File :-(, x, )
Messing with 50 MM lens Anonymous
What does /p/ think of this shot? Just got this lens.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D40Camera SoftwareVer.1.10Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern670Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:11:21 16:36:42Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramNot DefinedISO Speed Rating800Lens Aperturef/2.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
I think you've missed the focus there.
>> Anonymous
Trying to use manual focus with D40 and any aperture smaller than 2.8 is hopeless. Forget 1.8 etc; since you won't be seeing where the focus really is.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>93162
More like f/2.5, as I understand it, but yeah.

And even then, with the tiny viewfinder of a cheap SLR like the D40, still might be hit or miss.

Might want to try bracketing focus a bit next time you're shooting at that aperture.
>> Anonymous
Doesn't the D40 have focus confirmation?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>93165
pffft cheap tiny viewfinder of the D40? try the D70s... man i hate that viewfinder so much... but i love the camera...

It's like having a best friend who you just wanna kick in the head.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>93168

if it's anything like teh D70s, it's off.
>> Anonymous
Also, I would have saved a lot more money and bought Sigma 30mm 1.4

Ok, it's a DX format glass, but think about all those photos you aren't taking while waiting for the consumer-priced FX body from Nikon ;)
>> Anonymous
>>93198

I've heard some bad things about that lens. It doesn't perform as well as I'd hoped. I've been looking for something in the 28-35 range with a wide aperture for a while now too. Disappointing.
>> Anonymous
>>93199
Really? I haven't heard a bad thing about it, except the usual gripe about autofocus on Canon bodies.

Try the Sigma 28/1.8.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>93199
Ya I know what you mean, I bought it and MAN was I dissapointed, For one It takes crappy pics Like seriously, I expected it to take better pics than all my other lenses that I have also been dissapointed with.
and like at F1.4 it doesn't let enough light in, Like it was totally almost daylight in that club. and Look how bad the flare is, you can't see half of the pic!
The HSM is totally inaccurate, That dudes Cell phone was going to make a sweet shot, And it totally autofocused on that douche behind him.
Plus its super fuzzy, you can't even see what make the cell phone is..

All in All I would NEVER recommend this lens to anyone.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsFocal Length (35mm Equiv)45 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern818Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:09:02 23:02:56RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length30.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width916Image Height1400
>> Anonymous
>>93173
AFAIK, focus confirmation works with the exact same sensor and way as autofocus, except instead of focusing the lens, it lights up a little red dot.
>> Anonymous
>>93202
im guessing you cant tell what make the phone is because it focused on that douche instead of the phone.
>> Anonymous
The Sigma wide primes seem to have trouble with sharpness across the frame, aberrations and vignetting. To be fair the Canon ones aren't a lot better.

If you look at some of the test results available it's disappointing. Nothing out there that matches the 50mm primes. A good 'normal' prime on a crop body is what I was hoping for. The problems of wider lenses it would seem.
>> Anonymous
>>93202
1. What ISO were you shooting at? That image looks absolutely clean. There is no way an f/1.4 lens isn't letting in enough light. You realize that, with the exceptions of the lucky freaks who get their hands on Noctiluxes, Noct-Nikkors, and whatever Canon called their f/.95 and f/1 offerings, f/1.4 is the fastest lens most photographers will ever shoot with?

2a. Buy a lens hood.
2b. Sigma lenses tend to be bad for flare.
2c. Almost all lenses will flare like the sun if you shine a light right into them like that.

3. All autofocus sucks in low light. The guy's cell phone has much, much more depth of field than your camera: an APS-C sized sensor and f/1.4, versus a 1/2.5" sensor at no wider than f/2.8.

4. That's called being out of focus, son. Learn to use it or go shoot the equatorial regions at noon.
>> Anonymous
>>93207
There's a lot of great wides floating around. The problem is that most of them are manual focus, and DSLR viewfinders are designed for autofocus.

One great but expensive autofocus wide is the Nikkor 28/1.4. Works out to a near-perfect normal 42mm equivalent on a DX sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>93210

I think if I tried to put that on my Canon DSLR it would explode.

Seriously though, what kind of price would a good prime like that be? There might there be adaptors to be able to use it manually for my use. Better still would be a decent Canon EOS prime. I've not had much look finding anything so far.
>> Anonymous
>>93212
I just searched for it on the Internet; second result shows Ken Rockwell quoting the price as $1,800.

It's pretty much made for photojournalists, I know that.
>> Anonymous
can someone explain what f/1.8 is and the difference between that and something else =_=
>> Anonymous
>>93217

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number
>> Anonymous
>>93209
Aww man, does no-one realize the humor in that post...

First off, Starts with a typical Fallacy, That new lenses will take better pictures for you (Aka make you a better photographer)

Second Like you noticed, at F1.4 this thing SOAKS up light

Third That isn't flare, Thats the spotlight lighting up the smoke in the air (Smoke machine)

Third the Autofocus is Dead on, I was actually showing how accurate the AF is, since it picked out a dark subject with little contrast (on a D50 even)

And lastly the whole Cell phone business = a joke, who would focus on a cellphone at a club (actually I do every once in a while, but the prime focus is the DJ performing, who if no-one recognized is Armin Van Buuren)

I was going to throw in a joke about how people only look at test charts and don't test lenses, like the one poster here, BUT I left that out too..

Truth is the 30mm f1.4 IS a fantastic lens.
>> Anonymous
>>93220
because we never throw out the idea that the person making any post here is an absolute idiot.
>> Anonymous
I didn't recognize him or the name of Armin Van Buuren. The closest I've heard of is Van Buren and he was a president.
>> Anonymous
>>93220
Wow, I totally missed that. Because I have seen posts as stupid as you pretended to be on /p/.

Nicely trolled, sir. Your win an Internet.
>> Anonymous
>>93220

Looking at charts and reviews is what you have to do if you can't afford to simply buy ten lenses to see what you like.
>> Anonymous
>>93230
Or you could test them out at a local camera store.
Or forget the test charts and look at sample pics with the lens, MTF charts and the like, don't tell you much about the lens.
ESPECIALLY MTF charts.

Reviews are good to read, but theres a lot of different types of photographers out there, One Lens I might hate, someone else might love.
>> Anonymous
>>93232

What's wrong with standard tests and charts?

I'm afraid my local lens stores are not nearly so accommodating and often have poor stock. I have tried asking that kind of thing and had no luck. They like to keep the customer's paws off of the goods. A lot of the old ones are long gone too thanks to the warehouse sellers.

All I have instead are charts, reviews and the test pictures.

I do understand "that it's the pictures that matter", but when I can't afford to make bad purchases I'll regret and I can't try before I buy it's harder going. The charts at least give some neutral experimental data which tends to be better than asking random opinions on many forums. The problem with looking at pictures online is that I don't always know what processing was done on them, I rarely get anything other than web sized pictures and composition and subject don't always allow for an objective judgement of a lens devoid of the photographer's efforts. Two pictures might look nice, but it's hard to tell which lens would be a better choice from that thanks to the endless variables other than the glass.

I usually resort to spending weeks or longer trying to sift through rumors, test shots, reviews and anything else I can find. If I could get my hands on them to try before I buy I'd do it every time and it'd make my life easier and my choices more sure. :/
>> Anonymous
OP here...so I'm guessing it'd be a bad idea if I bought the 50 MM lens I rented and took the original shot with? I mostly wanted it for low lighting shots, but I was hoping it'd be good for portraits. However the manual-focus only thing is turning out to be a little more difficult than I had thought...
>> Anonymous
>>93241

A 50mm prime is a nice addition to the kit. You could get the 1.8 very cheaply too. If you were willing you could get a Katz Eye focusing screen and that will help you a lot.

Losing the autofocus is a bitch, but with a better focusing screen you might be able to manage it.