***SW&D Photography Thread***

I've been using a canon 40d with kit lens for awhile now, but I was thinking of buying a 50mm prime. The lens I have now just doesn't take very sharp photos, and it would only be about $100.



KingJulien said:

I've been using a canon 40d with kit lens for awhile now, but I was thinking of buying a 50mm prime.  The lens I have now just doesn't take very sharp photos, and it would only be about $100.

Click to expand...

Sharpness is controlled by more than just the lens. ISO can play a part in sharpness, so can shutter speed and camera settings. Lenses also have a tendency to be the sharpest stopped down a few stops from wide open. Also keep in mind looking at a full size image on a computer screen isn't a good indicator of sharpness as well. To do it properly you need to look at a print done up by a lab. That doesn't mean Walmart, it means someplace like Mpix. In general sharpness is judged by a print done at 5 times the size of the film plane. For practical purposes an 8 by 10 print is what you want. Also the file type and output dpi is very important. A compressed 72 dpi image looks like crap and won't print worth a hoot either. A 350 dpi uncompressed file on the other hand is good enough for large prints and magazines. Then there's something else called the circle of confusion. That's another matter altogether. Only one distance in your image will be in critical focus. Everything else will not be in focus. You control this with depth of field. The smaller the f stop the greater the depth of what appears to be in focus.

So don't be in a hurry to buy more glass. That f1.8 50 you're talking about is a cheap lens. Cheap and glass are two things that don't play well together. The f1.4 50 is a much better piece of glass. If you want to do better than that then you look at the full frame lenses. When used on an APS-C camera full frame lenses work great and if you ever end up with say a 5D MKIII you'll be set with lenses.

My portrait lens is a full frame Zeiss Planar T 85mm f1.4. This lens is considered to be the portrait lens no matter what camera body you use. It's an absolutely phenomenal lens but it also costs 1700 bucks. Do most people need something like this? The answer is no. I get paid to shoot portraits and weddings so good equipment tends to make my job easier not to mention it's less likely to break in the middle of a job.

Anyway buy once and buy smart.

some day i'd like to quit everything and chase storms around.



excuse the crappy quality it's an iphone video screen shot.

Crane's said:

Sharpness is controlled by more than just the lens. ISO can play a part in sharpness, so can shutter speed and camera settings. Lenses also have a tendency to be the sharpest stopped down a few stops from wide open. Also keep in mind looking at a full size image on a computer screen isn't a good indicator of sharpness as well. To do it properly you need to look at a print done up by a lab. That doesn't mean Walmart, it means someplace like Mpix. In general sharpness is judged by a print done at 5 times the size of the film plane. For practical purposes an 8 by 10 print is what you want. Also the file type and output dpi is very important. A compressed 72 dpi image looks like crap and won't print worth a hoot either. A 350 dpi uncompressed file on the other hand is good enough for large prints and magazines. Then there's something else called the circle of confusion. That's another matter altogether. Only one distance in your image will be in critical focus. Everything else will not be in focus. You control this with depth of field. The smaller the f stop the greater the depth of what appears to be in focus.

So don't be in a hurry to buy more glass. That f1.8 50 you're talking about is a cheap lens. Cheap and glass are two things that don't play well together. The f1.4 50 is a much better piece of glass. If you want to do better than that then you look at the full frame lenses. When used on an APS-C camera full frame lenses work great and if you ever end up with say a 5D MKIII you'll be set with lenses.

My portrait lens is a full frame Zeiss Planar T 85mm f1.4. This lens is considered to be the portrait lens no matter what camera body you use. It's an absolutely phenomenal lens but it also costs 1700 bucks. Do most people need something like this? The answer is no. I get paid to shoot portraits and weddings so good equipment tends to make my job easier not to mention it's less likely to break in the middle of a job.

Anyway buy once and buy smart.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm trying to have a minimal investment at this point while still having some room to practice. My current lens only goes down to an f-stop of about 5 at 50mm, which is pretty limiting. The difference between 5 and 1.8 is huge compared to the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 for a beginner, and the 1.4 is $400 compared to the $100 of what I was considering.

I haven't ruled out your advice, I was just thinking I might be better off getting the cheaper lens and going with a 80mm if I decide I want to spend more on the hobby.

The 1.8 takes great photos and is going to be more than good enough for any non-professional. The build quality isn't great, though.



artishard116 said:

some day i'd like to quit everything and chase storms around.

excuse the crappy quality it's an iphone video screen shot.

Click to expand...

It can be a lot of fun but at the same time very boring and frustrating. You can spend days roaming around and when the action starts there's no way to get to the spot you need to be at to get good shots. Catching a tornado is actually easier than getting top notch lightning pics. Oh and the money you'll spend chasing is just plain nuts too.

KingJulien said:

Well, I'm trying to have a minimal investment at this point while still having some room to practice.  My current lens only goes down to an f-stop of about 5 at 50mm, which is pretty limiting.  The difference between 5 and 1.8 is huge compared to the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 for a beginner, and the 1.4 is $400 compared to the $100 of what I was considering.

I haven't ruled out your advice, I was just thinking I might be better off getting the cheaper lens and going with a 80mm if I decide I want to spend more on the hobby.

Click to expand...

Yeah the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 isn't that great. The biggest difference between the two lenses is build quality. You get better glass, better lens coatings, better internal mechanics and so on. All of this adds up to better IQ. You would be way better off spending the 400 bucks. If nothing else you have a lens that you can resell and recover a good chunk of what you paid. Not so with the 1.8. Go to the camera store with your camera and try both lenses. Then go home and look the images over. I believe you're camera shoots some type of RAW file. Use that mode and output hi res jpegs to use for your comparison. I can assure you you'll see a significant difference between the two lenses in sharpness, contrast and color.

Taken with my iphone over the last couple of months. Finally upgraded my phone from an old brick, so this is pretty much the closest i've got to digital in a while.

I like those a lot

Not sure what Im looking at....


And to kingjulien, it really depends.

Most people go against what crane is saying... Nifty fifty is super cheap for what it is. I would def recommend buying it. for 100 dollars it gives you that low light performance. But the thing you have to figure out is, is the 50mm ok for you? Personally, I had to the nifty fifty but it was too long, so I got the 35 f/2 and worked perfectly for me. But then upgraded to the fuji x-e1 with the kit lens. If you arent doing professional work and just want to practice, its perfect for you. You could also probably sell it on Craigslist when you want to upgrade and only lose like 30 dollars or so.

KingJulien said:

Well, I'm trying to have a minimal investment at this point while still having some room to practice. My current lens only goes down to an f-stop of about 5 at 50mm, which is pretty limiting. The difference between 5 and 1.8 is huge compared to the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 for a beginner, and the 1.4 is $400 compared to the $100 of what I was considering.

I haven't ruled out your advice, I was just thinking I might be better off getting the cheaper lens and going with a 80mm if I decide I want to spend more on the hobby.

Click to expand...

It also depends on your shooting style and what you want to shoot. It is super cheap just to see if you like it or not.

Crane's said:

Yeah the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 isn't that great. The biggest difference between the two lenses is build quality. You get better glass, better lens coatings, better internal mechanics and so on. All of this adds up to better IQ. You would be way better off spending the 400 bucks. If nothing else you have a lens that you can resell and recover a good chunk of what you paid. Not so with the 1.8. Go to the camera store with your camera and try both lenses. Then go home and look the images over. I believe you're camera shoots some type of RAW file. Use that mode and output hi res jpegs to use for your comparison. I can assure you you'll see a significant difference between the two lenses in sharpness, contrast and color.

Click to expand...

Keep in mind where I'm at though. If I up my budget from $100 to $400:

• I could get a tripod and the cheaper lens
• I could get a flash and the cheaper lens
• I could get a 35mm instead of the 50 (I'm using a crop-sensor)

snowboardpunk said:

Most people go against what crane is saying... Nifty fifty is super cheap for what it is. I would def recommend buying it. for 100 dollars it gives you that low light performance. But the thing you have to figure out is, is the 50mm ok for you? Personally, I had to the nifty fifty but it was too long, so I got the 35 f/2 and worked perfectly for me. But then upgraded to the fuji x-e1 with the kit lens. If you arent doing professional work and just want to practice, its perfect for you. You could also probably sell it on Craigslist when you want to upgrade and only lose like 30 dollars or so.

Click to expand...

Yea, this was what I was thinking. I suspect I'd get more use out of a good 35, but this is a cheap way to find out. Anyway, I'm going to walk to a local camera shop after work and if it really feels chintzy / the autofocus is too annoying, I'll pass on it.

snowboardpunk said:

Not sure what Im looking at....

Click to expand...

Is this in reply to the pictures i posted? I hope so because that's the point. I'm glad it instills some confusion.



snowboardpunk said:

Not sure what Im looking at....


And to kingjulien, it really depends.

Most people go against what crane is saying... Nifty fifty is super cheap for what it is. I would def recommend buying it. for 100 dollars it gives you that low light performance. But the thing you have to figure out is, is the 50mm ok for you? Personally, I had to the nifty fifty but it was too long, so I got the 35 f/2 and worked perfectly for me. But then upgraded to the fuji x-e1 with the kit lens. If you arent doing professional work and just want to practice, its perfect for you. You could also probably sell it on Craigslist when you want to upgrade and only lose like 30 dollars or so.

Click to expand...

In that regard you would be wrong. No photographer would ever argue against getting better glass. My advice about going to a camera store and trying both lenses is sound. His main complaint is the lens is soft at 50mm. By personally comparing both 50s side by side means he makes an informed decision based on his own personal experience. Lab results and other users experiences are useful in helping make that decision but should always be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning about professional work and practicing either when it comes to lens selection. Care to explain that a little more?



Crane's said:

It can be a lot of fun but at the same time very boring and frustrating. You can spend days roaming around and when the action starts there's no way to get to the spot you need to be at to get good shots. Catching a tornado is actually easier than getting top notch lightning pics. Oh and the money you'll spend chasing is just plain nuts too.
Yeah the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 isn't that great. The biggest difference between the two lenses is build quality. You get better glass, better lens coatings, better internal mechanics and so on. All of this adds up to better IQ. You would be way better off spending the 400 bucks. If nothing else you have a lens that you can resell and recover a good chunk of what you paid. Not so with the 1.8. Go to the camera store with your camera and try both lenses. Then go home and look the images over. I believe you're camera shoots some type of RAW file. Use that mode and output hi res jpegs to use for your comparison. I can assure you you'll see a significant difference between the two lenses in sharpness, contrast and color.

Click to expand...

The main difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is that the 1.4 will be sharper sooner.



iamacyborg said:

The main difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is that the 1.4 will be sharper sooner.

Click to expand...

That's not true either. Some lenses resolve best 2 stops down and others 3 or 4 or more. Again the primary difference between these two lenses is build quality.