don't mind purchasing used equipment you could probably pick up a good lens for a nominal amount. I know they have quite a bit of FD lenses at Adorama.
Michael
Photography: the art of seeing the uncommon in the common.
+++++++ CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5 Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras. Tair 135mm 2.8 Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras
Comments
Yes. We're saying the same thing.
But I think it's beyond just being pedantic. It's important to note the difference because many believe that changing the focal length automatically changes your perspective and that is not the case. My point is that the crop factor should only be a consideration for focal length and FOV and not perspective. The impact on perspective is indirect and depends on how the photographer ends up using the camera.
Erich
:lol4
That is So TRUE!
Perfect Pix
http://www.vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten_lens/forgotten-lens.htm
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Photography_lessons/j_Lesson_9/a_The_Faithful_50.html
Yes, Tom, they were. Thanks for the links.
A beautiful 50mm manual focus lens on my Canon 20D-the lens cost less than the adapter plate and is one of my favourites-don't listen to anti 50mm propaganda-this was shot at f2.0 and is also very good at night.
Sure a 35mm/f1.4 would be nice but can you buy one?
Its a French Bulldog puppy.
Longitude: 145° 08'East
Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
Sweet image Greg
Very nice...how long u been back ?
SmugMug API Developer
My Photos
David,
Thanks-finished up work 6 months ago and have since been spending time as a gentleman photographer and developing a tv show-have been posting in flickr cos last 6 months I have been shooting abstracts,which don't interest many in here.Its all coming to an end soon-either TV show gets up and all is right with the world(always a long shot) or will have to...can barely bring myself to say it...get a job...!
Greg
Longitude: 145° 08'East
Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
If you want a good prime lens, get a 75 or 80mm prime lens and use it, you will never shoot another 50mm lens. Couple this with a 28mm or a 35mm prime and you are set for walking around photography. Both lenses will fit in a jacket pocket and you don't even need a camera bag. I carry my camera and lenses in the basket on my walker or in a vest given me by one of my classes. I did line the bottom of the basket with foam to kind of protect the equipment. If you can find one of the old turrets from an old Leica or can fabricate one, just mount the lenses on the turret and spin the one you want into position.
Have fun
Michael
http://www.tabblo.com/studio/view/tabblos/mikeb380/
========
CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM
CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5
Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras.
Tair 135mm 2.8
Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras
I seem to be using a lot of bandwidth here but there is a lot of misinformation and I would like to at least attempt to try correction, even if some of you don't want to hear what I say because it is more fun to buy expensive toys. Delude yourselves if you wish, I presume you have deep pockets the way you talk about this $1000 lens and that $800 lens, etc. For people like myself, we have to find out what is indeed best and get that if we need it. If i can correct these misconceptions and help even one person purchase the best equipment for him/herself at the least possible cost, then it will be worth it.
L'Chaim
Michael
PS: I am retired and on Social Security and thus can't afford the kind of toys you discuss, but I am not envious of you as if I had the money I would never spend it on the type of equipment you seem to love. I don't need USM to focus as I use my hands to focus manually since I have long ago discovered that auto focus is not as accurate as I am. The same is true of IS. I am able to shoot a 300 mm lens on my 300D hand held and have photos to show it. If you learn more about photography and how to use your body you don't need all the bells and whistles the manufacturers gleefully fob off on you as they wend their way to the bank your cash in hand.
I teach photography classes here and it is amazing how much better photographers my students become after I have them turn off all the automatic junk and learn to use the camera and their talents. Some of my students have been using a camera for years without having any photographic sense. When put on manual they learned to not depend on the idiot in the camera and depend on their senses. The learn to see, to visualize, and thus become better photographers. It isn't because I am such a great teacher ( although I am) but because they start teaching themselves. They ask questions and listen and try things they never have before and they learn what works and what doesn't. After all, that is the process of photography.
Ciao
http://www.tabblo.com/studio/view/tabblos/mikeb380/
========
CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM
CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5
Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras.
Tair 135mm 2.8
Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras
I just bolted out a hugh "awwwwww" to this one. How cute. Wonderful shot too by the way.
this bums me out. i just bought the nikon 50mm 1.8 this past week thinking it was a must. and you have just told me it's junk. i can't really afford buying more and more. should i return it? or should i make the best of it? i am not of the money to spend on an even faster model right now...one day. but not now.
I suggest holding on to the lens, and getting to know it with practice and experience. At very most, if you decide it's not for you, you will probably be able to sell it for around $50-$55, which should recover most of your cost in the lens.
You are right that most, if not all, other prime autofocus Nikkors are more costly, and I really think you will be well served by the 50. The other lenses will wait until you are ready for them, financially and photographically.
Look here for examples taken with this lens:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/50_18_afd
http://www.dpchallenge.com/lens.php?LENS_ID=239
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'm not saying it is junk, just that it is less flexible than any other lens. Ziggy says you have to get to f4 before you lose the soft focus so why buy a 1.8 lens? Why not buy a 2.8 or therabouts 75mm lens. I would recommend that you return the 50mm and use the money for a more useful lens. While I prefer something in the 75mm area, you might want to get a 35mm, depending on what type of photography you shoot. If you do street photog then the 35 would be best, for portraits then the 75mm. if you take a full frame photo of a head and shoulder shot with both the 50 and the 75 and blow them up to about 11X14 or even 8X10 and do a direct comparison you will see the difference. The 50 mm is good if you want to use the camera as we used to do with the old box cameras, just snap shooting.
Michael
http://www.tabblo.com/studio/view/tabblos/mikeb380/
========
CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM
CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5
Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras.
Tair 135mm 2.8
Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras
Are all in agreement that Ziggy rocks?
BTW, noticed the bokah and I loved, loved loved it. I am learning the lens everyday. Thanks.
thanks for the advice. i'm still pondering. but i really like this lens and customers have been happy so far.
Actually, what I said was that the "edges" are a little soft wide open. The center is quite sharp and this lens is better than some other manufacturer's cheap 50's in this regard.
Using the lens wide open can be used to more quickly soften the border, lending to an excellent bokeh effect.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
To prove a point......compare Gary Voth's photos with the photos on your web site. That should tell you plenty. Also....on his web site you can read his "About" section so you can learn about him.
Here is his web site: http://www.vothphoto.com/contents.htm
Here is your web site: http://www.gallerie-fotographique.org/
On another note. You stated that you didn't even bother to read the article at the second link I posted. How can you make an informed judgment about something without reading it?
No offense but I honestly thought your post and your attitude and misinformation were harmful to photographers trying to learn and quite frankly absurd.
I love my 50mm 1.8, and I don't. I love that it will let me get places using light I can't with any of my other lenses. I love using it because wide open, it has a depth of field so shallow folks accuse of me of dropping nasty photoshop filters on my shots. I love that it was near as makes no difference to an impulse buy, and its one of the sharper lenses I own.
But frankly, I do hate it on a 1.6x crop sensor. This has probably to do with that I have a 50mm 1.8 on my older-than-me Canon AE-1, and there it was near perfect. A touch wider than the human eye, which for the shots I was taking with that, was great. on the 1.6x, its awkward. Ideally, it should be my perfect lens for casual portraids when I'm out at dinner with friends or family, but most of the time, its too close for a good portrait, and too far to pluck out extreme close up details. But then, I love these things because when I use this lens, the compositional side of my brain has to work a lot harder, and it appreciates the exercise.
Technically, Michael's reasons for not liking the lens are spot on. but since my photographic endeavors differ from his, this lens can truimph for me in places where it has failed for him. Its not a garbage lens by far. its fantastic, to a purpose. Go and make that purpose work for you.
Canon 40d | Canon 17-40 f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
Do you ever use the AE1? I just bought an F1 as mine were (I had 2 of them) appropriated by my ex. I'm setting up a darkroom and want to get back into film.
Good luck in finding the right lens for you. If you think the 35 would be right for you, check out Adorama and B&H and if you don't mind purchasing used equipment you could probably pick up a good lens for a nominal amount. I know they have quite a bit of FD lenses at Adorama.
Michael
http://www.tabblo.com/studio/view/tabblos/mikeb380/
========
CANON EOS XT- 350D - Sigma 28 - 80 mm macro, MC Zenitar EF 3.5/16MM
CANON F1n, Canon FD 28mm 2.8 SC, Canon FL 200mm 3.5
Jupiter 9 2.8/85mm used on bellows for EOS & F1 Bellows is M42 thread with adaptors for both cameras.
Tair 135mm 2.8
Kiev 88 6x6 camera - Mir 38B 3.5/65mm, Arsat B 2.8/80mm, J26V 250 mm tele
16 various FSU & German cameras