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.

I imagine the scary shot of dina will be more intriguing in the telling than the showing.

[redacted]

shutter speed is too low for this lighting conditions. Looks like 1/20-30, better have from 1/100 for rapid moving objects. Seriously :)

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

ditto.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

My favorite:



. . .



Heh. :-P

Such a freakin' camwhore. Gawd.

Where's the obligatory pandering link to his Amazon wishlist?

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 ;)

hahahahahaha

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 :-)

Until scsi steals his 80-200 back from me, I'll keep using that. (and yeah, I do use it a lot....)

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