Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens

[user111]

You mean its actually 50mm DOF right (and not DOF of a real 80mm)?

when u mount the 50/1.8 on the 1.6x crop body (eg 300d, 10d, 20d) and take the picture, and compare with the picture taken with 85/1.8 on full frame body (eg 1ds, 1v), assuming the subject occupies the same size in the frame, then the first picture will have roughly one stop less worth of DOF.(less blur background)

ie it will look like 85mm on fullframe, shot @ f2.8

 

[Snoweagle]

The reason why i'm thinking of getting 50mm cos i love taking portraits and i know that a fixed lens produces the sharpest image hehe

 

[xl1]

if u use 50mm 90% of your time, go and get f/1.4, if you use 50mm only50% or less, maybe f/1.8 enough for you.

but again, if u have the money, just buy the f/1.4...

 

[Snoweagle]

Well, maybe i'll settle for the f/1.8 MkII cos i only take portraits half of the time. The other times i use my Tamron 28-200mm more often.

 

[litefoot]

hmm perhaps i got a lemon then. This was done at f3.2, not wide open. On the rest of my lenses it's not noticeable even wide open.

Well anyhow it's good to take note of such a possibility when you're buying

It looks like a foreign object causing vignette to me. The light fall off on this particular lens is slight and gradual rather than a "darkening" shown on your pix.

 

[litefoot]

if u use 50mm 90% of your time, go and get f/1.4, if you use 50mm only50% or less, maybe f/1.8 enough for you.

but again, if u have the money, just buy the f/1.4...

I would say, just buy the f/1.8. I used to double it as a loupe when I couldn't afford those Schneider. That is if you shoot transparencies.

 

[mpenza]

hmm perhaps i got a lemon then. This was done at f3.2, not wide open. On the rest of my lenses it's not noticeable even wide open.

Well anyhow it's good to take note of such a possibility when you're buying

could it be the filter used, if any, which causes the vignetting?

according to user reviews, there's supposed to be little vignetting:
http://www.cmpsolv.com/photozone/resultEOS.htm

 

[mpenza]

an alternative to the 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 is the 50/2.5 macro which is very sharp wide open. the macro capabilities might also make it more useful as a "walk-around" lens.

 

[Zplus]

Anyway, the EF50mm f1.8 is a dirt cheap lens at $140 or less. Its f1.8 at that kind of price. So why not just get one and keep it. Its quite small and light. It has saved me arse several times when needed a fast lens. If it breaks you can get another one without breaking the bank.

Honestly speaking, what lens CAN you get for $140....
:bsmilie:

 

[litefoot]

Honestly speaking, what lens CAN you get for $140....
:bsmilie:

Yah, come to think of it why are we arguing over something that's trivial? :dunno:

Like what the old skool folks said, "save the money and shoot a lot of film", which I know it no longer apply to the modern digital photography.

 

[Snoweagle]

True though....it's the cheapest 1st hand priced lens i've ever seen and it's rather useful too for shooting portraits hehe

 

[sane]

I got the F1.4 about 4 yrs ago & I have no regrets, the F1.4 comes in handy for me as I shoot indoor quite often ~ even if it's not the sharpest at this aperture, it still beats camera shake! Love the solid build. The price difference did haunt me before I bought the lens, but my rationale was that I knew I was gonna keep the lens for good, and since I only have 1 other lens (Sigma 28-70mm F2.8), I was going to rely on the 50mm for quite a fair bit. So I went ahead & bore with the extra money spent on it.

 

[Snoweagle]

Thanks all for your comments n opinions, will keep those in mind!