General Photography

bwana said:
The 50mm f/1.8 II is an amazing lens at a great price.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can pick them up for about CHF130 (R970) here. Might just go pick one up tomorrow. Might take some getting used to using, what do you guys call it? The "foot zoom". That will be a completely new experience for me.
 
MadMailMan said:
Yeah I can pick them up for about CHF130 (R970) here. Might just go pick one up tomorrow. Might take some getting used to using, what do you guys call it? The "foot zoom". That will be a completely new experience for me.
Click to expand...

The Plastic Fantastic. Foot Zoom included as standard :)

I like mine too, although I'm going to buy the f/1.4 soon.
 
koffiejunkie said:
The Plastic Fantastic. Foot Zoom included as standard :)

I like mine too, although I'm going to buy the f/1.4 soon.
Click to expand...
And there I was almost believing you all those times you said you didn't like 50mm . . . :D

My term for it is Mark one zoom. :)
 
Well the f/1.4 is only 455 chuffs (R3370). I say only but you know what I mean. Would it be worthwhile saving up a little longer and picking up the f/1.4? Keeping in mind this will be my first prime and will have to learn everything from scratch.
 
MadMailMan said:
Well the f/1.4 is only 455 chuffs (R3370). I say only but you know what I mean. Would it be worthwhile saving up a little longer and picking up the f/1.4? Keeping in mind this will be my first prime and will have to learn everything from scratch.
Click to expand...
It's debatable and really depends on if you really like 50mm which you wont know until you've tried it for a while . . . I've got both and have at least one of them on a camera at any given time.
 
bwana said:
And there I was almost believing you all those times you said you didn't like 50mm . . . :D
Click to expand...

I said I don't like it as an walk-around lens - prefer something wider. But I have specific use for it (see my later post). I also don't like the motor in it and the lack of full-time manual, which is why I want to get the 50mm f/1.4 USM.

MadMailMan said:
Well the f/1.4 is only 455 chuffs (R3370). I say only but you know what I mean. Would it be worthwhile saving up a little longer and picking up the f/1.4? Keeping in mind this will be my first prime and will have to learn everything from scratch.
Click to expand...

bwana is better qualified to comment on that. My f/1.4 is a Pentax manual focus lens. Great glass, but I have no way to compare it directly. Full frame film vs cropped digital...
 
koffiejunkie said:
Some Nifty Fifty/Plastic Fantastic shots:
Click to expand...
Niiiiiiice.
bwana said:
It's debatable and really depends on if you really like 50mm which you wont know until you've tried it for a while . . . I've got both and have at least one of them on a camera at any given time.
Click to expand...
Cheapie it is then. I'll keep the extra dough for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC that I have on order. :whistle:
 
MadMailMan said:
Niiiiiiice.

Cheapie it is then. I'll keep the extra dough for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC that I have on order. :whistle:
Click to expand...
I was chatting to a guy in the camera shop today about that lens - apart from some corner softness he seemed very impressed with it. Too wide for my tastes though.
 
I'm trying to avoid having a extra wide lens for just landscapes. And on the 20d it's really only a 27-80mm lens. It's gotten some good reviews and it's a fair bit cheaper than the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. It'll be my walkie walkie lens or whatever you guys call it.
 
koffiejunkie said:
But that Canon is seriously awesome.



Die 50mm f/1.8 is my skelm in die donker lens ;)
Click to expand...

ROFL. Your secret are safes wiff me. ;)

The Canon is VERY nice but like I said it a good 50% more expensive than the Tamron and almost three times as much as the non VC Tamron. And in my hands would you see the difference? Na, besides that would seriously bite into my 70-200 f/2.8 IS budget. :o
 
MadMailMan said:
Nice shots there bigal. What lens did you have on your 350d? I'm still shooting everything through the 17-85 kit lens. I only just got aproval from "the minister of finances" to get me a couple new lenses. :D
Click to expand...

bwana said:
If I had to guess I'd say the 18-55 kit lens - at least for the one at the airport.
Click to expand...
Both taken with a Sigma 18-125. I have the older one without OS. It battles to get the focus right, but once you get it focussed, it takes superb pics. I believe this problem has been sorted out with the new lens.

I must admit, I've become rather disillusioned at the usefulness of large aperture lenses. The lack of DoF can catch you out if you don't watch it carefully:

 
MadMailMan said:
I'm trying to avoid having a extra wide lens for just landscapes. And on the 20d it's really only a 27-80mm lens. It's gotten some good reviews and it's a fair bit cheaper than the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. It'll be my walkie walkie lens or whatever you guys call it.
Click to expand...
I couldn't use the canon purely due to it being EFs. My range of glass is pretty much complete now - 24-70mm, 50mm, 70-200, 150-500mm - if I ever decide to shoot landscapes I'll need to look at something in the 10-22 range I guess :)

BigAl-sa said:
Both taken with a Sigma 18-125. I have the older one without OS. It battles to get the focus right, but once you get it focussed, it takes superb pics. I believe this problem has been sorted out with the new lens.
Click to expand...
There seems to be an all to familiar bit of barrel distortion in that first shot which is why I just assumed canon kit lens. :o
I must admit, I've become rather disillusioned at the usefulness of large aperture lenses. The lack of DoF can catch you out if you don't watch it carefully:
Click to expand...
You dont have to use them wide open but it's nice to have when you need it.
 
Last edited:
bwana said:
There seems to be an all to familiar bit of barrel distortion in that first shot which is why I just assumed canon kit lens. :o
Click to expand...
Funny, I don't see barrel distortion there, only perspective distortion :confused:
 
BigAl-sa said:
Funny, I don't see barrel distortion there, only perspective distortion :confused:
Click to expand...

And I thought only the Paris Hiltons of the world suffered from this. :D

I can't get onto Smugmug from work but I will have another look when I get home. I must say I didn't see and distortion when I first looked but then I probable wouldn't see it unless it was VERY obvious.
 
BigAl-sa said:
I must admit, I've become rather disillusioned at the usefulness of large aperture lenses. The lack of DoF can catch you out if you don't watch it carefully
Click to expand...

Same here. Even with the 24-105mm f/4 I had to be careful. f/4 at 105mm at portrait distances gives about 1cm of DOF... That said, I'm with bwana on that, especially since portraits isn't always my thing.

MadMailMan said:
BigAl-sa said:
Funny, I don't see barrel distortion there, only perspective distortion :confused:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And I thought only the Paris Hiltons of the world suffered from this. :D

LOL! :D
 
bwana said:
My range of glass is pretty much complete now - 24-70mm, 50mm, 70-200, 150-500mm - if I ever decide to shoot landscapes I'll need to look at something in the 10-22 range I guess :)
Click to expand...
I can't exactly live in Switzerland and NOT do the occasional landscape. Just the train ride from Zurich to Lugarno has a postcard picture out of every window every 30 seconds. Then take a walk around one of the lakes or rivers. And the people here like to dress up their gardens in Christmas lights. There are photos just begging to be taken. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X