File :-(, x, )
Cano 50mm 1.4 v.s. 1.8 Anonymous
which one should i get, /p/ ?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelE-1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2005:08:16 19:44:10Exposure Time1.6 secF-Numberf/18.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/18.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length101.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width640Image Height650
>> Anonymous
1.8 if you don't know why you'd want F1.4 over 1.8.
1.4 if you have a 40D or greater.
>> Anonymous
>>2763131.4 if you have a 5D/1Ds/film

fixed
>> Anonymous
>>276312

not everyone babies their gear.. some people actually use it.
>> Anonymous
Whichever one you like the look of better.

>>276319
While I've never touched the f/1.8 Canon, even plastic shit will last more than a year of beating and still work. I doubt it's the nadir of its type and wouldn't.
>> Anonymous
>>276320

>> in use

if you bang your stuff around, that's just you being an idiot
>> Anonymous
after 2 years of use, my firend's lens1.8 gets vigneting,CA,became extra-soft. shakes the barell inside when it does AF... whut should i expect of the 1.4 lens?
>> Anonymous
Depends what you plan to use it for.

If you casually use it, get the f/1.8. If you will use it very often, spring for the f/1.4.
>> Anonymous
>>276337
The same thing if you treat it like shit just like your friend. With care, it should long outlive its budget counterpart.
>> Anonymous
>gibberish
>> Anonymous
you shouldn't get anything that /p/ recommends
>> Anonymous
50mm 1.8 is such a limited use lens that the only reason to get it is the large aperture for cheap. The 1.4 takes away the only good thing about it away, so unless you are a portrait photographer, there are better lenses to get for the money.
>> Anonymous
So yeah this is /p/ and everyone says buy a entry level dslr and 50mm prime. Why? Because its good glass for cheap? Sounds fair enough.

The problem is its pretty much a useless lens. Ok its reasonable for portraits.. but still not as great as something longer like 80mm or 100mm. Its pretty good for live music i suppose.

Otherwise its pretty dumb. Its an akward focal length to walk around with. On street you are limited to having a single subject or moving so far away the subject moves into the background.

I think the only reason why people recommend a cheap 50mm as a first lens is so that kids with their new dslr want some noticeable bokeh to show how proffessional they are. Well fuck that.

Luckily i got out of this cheaply by purchasing an old ricoh 50mm for 20 bucks. Now i'd like to pass this on to everyone in buying first lens town, save your money for a lens with a normal to wide field of view if you want a walk around lens or a longer lens for portraits. Leave the 50mm for people who want minimum depth of field per dollar for wank factors. Crop sensors have killed the nifty fifty lets move on.
>> Anonymous
>>276442


I got the 1.8MkI as my first EF lens, after using a godawful sigma FD mount on my mother's A1. While it's certainly awkward to use in certain situations, for someone who's learning composition this is a great tool for learning. Once you've mastered the 50mm focal length on a crop sensor, you can easily learn to use wider and longer lengths with ease.


And to the OP: if you're budget has room for it, I'd go for the 1.4 since it is better built, I got the 1.8mk1 because I couldn't stand the cheapness of the new model after coming from FD glass. Or, get the 80mm f/1.8 or 100mm Macro and either the 35mm f/2 or 28mm f/2.8 for covering more effective range.
>> Anonymous
i never shoot tele so 50mm (80 on my 350D) is just the right focal. Does /p/ sugest : Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or sigma 18-50 f/2.8 instead of this prime?
or should i go out and buy 70-200 L series cuz it gets the ladyz (common buying of a white tele)