Love to hear your main reason why? Can't just be the lenght, can it?Originally Posted by Xenedis
Posted around the same time as WW, you answered, so thanks.
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 14
Threadstarter
Love to hear your main reason why? Can't just be the lenght, can it?
Posted around the same time as WW, you answered, so thanks.
Last edited by Roosta; 16-11-2011 at 11:14pm.
Im with Xenedis, as I think the 50mm normal focal length is simply boring in terms of visual appeal to me and my work
Threadstarter
Like your thought process Art.
They call me "Blue" it's a red head thing.
"My Flickr Site"
Canon Bodies - 1DMk2N + 50D - Lenses - 17-35mm F2.8 L - 24-70mm F2.8 L - 70-200mm F2.8 L - 300mm F4 IS L - Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 - Sigma 10-20mm - DJI Mavic Pro Platinum
" I Never get tired of looking at our diverse country, even if its through the lens of someone else".
CC is always appreciated.
Threadstarter
The 200mm F2 L seems to touch a few of us here, it sure left it's mark on me, but not my credit card just yet.
the reason I mentioned the 400 for sport is because it's the longest of the canon lineup that can still be opened up to 2.8.
reach and speed is everything and I'm assuming your shooting in poor light.
shallow dof makes a massive difference but pointless if you can't fill the frame or get enough light.
I was also assuming it was a 'scrooge mcduck' scenario where $$$ wasn't an issue.
and you've piqued my curiousity...what apertures are you using for landscapes? (if intending to keep the entire image in focus).
you might want to think about closing your lens down (assuming there's no lights etc creating starbursts)
Last edited by sunny6teen; 16-11-2011 at 11:45pm.
students love them because they're cheap and fast. handy for journalism but that's about it.
Im with Xenedis, as I think the 50mm normal focal length is simply boring in terms of visual appeal to me and my work
Threadstarter
I can now see the point you where trying to make, it didn't click till KIWI mentioned DOF, then the brick hit my head.
Tony, like I said, I've not found a need to stop to f16, I ain't no pro, so I will give it a go when I get home, I'm open to anything new that I can learn from, I have a function to attend on Sunday (wedding, and I will have my 1D and 24-70mm F2.8 + tripod there) and also our WA event on Saturday night, I'll find something to give it a go. I'm guessing lots of sun and low ISO shortist exposure and a deep landscape, non reflective, hills mountains maybe, please let me know and I'll give it ago..
Cheers mate.
I already understood that: I know several who share your feelings.
My previous comment was in humour.
***
The 50/1.8 is the only really “cheap and fast” one.
I would think that FL = 35mm (on 135 format camera) would be more useful for journalism.
And a 50mm lens on an APS-C is way too long for a flexible prime lens for journalism.
WW
Yes:
You will have a Field of View equivalent of a 364mm lens mounted on a 135 format camera.
Yes:
You will have an effective maximum aperture of F/4.
No:
For the DoF calculations - you will have the equivalent of a 280mm (max.F/4) lens, mounted on an APS-H camera.
WW
Last edited by William W; 17-11-2011 at 12:56am.
William is right, Im a journalist, dont know any colleagues or travel writers using the 50mm length at all on FF or APSC cameras, but 24 and 35mm and teles are abundant.
Threadstarter
Thanks WW, so the DOF doesn't take into account the difference the TC makes? Why is that, I would have thought it would given the extra glass/length.
Threadstarter
In laymens terms, why is that? Why the wider primes for photo journo's? I get the tele's.
we prefer a lot of environmental portraits, where you can get semi close up to the subject and still retain a slightly wide field of view for the surroundings and background etc. If you want pure portraits thats where a short and medium tele comes in, so the focal length of 50mm is made almost redundant in terms of need.
take a look at my recent Vanuatu work photos for mainly examples of the 35mm focal length
Threadstarter
Thought as much, but I like to ask now, rather than assume. Will do, Vanuatu is on a must visit list for me.we prefer a lot of environmental portraits, where you can get semi close up to the subject and still retain a slightly wide field of view for the surroundings and background etc. If you want pure portraits thats where a short and medium tele comes in, so the focal length of 50mm is made almost redundant in terms of need.
take a look at my recent Vanuatu work photos for mainly examples of the 35mm focal length
Cheers, JM.
I had a nifty-fifty, but found I never use dit, so I sold it.
However, I have the cheap 28mm F2.8 and I use that a lot for shots of family gatherings and even some landscapes.
As a kid, I had a Canon FT-QL and it only had the 50mm lens and I managed quite well with just that lens at the time, but for some reason, today, I would never use it.
If I really need a 50mm lens, I'll just use my 24-105.
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.
I think a lot of people are already starting to salivate at the thought of the 1DX. It is going to be a rippa! Not that I will probably ever find out haha
Personally, I am happy with my new 5DII, but wouldn't mind something better than the 50D for birds, maybe a 1DIV with a 400 f2.8 IS II bolted to the frontAs my wife would say, not in this lifetime buddy
Lloyd
Canon 5D2+40D+L+Σ+S100
Never make the same mistake twice, there are so many new ones, try a different one each day
Flickr
I'm with a few others and find the 50mm a little boring. I don't really pull mine out all that much.
I'm pretty happy with my gear at the moment, I'd just like to add;
- 7D (the 5D is a little slow for climbing shots sometimes)
- 17mm TS-E
- 24-70 2.8
- Maybe another 580EX II + Flex TT5
I'd probably swap the 50mm for a 24/35mm too if I think hard.
Canon 5D II
16 - 35mm L II, 24 - 105mm L
http://mcarlotto.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelcarlotto
Well I'm happy with my 450D as it does more things than I know how too, would love a Sigma 50-500 or a 150-500 for my birding and a 100 or 150 macro lens, otherwise happy with what I have.
Regards
Wayne
CC Always welcome as its a great way of Learning
It really is a stunning lens and IME and IMO, is on par with the 300/2.8L IS.
If I were slightly less sane, I'd order one; but it is very expensive and for someone who doesn't use 200mm much, it's over the top.
Not that I do a lot of environmental portraiture, but when I do, I'm inclined to opt for my 35/1.4.
On a 135-format (D)SLR, it's just the right length to be wide enough to offer context, while not being too long to lose the story.
The wide aperture of my particular 35mm prime also makes it easy to nicely diffuse the background, and even at f/1.4 it's quite sharp.
It's about as general-purpose as a lens gets for me, and if I had to take only one lens for general opportunistic stuff, it's the lens I tend to take.
A 35 and an 85 nicely cover many situations, but for 'scaling (most of my photography), 16mm is it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
