File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
what does /p/ think of my new toys?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerJimmyMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:08:03 13:18:18Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height667RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
I think I am jealous.

Now stop showing off and post some photos you took with them assboy.
>> Anonymous
Beautiful set. Have fun.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Obligatory cat picture. yay for fast normal on crop
not posting any pictures from the 50 or the 85 because all the good ones i have taken with them are portraits and i'm sure the subjects would not appreciate having their pictures posted here

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshPhotographerJimmyMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:08:03 13:34:16Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1000Image Height667RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
pity you've got a shit camera
>> Anonymous
>>230566
lawl because your D40 is so much better amirite?
i'm saving up for a 5D
>> Anonymous
>>230566
gearfag
>> Anonymous
>>230567
no but my d700 is.
>> Anonymous
>>230571
pics or it never happened
>> Anonymous
Love the 85mm f/1.8, but the 50/1.4 sucks at f/1.4 and the 28/1.8 has a lot of spherical aberration wide open.

Although a good variety of lenses they ain't nothing to brag about. Show me 135/2L, 50/1.2L (although it sucks when stopped down due to problems you might know about) and 35/1.4L companioned with a 5D and i might be impressed a little.
>> Anonymous
>>230653
Where does this bullshit come from about the 50/1.4 sucking wide open?
>> Anonymous
>>230655
It's not the sharpest one wide open. It's not bullshit either :) Every Canon 50mm prime sucks.

Besided the 50/1.4 has a tedency to puke it's inner self our of the lens barrel every once in a while. Yet another reason for not buying the lense.
>> Anonymous
>>230658
The 50/1.4 is plenty sharp wide open. As sharp as you'll ever need.

>>230566
I shoot for publication with an XTi. A basic body, yes, but it puts out good files.
>> Anonymous
>>230662
That's fucking bullshit. It's plenty of sharp for interpolated and unsharp-masked-the-fuck-out pictures that you put on /p/.
>> Anonymous
>>230663
Unsharp masking is standard for digital files out of even a 1Ds Mk. III with a Leica 50 Summicron-R at its sharpest aperture stuck on the front.
>> Anonymous
>>230665
I know. It's to undo the negative effects (softness) due to the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor. There's nothing that can save bad optics though.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Yeah, it's too bad the 50/1.4 sucks so bad wide open...
>> Anonymous
>>230667
Unless that's a crop there's nothing you can tell about the image quality of the lens.
>> Anonymous
>>230669
Yes, because a photo's value can only be judged with a 100% crop?

Look closely, it looks fine.
>> Anonymous
>>230669
Except that it's more than sharp enough for any application. You can bitch about tiny technical flaws all you want, but it doesn't mean shit in the real world. It really doesn't. Has my editor ever bitched me out for shooting with an inferior lens? Never. Why not? BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING PLENTY SHARP FOR EVERYTHING ASIDE FROM JERKING OFF TO 100% CROPS OF TEST PATTERNS.
>> Anonymous
>>230672
Your editor? Don't bullshit me. Go watch a 4 feet poster up close and you wont most likely be seeing shitloads of spherical aberrations and post processing. (usm)

50/1.4 is a sad excuse of a lens wide open. f/2.8 is where it starts to shine.
>> Anonymous
>>230672
I know it's hard to believe, but yes, I do shoot professionally. Often with the 50/1.4. Often wide open. In terms of real world application, it's a good lens. Tell yourself whatever you like about spherical aberration, coma, or whatever other defective labels you want to slap on it, but the point remains that in terms of real world application, it's more than good enough, even wide open.
>> Anonymous
>>230674
More than good isn't what my employer is looking for and not me either.

Loving my 1Ds Mk II + 5D with the 85/1.2L II
>> Anonymous
>>230673
No one cares about optical perfection. Heavyweather, for instance, specifically just bought a bunch of old Nikkor primes that aren't as well corrected as an 18-55 kit lens. Why? Because subjectively- what counts- they look awesome.

The Canon 50/1.4 has a nice look to it at all apertures I've shot it at. It's definitely not the best fifty or even SLR fifty, but it's sitll very awesome. Better than the 50/1.2 Canon. Subjectively, which is what counts.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>230673
The 50 1.4 is faaaaar away from having "Bad optics" or being "a sad excuse of a lens wide open". You can make opinions from mtf charts all you like, but for $350 you're not going to do a whole lot better.
>> Anonymous
>>230675
Oooooooh mr fancypants has nice gear. Your opinion still shows you don't know shit about it, though.
>> Anonymous
>>230675
>>230676
Here. I hate the f/1.2 Canon looks. Too... slick is the term that comes to mind.

If I was buying a Canon EOS system, I'd take the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 over the f/1.2 ones any day.
>> Anonymous
>>230676
I do care about it and so does my employer.

>>230677
For those who really shoot professionaly, the cost isn't an issue.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>230675
Congratulations, you have better gear than us early twenties poor college students.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>230681
Posting that here doesn't make you cool. It makes you a working professional that lurks 4chan. laaaaame.
>> Anonymous
>>230680
What are you shooting where technical perfection takes precedence over subjective aesthetics?
>> Anonymous
>>230680
Your employer doesn't get it either.

>For those who really shoot professionaly, the cost isn't an issue.

Ahahahahahahahahaha fuck you really *don't* know shit about it. Cost is an issue for every commercial shooter I know, even the ones shooting with an H3D.
>> Anonymous
>>230681
Who said 20 years ain't enough for being a professional? I am 21 and do 80% of my income with photography.
>> Anonymous
>>230682
To be fair, even professionals get bored as fuck sometimes.
>> Anonymous
Actually, an 85mm 1.2 and a 5d isnt that expensive. If i made money off of photography, i'd probably buy the same thing.
>> Anonymous
>>230686
That and also there's some things that really get here before they spread elsewhere. Just lurking for boredom this time though. Don't post here alot.

>>230683
Mainly I do photomacrography with my MP-E, but i also do "regular" photography with various gear.
>> Anonymous
>>230685
80% of nothin is nothin
>> Anonymous
>>230698
Kinda guesses that was coming :) I make a solid 3000 euros per month.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>230705
Big deal. I make more than you.
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>230725
More risk though, prehaps.
>> No red bands d.dpeace
I'm a Canon L-glass snob. I'm not impressed.
>> Anonymous
>>230742
Quick! Get a red paint marker!
>> Shu
>>230750

Funniest post on /p/ this year!
>> Anonymous
the nikon 50mm primes shit all over the canon ones.
>> Anonymous
>>231083
The Nikkor 50/1.2 shits over every other SLR fifty, but the EF 50/1.8 and certainly the 50/1.4 are better than (both) the AF Nikkor 50/1.8 and 50/1.4. Very deficient bokeh, IMO, on those.