User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  4
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: is this price for real???

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    22 Jan 2011
    Location
    Goolwa
    Posts
    3,777
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    is this price for real???



    http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-50mm-f-...item35b149933e

    I think I had a heart failure when I saw how much.......is this for real or is he dreaming??
    Monika
    Equipment: Canon 60D, Nikon FE, Nikkor 50mm 1.8 lens, Fancier FT-662A tripod, 18-55mm kit lens, 55-250mm kit lens, 30mm 1.4 Sigma lens, LR4, PS Elements
    Check out my Flickr photos ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/missmonny/
    ... and then you can like me on www.facebook.com/PhotoByMB or see my shop on http://www.redbubble.com/people/msmonny



  2. #2
    Way Down Yonder in the Paw Paw Patch jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jun 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,530
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    B&H have one for $4499. A F1.0 lens is bound to be a bit pricey.
    All constructive criticism accepted with gratitude.


  3. #3
    Moderately Super Debra Faulkner's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, a small coastal town in the far east of
    Posts
    719
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Lol, yeah probably for real ... for enthusiasts of wide open lenses apparently it is possible to have to pay around this price. You can imagine with f1.0 how good it would be in low light!
    Last edited by Debra Faulkner; 19-04-2011 at 7:28am.
    Nikon F65, D50, D200, D700



  4. #4
    Way Down Yonder in the Paw Paw Patch jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jun 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,530
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Apparently it's discontinued too. Do they have a 50 F1.0 in the current lineup?

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ms Monny View Post


    http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-50mm-f-...item35b149933e

    I think I had a heart failure when I saw how much.......is this for real or is he dreaming??
    That price range is to be expected for that lens. Wide apertures drive prices high.

    Even though it was discontinued many years ago, it still commands a very high price, despite being notoriously soft wide open.

    Scout around for the price of the also-discontinued 200/1.8L; it's not a common lens, is in plenty of demand, and commands high prices. I only saw a new specimen on one occasion (in a defunct retailer in about 2005), and the price there and then was $10,100.

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    22 Jan 2011
    Location
    Goolwa
    Posts
    3,777
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    okay! thanks. I was hunting out the 1.4 and saw this and though OMG! but i could guess that f1 would be unreal in low light!

  7. #7
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jim View Post
    Apparently it's discontinued too. Do they have a 50 F1.0 in the current lineup?
    It is long-discontinued.

    The widest aperture Canon currently offers is f/1.2, and there are two lenses which sport that aperture: 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II.

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ms Monny View Post
    okay! thanks. I was hunting out the 1.4 and saw this and though OMG! but i could guess that f1 would be unreal in low light!
    Compared to the f/2.8 zooms a lot of people use, an f/1 lens offers a huge increase in light-gathering ability.

    The f/1 lens gathers eight times as much light for a fixed shutter speed and ISO combination.

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    22 Jan 2011
    Location
    Goolwa
    Posts
    3,777
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I just couldn't afford it though!! So, a f1.4 would be okay too I presume? Love to have better seperation that comes with a larger aperature plus the low light factor would be good for a night time.

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ms Monny View Post
    I just couldn't afford it though!! So, a f1.4 would be okay too I presume? Love to have better seperation that comes with a larger aperature plus the low light factor would be good for a night time.
    An f/1.4 lens is a stop slower than an f/1 lens (of the same focal length).

    From what I've heard, the 50/1.4 is good. However, I've never owned one and don't have the 50mm focal length in either prime or zoom (I don't like it).

    This review might be helpful to you:

    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    22 Jan 2011
    Location
    Goolwa
    Posts
    3,777
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the link....I read it and it certainly was very helpful to me....I know I won't be getting the f1.8!! I think the 50mm will be useful when I travel overseas in a couple of months.

  12. #12
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    14,810
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ms Monny View Post
    okay! thanks. I was hunting out the 1.4 and saw this and though OMG! but i could guess that f1 would be unreal in low light!
    About 2-wice as much as a f/1.4.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  13. #13
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ms Monny View Post
    Thanks for the link....I read it and it certainly was very helpful to me....I know I won't be getting the f1.8!! I think the 50mm will be useful when I travel overseas in a couple of months.
    If you like the 50mm focal length and have the budget, the 50/1.4 would be a better choice.

    Having said that, the 50/1.8 is a good choice if you want to get a feel for fast primes (and 50mm) cheaply.

    Some info about the 50/1.8:

    What's good?

    1. It's light.
    2. It's small.
    3. It's fast (as in wide aperture).
    4. It's sharp.
    5. It's inexpensive.
    6. On an APS-C camera, it provides classic portrait framing.

    What's bad?

    1. Its barrel and mount is plastic.
    2. It has no distance gauge.
    3. It has no ultrasonic focus motor.
    4. It's slow to focus, and noisy, too.
    5. The focus ring is awkwardly positioned and small.
    6. It has a five-bladed diaphragm, producing unappealing pentagonal bokeh.

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    thats normal 2nd hand price for the F1 lens u know

  15. #15
    Drifter, Racer and Picture Taker
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Canon used to have a viewfinder camera back in the 60's that had a F0.9 lens on it.

    I remember back then, when I got my first new SLR, a Canon FT QL, I hassled my father to buy it for me with the 50mm F1.2 lens, but it was quite expensove and I ended up with the F1.8 instead.
    Still, not a bad camera for a 13 year old back then!
    All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    23 Jun 2010
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenedis View Post
    If you like the 50mm focal length and have the budget, the 50/1.4 would be a better choice.

    Having said that, the 50/1.8 is a good choice if you want to get a feel for fast primes (and 50mm) cheaply.

    Some info about the 50/1.8:

    What's good?

    1. It's light.
    2. It's small.
    3. It's fast (as in wide aperture).
    4. It's sharp.
    5. It's inexpensive.
    6. On an APS-C camera, it provides classic portrait framing.

    What's bad?

    1. Its barrel and mount is plastic.
    2. It has no distance gauge.
    3. It has no ultrasonic focus motor.
    4. It's slow to focus, and noisy, too.
    5. The focus ring is awkwardly positioned and small.
    6. It has a five-bladed diaphragm, producing unappealing pentagonal bokeh.
    I agree, got 50mm f/1.4 and must say:
    very fast, very sharp, beautiful bookeh, light, small (fits in a pocket), ultrasonic motor.
    Obviously f/1.2 would be great, but couldnt justify expense, so I am very happy with my 1.4.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    08 Sep 2010
    Location
    Syd
    Posts
    259
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Xenedis View Post
    From what I've heard, the 50/1.4 is good. However, I've never owned one and don't have the 50mm focal length in either prime or zoom (I don't like it).
    If you've never owned a lens covering that focal length, how do you know you don't like it?

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    28 Aug 2008
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,913
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pmack View Post
    If you've never owned a lens covering that focal length, how do you know you don't like it?
    if you do photography long enough you can tell what your preferences are and dislikes. I used to own a 50mm for a bit, but got rid of it as I dont like the focal length. One can also use lenses without needing to own one like I do, ie. through rental, borrow, or tests.

  19. #19
    Ausphotography Veteran
    Join Date
    08 Nov 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,303
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pmack View Post
    If you've never owned a lens covering that focal length, how do you know you don't like it?
    I said I've never owned a 50/1.4, not that I've never owned a lens covering that focal length.

    I have had the 50mm focal length in prime and zoom format.

    And Jackie's response is spot-on, pretty much applying to my situation too.

  20. #20
    I am older than I look. peterb666's Avatar
    Join Date
    31 Oct 2009
    Location
    Tura Beach, NSW
    Posts
    3,593
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The price seems about right for the brand and aperture. A Leica of that speed will cost you more than double.

    I don't think I will be buying it. I already have a faster prime.
    Cheers

    PeterB666


    Visit my 52/2011 My photos on Flickr. On Model Mayhem now (fortunately not as a model) My new blogsite!

    Olympus OM-D E-M5 with Metabones Speed Booster and Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 - almost as insanely wicked as sin itself.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •