?

Log in

No account? Create an account
New lens - brad's life [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Brad Fitzpatrick

[ website | bradfitz.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

New lens [Sep. 26th, 2006|09:59 pm]
Brad Fitzpatrick
[Tags|]

After borrowing several of scsi's lenses for awhile and reading the EOS beginner's guide dozens of times, I finally bought two lenses of my own over the weekend.

The first, the 50mm f/1.8 II, arrived via Amazon today. It's got a noisy motor and doesn't focus that fast (I guess this is what they call "poor build quality" :)), but at $56, who cares....

Some pics,
http://www.picpix.com/brad/gallery/000qdqw1

Nothing amazing, just playing. I was shooting at 1.8 to see how shallow a depth of field it'd be, and how clear I could get crazy Major in relatively low light. The first couple shots aren't that great as it took me a few shots to figure out the dioptric adjustment dial thing was off.... and like, a lot. So I was fighting with focus a lot more than I needed to. (uh, how long has it been off? couldn't have been too long... )

The best shot I can't include because dina banned it: she had a face mask on and was running from the room as I took it. In low-light and her running away I thought, "no fucking way", but it turned out. She did look pretty scary. Better left unpublished. :-)
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: midendian
2006-09-27 05:11 am (UTC)
I've been meaning to pick up the cheap f/1.8 too, hopefully before I end up in a Cessna at night again. Vibration+100knots makes f/3.5 sad, even at ISO1600.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ydna
2006-09-27 05:25 am (UTC)
I imagine the scary shot of dina will be more intriguing in the telling than the showing.

[redacted]
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sigizmund
2006-09-27 05:33 am (UTC)
shutter speed is too low for this lighting conditions. Looks like 1/20-30, better have from 1/100 for rapid moving objects. Seriously :)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: girl_on_a_stick
2006-09-27 05:34 am (UTC)
I like that lens quite a bit.

I've had better luck with prices and service ordering from BH Photo & Video over amazon: http:www.bhphotovideo.com
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: chris
2006-09-27 09:42 am (UTC)
ditto.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vanbeast
2006-09-27 05:38 am (UTC)
The motor is noisy and the focus is slow-ish, but the glass in the 50mm f/1.8 is comparable to the glass in the much, much more expensive lenses. I've had mine for about 6 years and it never leaves the camera (not that I shoot much anymore).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: _nezemnaya_
2006-09-27 05:56 am (UTC)
I had some unexpected income when I was about to buy the 50 mm/1.8 lens, so I bought the 1.4 USM
it is faster and lighter (and yeeeah, the cover has those golden letters on it!), but I still cannot spot the difference in the quality of the pictures themselves. I guess it's always depends on how good your hand and head work.
(Reply) (Thread)
From: ex_kalyan
2006-09-27 06:23 am (UTC)
I rate the 50mm lens as the best in the world. Its cheap, has one of the best optics and the 1.8 is to die for. More than the fact that you can shoot in low light, this lens induces amazing contrast in your photographs which you do not get in f/2.8 and lower aperture lenses. Play with it and you will know what I mean. I make sure all my lenses are f/2.8 just to get that amazing contrast in the photographs.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2006-09-27 07:17 am (UTC)
Sounds like I picked a good one. :-) I didn't know anything about the improved contrast (and I'm trying to think why that's so...?), but hey --- another reason to like it. I just went on a long nighttime walk and loved being able to hand-hold some amazing shots which would've required a tripod otherwise.

The other lens I ordered, to replace the kit 18-55, is the 17-55 f/2.8 constant aperture, so I'm glad 2.8 is what you consider key.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: ex_kalyan
2006-09-27 12:51 pm (UTC)
the 17-55 is a great lens. Have you thought about 17-105 f2.8 IS ? Its prob the best overall lens and you have 2.8 with IS on it :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: scsi
2006-09-27 03:35 pm (UTC)
Whoops, hit enter before I was finished.

17-55 is an EFS mount, which im not all that keen on. They make a 17-105? I did a quick search and couldnt find that anywhere.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: whitaker
2006-09-27 07:18 am (UTC)
My favorite:



. . .



Heh. :-P
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: erik
2006-09-27 09:27 am (UTC)
Such a freakin' camwhore. Gawd.

Where's the obligatory pandering link to his Amazon wishlist?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: majestros
2006-09-27 05:02 pm (UTC)
Dude, you look WAY older in that picture than you do in your LJ icon ;) I forgot it's been so long since I've seen what you look like ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dina
2006-09-27 05:12 pm (UTC)
hahahahahaha
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: baudehlo
2006-09-27 01:21 pm (UTC)

Great lens for the price

The 50/1.8's are great lenses (pretty much all the manufacturers have one, and every SLR owner should get one). I don't use mine a whole lot as the field of view is bit long on a 1.5 crop camera compared to a film SLR, but it does allow for some nice effects, and makes for a pretty good portrait lens.

Canon just released a monster 50mm/1.2 for about 20 times the price of the 50/1.8, which I really can't see being worth the 2/3rds of a stop you gain - the price/performance is definitely in favour of the 1.8.

You should get a 70-200 also - I have the Sigma and it's my second most used lens, providing wonderful colour and bokeh, and is perfect for portraits where the subject doesn't want you too close to them :-)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: brad
2006-09-27 04:10 pm (UTC)

Re: Great lens for the price

Until scsi steals his 80-200 back from me, I'll keep using that. (and yeah, I do use it a lot....)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: scsi
2006-09-27 03:46 pm (UTC)
What was your film speed set to?

Shutter speed has to be at least 1/100 to get a somewhat steady shot w/o tripod or leaning against something. If you have IS on you might be able to get away with 1/60.

You might be able to squeeze a tad bit steadier shot if you unlock the 1600 ISO film speed and use that (it wont be 1600 on the display, it would be H). The pics will be sorta noisy though if you take a good look at them.

Should of bling'd out and got the f/1.4 USM

(Reply) (Thread)