File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/
just got my camera gear (pic is my gear), and now looking to buy something to add on. Either a 3rd lens or battery grip. If i decide to buy a lens, which 50mm should I pick? i hear the 1.4 from canon is really fragile AF wise...and the 1.8 has loud and slow AF. I'm also planning to upgrade my 50D to full frame in the near future (10 years?), so I would like have lens that would be good for FF too (or is there no point in buying lens for FF when I plan to upgrade in 10 years?) help please!
>> Anonymous
stop trolling, please
>> Anonymous
op here,
umm...no.
this is not a troll....I actually need help in picking a 50mm lens....
>> Anonymous
>> i hear the 1.4 from canon is really fragile AF wise...and the 1.8 has loud and slow AF.

>> 50D to full frame in the near future (10 years?)

>> I would like have lens that would be good for FF too (or is there no point in buying lens for FF when I plan to upgrade in 10 years?)

TROOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
>> Anonymous
....ok...I understand how those might spark some debates...so I take back what I said and ask this:

WHAT 50MM LENS SHOULD I FCKING BUY?
>> Anonymous
>>284275
BUY THE ONE YOU CAN FUCKING AFFORD. PROBABLY THE 1.2 SEEING AS YOU JUST BOUGHT ALL THAT OTHER EXPENSIVE SHIT.
>> Anonymous
most horrible lens line up ever
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
buy a fucking wide!
>> Anonymous
that was a present....so...I'm not looking at very much money now....and like I said, i heard there was a lot of problems with the AF mechanism with the 1.4....any other brands?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Take every lens you have back to the store.

And then buy the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, it replaces all the lenses you just bought, all in one package.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.5Focal Length (35mm Equiv)90 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:21 16:35:53Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Brightness4.1 EVExposure Bias0.3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length60.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height605RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
>>284279and like I said, i heard there was a lot of problems with the AF mechanism with the 1.4....any other brands?

lots of problems with the AF mechanism because the 50D doesn't have a built-in AF motor for any 50mm lol

you have to buy a better body with the AF screw drive in the body to AF with these lenses without the motor in them
>> Anonymous
>>284282
like I said...it was a present. So i'm stuck with what I have.
>> Anonymous
ummm...

I have a Sigma 18-200. And while its a great "traveler" lens when you don't want to be switching, its not some magic all-in-one. I still get great/better results from my 50mm in the right situation, and there are other primes you can get for fairly cheap that might round out what you've already got.
>> Anonymous
ebay
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Honestly I'd ditch the 85mm and buy the 10-22 efs and then another zoom to fill the 22-70 gap or money depending say fuck the 70-200 and pick up the 100-400. Not that the 70-200 isn't a totally bad ass lens, but the 100-400 is so much more flexible.

Seriously though, fuck primes.

What are you going to be shooting.
>> Anonymous
>>284289
portraiture, thats why I picked the 85mm
and the 70-200 because heard rave review for it
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>284290
Then just pick up a good zoom to fill your missing focal length. Honestly if you're doing portraiture when would you ever need f1.8? Pick something more flexible and enjoy it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>284289Seriously though, fuck primes.
>> Anonymous
>>284292
I may be wrong about this, so don't crucify me...but doesn't a lower f-stop create a better bokeh?
>> Anonymous
This thread has troll all over it. Why are we still posting here?

Are we just trolling him back or what?
>> Anonymous
>>284296

because i'm actually sincere about this....
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
>>284293
Let me say it again
Fuck
Primes
Fuck Primes

see that easy?
Join the zoom side young padawan.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:07:04 23:19:40Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width302Image Height402
>> Anonymous
OP, the Canon 50/1.4 is a great lens. I've never heard anything about problems with the autofocus. Go ahead and get it, assuming it's to your taste.

>>284289
Not everyone shoots what or how you shoot.
>> Anonymous
>>284300

Zoom lens that go down to under f2?

Enjoy your price tag and shitty image quality.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>284302
I've never understood why people buy primes. This isn't about who shoots what, but why limit yourself with a prime if you don't need the extra light?
>> sage sage
sageing for mentioning the ultimately useless "oh look i took a head portrait" 50mm 1.8.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>284304
someone actually makes a zoom that goes to f2?
>> Anonymous
>10-22 efs
Ultrawides range from useless to counterproductive for most photographers.

>another zoom
>fuck primes

Zooms are not good to learn on.

If you're in a studio or something where you have time to fuck around with focal lengths, they can be good to play with, but shooting spontaneously they just get in the way, at least for me and lots of others. Plenty of people find otherwise for themselves, without being all "fuck primes."

Or, here says it better than I am:

>Not that the 70-200 isn't a totally bad ass lens, but the 100-400 is so much more flexible.

400 on crop is damn long. Longer than most people need. Not everyone is shooting zoo animals; superteles for the rest of us are good to play with weird angles to shoot from, abstracts, etc. but not as general-purpose lenses.

>Honestly if you're doing portraiture when would you ever need f1.8?

Are you trolling this guy or something? Personally I go for vast depth of field, but most people prefer larger apertures for portraiture.
>> Anonymous
>>284304Zoom lens that go down to under f2?

Unless you absolutely need the near 0 depth of field that f/1.2 gives, no one really needs to be below f/2.0 and then you still have to stop down to get enough resolving power.

>>284304Enjoy your price tag and shitty image quality.

Oh hey, welcome to 2008, actually no, welcome to the last 10 years when there is very little quantifiable image quality for primes over zooms.

Classic 24mm, 28mm 35mm are in the $300 range. There are many consumer zooms in the $300-500 range that will match these fixed lenses, aperture for aperture. Get real.
>> Anonymous
>>284315
Forgot the link.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/the-case-against-zooms.html

>>284309
Tons of 'em, mostly cine lenses. Olympus has some for Four-Thirds. Several bridge cameras have featured zooms that start at f/2; there were even some Olympus models a few years ago that were f/1.8, before the lol range crowd made them longer and wider, and made the designers go to 2.8.
>> Anonymous
without calling the "this is /p/ and everyone has a 50mm" meme

if you guys were such awesome at composition with your imposed limit with a prime, we'd be seeing a lot better photos than the shit posted

sorry but /p/ buys fixed lenses because they can't afford the good quality zooms
>> Anonymous
in during zoom vs. prime ragewars
>> Anonymous
>>284316
>Unless you absolutely need the near 0 depth of field that f/1.2 gives, no one really needs to be below f/2.0 and then you still have to stop down to get enough resolving power.

Agreed. But there's nothing wrong with speed except when it increases lens size- and an f/1.8 isn't far off 2.0, just some room to stop down, and the 50/1.4 will fit in a pocket.

>Oh hey, welcome to 2008, actually no, welcome to the last 10 years when there is very little quantifiable image quality for primes over zooms.

It's not about image quality for near anyone. It's about shooting styles and methods.

You're right in the image quality department primes and zooms are pretty much on par. I wouldn't be averse to shooting with something like a Tri-Elmar; that'd be great, in fact. But it's not about image quality; besides, most everything is good enough in terms of technical image quality stopped down and has been for even longer.
>> Anonymous
>>284326

#9 of /p/ in a nutshell

>> 9) arcane stuff like M42, always outstrips anything else, in any class. This is the corollary of #5. Idiots on /p/ can both find and afford something so it must be good.

and #5 for reference

>> 5) If something is out of reach financially (ie Leica M8)
it must suck, that prevents /p/eons from feeling bad because they either 1) still live in mommy's basement or 2) studied art or history in school and it didn't pan out.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>284315
After I found out what he shot, I revised the list. I assumed at the time of posting he was a walk around kind of guy and for that a wide range of focal lengths is best.

>>284317
The argument of the link revolves only on the writer's own opinion that zooms are a ineffective learning tool and doesn't provide any real support to his statement. So what you've here is present an unsupported opinion to back up your opinion.

Also regards to the f2.0 zooms, you've presented stuff out of reach of a 50D user so why even pose the possibility of a f2.0 in a thread about a camera that can't effectively use any of them?

So far the only semi-supported argument against zooms in thread has been poor for learning (this is in assumption that the poster has had no formal photographic training).
>> Anonymous
/p/ is such a different world from the real world. No offense to you guys.

>> Zooms are not good to learn on.
=
>> Primes are good to learn on.

Okay, I'll let that slide and we'll pretend to agree it's true.

That's all fine dandy for you fucking around doing nothing. How are you going to get a wider shot with your 50mm on? How are you going to capture something tight with a 24mm on?

>> Yeah! It makes you work for it!

Okay, no. That's just asking for a missed shot. Again, all fine and dandy if you're fucking around doing nothing. People in the real world are not fucking around like we are. A zoom gives you infinitely more flexibility with very little disadvantages.

People who get paid to take photos are not messing around to work their shot with a fixed lens. That's just a stupid decision to go in with only one field of view or need to switch lenses.

Yeah.. /p/ is different from the real world. We're all pretty happy with our $100 fixed lens with that "professional bokeh look" and we'll frown down upon anything that's not this.
>> Anonymous
>>284343

A professional will use what he / she needs to get the job done. If my job calls for me to shoot in a shit lit room without the use of flash then I have to get out the primes. Struggling to get one shot that is well exposed is better than getting a few perfectly framed shots that are 2 stops underexposed.

Yeah, zooms are more viable for pros, but who the fuck is pro on /p/. Just a bunch of angsty dicks with D40s and XTis shitting themselves that they can blur the background of their pictures.

If you want to buy a prime because you think it will help you make something awesome, go for it, do whatever the fuck you feel like. Your money waste it how you please. Maybe all the money you spent on your gear will give you some motivation to get out and shoot, or you could just shove it in a bag after 6 months and never touch it again... who knows.
>> Anonymous
>>284343

I guess people getting paid to take photos 10+ years ago who needed MF or LF for their serious work must have been doing it wrong with their pretty much only prime lens selections...
>> anonymous
i know your address now OP. im gonna ninja my way to your drybox tonight.
>> Anonymous
no wide angle at all?

i would suggest buying the 18-55mm f2.8 tamron as the general purpose lens, i think the 85mm and the 80-200mm will be quite limiting
>> Anonymous
>>284360
9000 internets for you, sir.
>> Anonymous
>>284368
There are a lot of issues there that make it a totally unrelated point, though.

First of all, optics and lens technology have improved quite a bit in the past decade, much less few decades. The difference between primes and zooms has become much less apparent.

Next, Medium Format is a very different case from 35mm and 35's digital descendants. A much larger, higher "resolution" image means that glass quality is much more visible. Medium format glass is larger, so there's a lot more to move around inside the lens during zooming, causing possible quality loss, as well as a weight penalty. MF cameras are also primarily used for very controlled situations, where the fast ability to change focal length isn't critical, so primes aren't a disadvantage in that regard.

Finally, in the digital world, we're dealing with comparatively low quality, even in reference 35mm. With many lenses, the sensor's not capable of resolving the difference between high quality zooms and primes. This is especially notable with crop sensors, which, when used with standard 35mm lenses, only take the center of the image circle, rather than the edges of the glass where most zoom downsides (vignetting, softness, distortion, etc) appear.
>> Anonymous
>>284360
This.

I'm sure there are some people so great at photography they can make anything happen with any equipment. For the rest of us, I think what's important is to be happy with the end result. What does it matter if you get it with a prime or a zoom? With a nikon or a canon? Or by farting on cardboard? If you have time to worry about the minute details, you're not going to be wasting time on some internet forum.
>> Anonymous
>>284368
It is my understanding that there were no photographs on the cover of sports illustrated until IS, AF, and digital bodies with high iso performance came out.
>> Anonymous
I don't know what all the prime vs zoom rage is coming from. If you look at the numbers for all of canon's non-L wide primes, you'll see that they all have substantial distortion compared to the most third party mid-range zooms.

Sure, you get one or two and half stops of light, but with horrible optical quality. Just not worth it. I found that when I do street, I don't shoot at f/2 or even f/4. Sure I could be a Sonnar lens of CZJ shit to look bad ass, but in then end, for the work that I do, I don't need to shoot wide open on a any focal length shorter than 40. I'm not a bokeh whore. Though it sounds like most who advocate for primes at all costs are.

Niggah please. I don't even want to get into this argument because it's so dependent on what you shoot, and I all know most of /p/ shoots complete garbage.
>> Anonymous
>>284565
17-40L FTW
>> Anonymous
>>284530

My point was that 10+ years ago, people used, and happily used primes to shoot pretty much everything high end full frame DSLR's are shooting now. And MF gear was used in very uncontrolled situations (hell, so is/was LF to this very day), the exact same situations as are being shot now.

Primes aren't an advantage or a disadvantage for photography, neither are zooms. It just depends how you feel most comfortable shooting.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>284309
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/14-35_20swd/

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/


mmmm tasty
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
CAN YOU GUYS SEE ANYTHING HUH