50mm f1.8?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test2.htm
>
> Seems odd so many people bragging about this lens. I guess for an $80 lens
> it's good but given how soft the center is wide open and the edges are even
> at f2.5, I don't see what all the excitement is about. Looks like just
> another 30 year old design lens to me..
>
I bought one of those lenses just after getting a 20D body. It was
absolute rubbish. Soft is being kind. Dud design is closer to the point.
It wasn't as sharp as the 18~55 plastic lens which came with the camera!

Doug

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test2.htm
>
> Seems odd so many people bragging about this lens. I guess for an $80 lens
> it's good but given how soft the center is wide open and the edges are even
> at f2.5, I don't see what all the excitement is about. Looks like just
> another 30 year old design lens to me..
>

I don't know about people "bragging" :-) It's an all plastic sub-$100.00
lens. You can't hold one in your hand without thinking 'cheap'.

As the test shows.. They're pretty good if you stop them down a bit. With
the digital camera crop, the edges aren't as big a problem. It's a great budget
lens for those who can't afford the 50mm f/1.4

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim Townsend wrote:

> It's a great
> budget lens for those who can't afford the 50mm f/1.4

Is the 50 f1.4 any better wide open? Just curious as I know the old OM 50mm
f1.4 I have isn't as sharp as the 50 f1.8 at f1.8.

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37tdr5F5eo61mU2@individual.net...
> Jim Townsend wrote:
>
>> It's a great
>> budget lens for those who can't afford the 50mm f/1.4
>
> Is the 50 f1.4 any better wide open? Just curious as I know the old OM
> 50mm
> f1.4 I have isn't as sharp as the 50 f1.8 at f1.8.
>
> --
>
> Stacey

The f1.4 isn't much, if any, better wide open, but it is slightly better at
f1.8 than the 50mm f1.8 is.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Thanx, several people had posted here that this 50mm f1.8 was
"sharp" wide
> open, nice to know the truth.

Just curious, who said it was sharp wide open?
This is the link to the data on the lens, clearly not that sharp wide
open,
but at f-8 it looks great.
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/c [...] delid=7306

Scott

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:37ve6sF5j2460U2@individual.net...
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> "Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>
>>> Is the 50 f1.4 any better wide open? Just curious as I know the old OM
>>> 50mm
>>> f1.4 I have isn't as sharp as the 50 f1.8 at f1.8.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Stacey
>>
>> The f1.4 isn't much, if any, better wide open, but it is slightly better
>> at f1.8 than the 50mm f1.8 is.
>>
>
>
> Thanx, several people had posted here that this 50mm f1.8 was "sharp" wide
> open, nice to know the truth.
> --
>
> Stacey

Well, Stacey, it's about as sharp as a sub-$100 fast lens can be expected to
be, wide open or not. It is certainly "sharp enough" for most people, and
for those it's not, there's the f1.4, which costs nearly 4x as much. I've
never met a fast lens that was as sharp wide open as it is stopped down,
even moderately, and that includes my Schneider 50mm f2 for my old Exacta.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 21 Feb 2005 20:15:07 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Well if anybody actually cares what this lens can do here are two
>photos. The first is taken wide open, and I have said earlier it is
>soft when wide open, but very useable. BTW this opens up my rather
>eclectic book collecting to the world for viewing.
>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/40040906/original,jpg
>This next photo was taken at f 2.5 and looks pretty sharp to my eye.
>http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/40040610/original.jpg



Horowitz and Hill. Right up there
with Betty Crocker, Scott Adams and
Mary Shelley. Nice collection,
but needs more fiction.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

rafe bustin wrote:


> Horowitz and Hill. Right up there
> with Betty Crocker, Scott Adams and
> Mary Shelley. Nice collection,
> but needs more fiction.

I have way too much fiction to fit on the bookcase, it is in other
shelves.

Scott

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
> >
> > and is on a crusade to prove that Canon is junk.
>
> LOL Now that's funny!

You're the one who came up with the irreproducable results that the E300
"looked like medium format" and Canon images were "waxy".

Those are both completely ridiculous. So you've started out badly.

> You and Rafe post to EVERY olympus thread, even started several bad
mouthing
> them yourself about how useless they are and why any canon is SO much
> better. You used this specific lens as an example of how much better a
> canon is because it's .2f faster than the olympus version?

Not me. I didn't mention the 50/1.8, only the 50/1.4. And only with the
concept that in conjunction with the faster sensor it's two stops faster
than anything Oly offers.

If you want to compare f/2.0 lenses wide open, try the Canon 100/2.0. The
Canon 50mm lenses are designed as normal angle of view lenses, so the Oly
lens has a lot easier time of it.

As I've pointed out, the 4/3 idea is a good idea: smaller format lenses
always perform better in lp/mm terms (but _not_ lph terms) than larger
format lenses. If you got your facts right and understood the advantages
(and disadvantages) of the 4/3 format, there is an argument for it. (In
particular, moving to a larger format runs into diminishing returns, so the
smaller format is often not as bad as the geometry predicts.) You haven't
made that argument, though.

> Then said it's
> "high quality is wideely post6ed on the net" so I was curious since you
> said how good it is wide open that I looked for some real info and this
was
> what I found. Seems what you said and the truth don't quite agree?

The 50/1.4 is a lovely portrait lens at f/1.4 and provides low-light
performance the E300 can't dream of. And stopped down, it's one of the best
lenses you can buy for any camera for any amount of money. Oly has nothing
close.

> The "crusade" seems to be canon owners bashing anything non-canon made
> because only an idiot would buy something different from what they chose
> and there can't be ANYTHING not absolutely perfect about what they own!

The Canon fans are irritated at how badly certain 4/3 fans have got it.

There's a gaping hole between APS-C and 6.6x8.8mm, and filling it makes
sense. Claiming that a smaller sensor is anything other that a convenience
for image quality tradeoff though, is simply contrary to fact.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:

> The "crusade" seems to be canon owners bashing anything non-canon
made
> because only an idiot would buy something different from what they
chose
> and there can't be ANYTHING not absolutely perfect about what they
own!
>

Is that what this whole thread is about? Canon vs. Olymus?

There is nothing wrong with the E300, a fine camera that can take great
photos.... of course it is not a 20D

Ok I am sorry for that, really. The E300 really does look like a
pretty good camera, and for $700 a real bargin. It is really unfair to
compare it to the 20D, which costs almost twice as much.

But if my choice were between a film 35mm and the E300 I would go for
the E300 in a heart beat. The E300 is a great camera because it does
give a alternative to the rather costly Canon DSLRs. And in the end it
might well have more of an impact of digital photography then Canon's
cameras.

Scott

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Email me your mailing address, I'll send you a print and let you
decide.. Or
> I can email you the file and let you print it 8X10 and then =LOOK AT
THE
> PRINT= not 100% on screen crops.

Why not put it up on the web and post a link to it, that way we could
all print it out and look at it.

In general I agree with you that looking at the print is the only good
way to evaluate the quality of an image.

Scott

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:

>
> Stacey wrote:
>
>> The "crusade" seems to be canon owners bashing anything non-canon
> made
>> because only an idiot would buy something different from what they
> chose
>> and there can't be ANYTHING not absolutely perfect about what they
> own!
>>
>
> Is that what this whole thread is about? Canon vs. Olymus?

It started out me wondering if these canon 50mm lenses were "sharp" wide
open like several people have claimed. I can see now they are about like
the 50mm primes on my old OM 35mm SLR.

>
> There is nothing wrong with the E300, a fine camera that can take great
> photos.... of course it is not a 20D
>
> Ok I am sorry for that, really.

Don't be, it's not equal to the $8000 dSLR's either.. But that is the
typical responce but ussually worse.

It does what I need it to do and I guess I should just ignore the bashing it
get's from people who've never used it? It's not like I didn't try several
of these cameras, print the results and choose from that. I also based it
on things like never having to deal with cleaning the sensor or worrying
about where I change lenses. That the camera does pixel mapping itself etc.
But when I post my -subjective- opinion, of course I get lots of abuse by
people who have read web reviews? Guess I should expect that.

--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <3807bfF5hl5pqU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> It started out me wondering if these canon 50mm lenses were "sharp" wide
> open like several people have claimed. I can see now they are about like
> the 50mm primes on my old OM 35mm SLR.
>
Yes, the design is basically unchanged from the fifties. But they are
pretty sharp to me by f2.8 (I have the 50mm f1.4 but I doubt there would
be much difference to the 1.8 by f2.8).

Note, I am making no judgement or comparison to the Oly - I haven't used
one.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

[posted & emailed]
Kibo informs me that Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> stated that:

>Scott W wrote:
>> Stacey wrote:
>> > Email me your mailing address, I'll send you a print and let you
>> decide.. Or
>>> I can email you the file and let you print it 8X10 and then =LOOK AT
>> THE
>>> PRINT= not 100% on screen crops.
>>
>> Why not put it up on the web and post a link to it, that way we could
>> all print it out and look at it.
>
>Don't have the bandwidth..

No problem, I can spare enough bandwidth to host it for you for a week.

>feel free to email me for a copy.

Done. I'll put it up on one of my websites when I receive it from you, &
post the URL here.
I'll also put up a couple of comparison shots taken with the 50mm/F1.8II
on my 10D.

>> In general I agree with you that looking at the print is the only good
>> way to evaluate the quality of an image.
>>
>
>That's the way I see it since I planned on looking at prints, not 100%
>crops?

Um. I believe that the shots you were describing as 'soft' in your first
post in this thread /were/ 100% crops.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------