We're working on a new Slickdeals. Click here to check it out.
You last visited: Today at 01:01 PM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|04-18-2013 12:11 PM|
|odb||I upgraded from the 1.8 to the 1.4 via this deal and am very glad I did. Seems to be better at grabbing the focus point I want to use and quickly using it. The 1.8 struggled at times, especially while using SERVO mode.|
|04-09-2013 08:23 PM|
|teedee||I've been wanting this lens for awhile but never actually bought one (mainly because of the costs) but I finally pulled the trigger this time. I received my lens last weekend and tested it with some portrait shooting. All I can say is it's worth every single penny. The photos were sharp with great color. The focus was also much better than my Tamron 17-50mm lens (which is also a great one).|
|04-06-2013 12:21 AM|
The number one factor for Canon's prices is the dollar to yen exchange rate, plain and simple. Match up the historical prices of any Canon lens and you'll see a direct correlation. Dollar goes up against yen, Canon's prices drop. The dollar has gained around 20% against the yen in the past few months, if the trend continues we'll likely see the best prices on Canon gear that we've seen in years.
|04-04-2013 05:46 AM|
|04-03-2013 06:09 AM|
|Mummel||Hey guys, quick update, I saw on Canon Rumors that the new 50mm will probably be the 50mm F/2 IS. Not sure when it's coming out, but thats why the prices are dropping.|
|04-02-2013 07:56 PM|
|04-02-2013 02:59 PM|
Also pixel peeping is hardly relevant for portraits, I think MTF charts are more than enough for that. Its more for macro and telephoto lenses where aggressive cropping is more common. When shooting insects, birds or even fast moving athletes you cant always compose correctly and end up cropping in post. This is where you are worried about having a lens that's pixel sharp so you could crop to heart's content.
The other point I wanted to make is that this is not a portrait only lens by any means. If that were the case canon wouldn't be selling the nifty-50 by the bucket loads. Ive used it for nature, architecture, night street photography and even landscapes. Its a really great piece of glass, the only hang up I have is about the focus mechanism which tends to flake out. This is why I said earlier that I consider the sigma 50 f1.4 a better buy.
|04-02-2013 01:59 PM|
is it 10x better than the 1.8?
well it's not a black and white answer. The 1.8 will fail in really dark areas, and there's not FTM when I want to manually take over. Neither 1.4 or 1.8 are weather sealed, and yes I've had water splashed on me on accident.
So, you're not paying more for nothing, especially if you sell it.... people will buy it, so it's worth something to someone else. The 1.4 is notoriously unreliable and that's due to poor design. In the end, you pay a lot more for little improvement when it comes to the top tier photography equipment.
Jumping from crop to FF may seem like a big price in equipment for incremental gain... but imagine going from FF to MF..... huge price gain for another incremental gain...
|04-02-2013 01:51 PM|
on a crop, too narrow FOV
|04-02-2013 11:53 AM|
The 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 is a budget lens that offers decent image quality that's also light and has a very usable focal range (effectively 28.8-88.0mm on a 1.6x crop body, like the t1i).
The 50mm f1.4 is a very fast lens, so it's very useful in low-light areas. 50mm with a 1.6x crop body is an effective 80mm focal length, which is not very useful with landscape and group photos.
There are times when a $60 kit lens can get you shots that a $5000 50mm f1.0 can't, and vice versa. There is no universal "better" lens. Sure if money is no issue then by all means, the EF-S 17-55mm is the "better" lens in most cases (but still cannot focus as close as the plastic kit lens 18-55mm). But in reality money is an issue for everyone, and whether the advantages are worth 13x - 16x the price (18-55mm vs. 17-55mm) is another debate.
Of course, that's just my opinion. I'd personally shoot with sufficient gears that give me decent shots rather than having to lug around $4000 worth of kit and constantly worrying that I'll lose/break them.
|04-02-2013 11:37 AM|
BTW, this is a decent site that shows the 1.8 vs the 1.4. Honestly, I still cant see a reason to get the 1.4 over the 1.8 for 3X the cost if you shoot at 2.8. Its just so hard to justify. The 1.4 shines at 1.6 though (at least in center).
|04-02-2013 11:36 AM|
Your 18-135 has the advantage of covering a huge range of focal lengths - it's not the highest quality lens, and it's not going to do well in low light, but it will provide great flexibility until you figure out a little bit more about your shooting style/preferences.
If you do a lot of low light/indoor shots, you may want to either invest in a Speedlite, like a 430EX II or pick up a 50mm 1.8 to test out until you can make a decision about what additional glass to invest in.
|04-02-2013 11:32 AM|
|04-02-2013 11:28 AM|
|04-02-2013 11:25 AM|
Pic #2 is a great shot. This is what I meant by backing-up. You can really see how superior the bokeh is on the 1.4 with the lights. But, how far were you from her. I suspect you were at least 9-10 feet away for that composition on a full frame, which would give you a DOF of 0.52 feet. Because we wont pixel peep and see the softness, the photo looks good from a distance. The problem is, people dont always have the space available in doors to step back. Thats why you must consider what is practical in real world, day to day use. The 50mm most of the time results in tighter frames around your subject (generally speaking), because of closer distances, which means you normally need to use smaller apertures. That why I say, on a crop, the 50mm focal length is best served at 2.0 and above, and hence the investment into the 1.4 isnt worth it IMO. Rather get a Speedlight.
If I have the space available outdoors, then I would rather use a longer lens, maybe a 70-200mm. For in doors and a general walk-around, the 30mm 1.4 would be best. If I wanted to get a shot like #2 using my 30mm, all I would do is move closer in and use a F stop of 2-2.8, or 1.6 if we werent going to pixel peep.
PS. Love the other shots in your portfolio. Great stuff.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|