Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon Lens Question Try Again

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:05:23 AM

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

Hi All,

I have Digital Rebel XT and the following lenses: EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro w/Life
Size Converter, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM(Freebie), EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6m,
EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 70-200/f/4L USM w/1.4 Teleconverter, and 75-300mm
f/4.5-5.6 USM IS. With these lenses do I need to get a EF 50mm f/1.8. My
buddy who works at a camera shop says that the EF 50mm is a must have. I
would rather save up for a good wide angle lens. I know it is only about 100
bucks but that is 100 bucks towards a $700-800 wide angle lens.
I feel that I already have three lens that cover the 50mm range.

Thanks for you input.

--
Master Chef Richard Campbell
100% Delightfully Evil for Your Protection

More about : canon lens question

Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:05:24 AM

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

"Master Chef Richard Campbell" <chefmagnus@nospamameritech.net> writes:
> Hi All,
>
> I have Digital Rebel XT and the following lenses: EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro w/Life
> Size Converter, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM(Freebie), EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6m,
> EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 70-200/f/4L USM w/1.4 Teleconverter, and 75-300mm
> f/4.5-5.6 USM IS. With these lenses do I need to get a EF 50mm f/1.8. My
> buddy who works at a camera shop says that the EF 50mm is a must have. I
> would rather save up for a good wide angle lens. I know it is only about 100
> bucks but that is 100 bucks towards a $700-800 wide angle lens.
> I feel that I already have three lens that cover the 50mm range.
>
> Thanks for you input.

Your buddy is enthused about it because the 50mm f/1.8 is a tremendous
bargain that goes often overlooked by a lot of folks. The lure is
that it may be the sharpest and the fastest piece of glass in your
arsenal while being simultaneously the least expensive. How can ya
lose? If you ever shoot theater productions in available light
though, you'd be damned glad to have an f/1.7 for just $100.

"Must have" though? Nah... not if you don't need anything 2 stops
faster than your 50mm f/2.5 for low light or for extremely shallow
depth of field effects.

While it's clear you have GAS (gear acquisition syndrome), it's a coin
toss as to whether you have to have the 50mm f/1.8 on the way to the
wide angle lens. No one would fault ya either way.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:19:38 AM

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

"Master Chef Richard Campbell" <chefmagnus@nospamameritech.net> wrote in
news:7Ye7e.2140$Qb2.215@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:

> I have Digital Rebel XT and the following lenses: EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro
> w/Life Size Converter, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM(Freebie), EF-S
> 18-55/3.5-5.6m, EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 70-200/f/4L USM w/1.4
> Teleconverter, and 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM IS. With these lenses do I
> need to get a EF 50mm f/1.8. My buddy who works at a camera shop says
> that the EF 50mm is a must have. I would rather save up for a good
> wide angle lens. I know it is only about 100 bucks but that is 100
> bucks towards a $700-800 wide angle lens. I feel that I already have
> three lens that cover the 50mm range.

You've got other lenses that cover the 50mm focal length. Unless you need
the speed, or are unhappy with the performance of your existing glass at
50mm, there's no need for yet another lens to cover 50mm.

Perhaps the best rule of thumb is my first rule of shopping: Don't ask the
tire salesman if you need new tires.

--
Albert Nurick | Nurick + Associates - Web Design
albert@nurick.com | eCommerce - Content Management
www.nurick.com | Web Applications - Hosting
Related resources
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 12:32:15 AM

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

On 4/13/05 3:05 PM, in article
7Ye7e.2140$Qb2.215@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com, "Master Chef Richard
Campbell" <chefmagnus@nospamameritech.net> wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I have Digital Rebel XT and the following lenses: EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro w/Life
> Size Converter, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM(Freebie), EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6m,
> EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 70-200/f/4L USM w/1.4 Teleconverter, and 75-300mm
> f/4.5-5.6 USM IS. With these lenses do I need to get a EF 50mm f/1.8. My
> buddy who works at a camera shop says that the EF 50mm is a must have. I
> would rather save up for a good wide angle lens. I know it is only about 100
> bucks but that is 100 bucks towards a $700-800 wide angle lens.
> I feel that I already have three lens that cover the 50mm range.
>
> Thanks for you input.
Unless you shoot a LOT in low light situations, save your money toward that
wide-angle! You already have the 50mm focal length covered in at least 3 of
your other lenses so you would really *have* to need the f/1.8 to buy yet
another lens in that focal length. Additionally, the Drebel XT is
relatively noise free at high ISO's so that alone can be worth an additional
stop or two with the lenses that you already have in low light situations.
Chuck
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 1:11:53 PM

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

Master Chef Richard Campbell wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I have Digital Rebel XT and the following lenses: EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro w/Life
> Size Converter, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM(Freebie), EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6m,
> EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 70-200/f/4L USM w/1.4 Teleconverter, and 75-300mm
> f/4.5-5.6 USM IS. With these lenses do I need to get a EF 50mm f/1.8. My
> buddy who works at a camera shop says that the EF 50mm is a must have. I
> would rather save up for a good wide angle lens. I know it is only about 100
> bucks but that is 100 bucks towards a $700-800 wide angle lens.
> I feel that I already have three lens that cover the 50mm range.

You do have the coverage. The only advantage of the f/1.8 is the speed
advantage. It is not a "must have" in your case, it is a nice-to-have.

You could always sell the 50mm f/2.5 macro and with the proceeds get the
f/1.8 and have some money left over to contribute to the wide angle lens.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 5:16:25 PM

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

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:05:23 +0000, Master Chef Richard Campbell wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I have Digital Rebel XT and the following lenses: EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro w/Life
> Size Converter, EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM(Freebie), EF-S 18-55/3.5-5.6m,
> EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 70-200/f/4L USM w/1.4 Teleconverter, and 75-300mm
> f/4.5-5.6 USM IS. With these lenses do I need to get a EF 50mm f/1.8. My
> buddy who works at a camera shop says that the EF 50mm is a must have. I
> would rather save up for a good wide angle lens. I know it is only about 100
> bucks but that is 100 bucks towards a $700-800 wide angle lens.
> I feel that I already have three lens that cover the 50mm range.
>
> Thanks for you input.

There is a school of "thought" that proclaims a 50mm fast lens is a must
have. I always ask "why?". Unless you have a specific need for a lens,
don't spend your money on it.

I have several 50mm lenses on a few old bodies, Canon, Nikon, Leica. They
are (were) the standard lenses that came with thse cameras and they do
offer an exceptional quality to price ratio. However, to say that they are
"must-have's" is a bit of a salesman's story.

--
The good old days start now.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 7:30:35 PM

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

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:16:25 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:
>There is a school of "thought" that proclaims a 50mm fast lens is a must
>have. I always ask "why?". Unless you have a specific need for a lens,
>don't spend your money on it.
>
>I have several 50mm lenses on a few old bodies, Canon, Nikon, Leica. They
>are (were) the standard lenses that came with thse cameras and they do
>offer an exceptional quality to price ratio. However, to say that they are
>"must-have's" is a bit of a salesman's story.

Nevertheless, 50s are:

1. Cheap;
2. A a good portrait lens;
3. They have great contrast and resolution.

I think they are a great economical supplement to kit lenses which don't
tend to do all that well at 50mm, where sharpness and detail is
important.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 7:45:19 PM

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

birch999@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>
> Nevertheless, 50s are:

f/1.7 .. f/1.8's

>
> 1. Cheap;

No. But they are high value for the price.

> 2. A a good portrait lens;

A poor portrait lens ... oops, on a cropped DSLR, not so bad.

> 3. They have great contrast and resolution.

4. Fast
5. Shallow DOF

But those last two were implied already I guess.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:54:19 PM

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 15:45:19 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> A poor portrait lens ... oops, on a cropped DSLR, not so bad.

While I like the FOV, some of the casual unposed portraits
I've taken with the Canon 50 f/1.8 are *too* sharp.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 11:54:20 PM

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

>>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> A poor portrait lens ... oops, on a cropped DSLR, not so bad.

>On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:54:19 +0000 (UTC), Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>While I like the FOV, some of the casual unposed portraits
>I've taken with the Canon 50 f/1.8 are *too* sharp.

Yeh . . . same here! Apart from the grandkidz, the rest of the crowd I
hang out with, isn't exactly amused with the idea of "sharp!"
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:23:43 AM

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

Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

> While I like the FOV, some of the casual unposed portraits
> I've taken with the Canon 50 f/1.8 are *too* sharp.

Shaking the camera really hard while taking the picture can help with that.

I mean, do you like blurry pictures?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:42:32 AM

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

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:23:43 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> While I like the FOV, some of the casual unposed portraits
>> I've taken with the Canon 50 f/1.8 are *too* sharp.
>
> Shaking the camera really hard while taking the picture can help with that.

Hey, I've gotta try that!

> I mean, do you like blurry pictures?

Usually not. But looking at a very sharp picture of an older
relative and realizing that showing it to her might bruise her
self-image, I did appreciate that one doesn't necessarily want
to use one's sharpest lenses for portraits.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 7:21:17 AM

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

Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>
> Usually not. But looking at a very sharp picture of an older
> relative and realizing that showing it to her might bruise her
> self-image, I did appreciate that one doesn't necessarily want
> to use one's sharpest lenses for portraits.
>

That is one area that Photoshop just might excel at ... fixing your
grandmother's portrait :-)
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:26:56 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

>
> While I like the FOV, some of the casual unposed portraits
> I've taken with the Canon 50 f/1.8 are *too* sharp.

Photoshop



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 8:35:17 PM

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

Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

> Usually not. But looking at a very sharp picture of an older
> relative and realizing that showing it to her might bruise her
> self-image, I did appreciate that one doesn't necessarily want
> to use one's sharpest lenses for portraits.

Photoshop. Try this: duplicate background layer. Set blending mode on
new layer to "hard light". Apply Gaussian blur to the new layer. If the
effect is too strong, back it off by decreasing the layer's opacity.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 8:54:41 PM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:35:17 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> [...] I did appreciate that one doesn't necessarily want
>> to use one's sharpest lenses for portraits.
>
> Photoshop. Try this: duplicate background layer. Set blending mode on
> new layer to "hard light". Apply Gaussian blur to the new layer. If the
> effect is too strong, back it off by decreasing the layer's opacity.

Thanks. I'll give it a shot this weekend. Tell me, what does
"hard light" mean? These blending modes are a mystery to me

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 9:17:19 PM

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

Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:

> Thanks. I'll give it a shot this weekend. Tell me, what does
> "hard light" mean? These blending modes are a mystery to me

From the help:

Multiplies or screens the colors, depending on the blend color. The
effect is similar to shining a harsh spotlight on the image.

If the blend color (light source) is lighter than 50% gray, the image
is lightened, as if it were screened. This is useful for adding
highlights to an image. If the blend color is darker than 50% gray,
the image is darkened, as if it were multiplied. This is useful for
adding shadows to an image. Painting with pure black or white results
in pure black or white.

"Soft light" can be effective also, using the same technique (blending in
a duplicated and blurred layer).

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
April 26, 2005 5:10:44 AM

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

In article <pan.2005.04.14.11.16.21.687000@home.com>,
Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:

>I have several 50mm lenses on a few old bodies, Canon, Nikon, Leica. They
>are (were) the standard lenses that came with thse cameras and they do
>offer an exceptional quality to price ratio. However, to say that they are
>"must-have's" is a bit of a salesman's story.

On a 1.6:1 DSLR, a 50mm lens is a nice portrait length.
April 26, 2005 5:13:52 AM

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

In article <115trbfbmcttua7@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:

>> While I like the FOV, some of the casual unposed portraits
>> I've taken with the Canon 50 f/1.8 are *too* sharp.
>
>Shaking the camera really hard while taking the picture can help with that.
>
>I mean, do you like blurry pictures?

There is some reason to this discussion!

If you are taking casual photos of women over 30, digital
clarity is not kind to them!

I mean, without even trying, I can count the pores on someone's nose.
In the Tri-X/Nikon FE days, that detail would have been lost in the
grain.

I don't even have enough skill with Photoshop to know how to deal with
this problem yet.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 5:47:06 AM

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

james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:

> If you are taking casual photos of women over 30, digital
> clarity is not kind to them!
>
> I mean, without even trying, I can count the pores on someone's nose.
> In the Tri-X/Nikon FE days, that detail would have been lost in the
> grain.
>
> I don't even have enough skill with Photoshop to know how to deal with
> this problem yet.

http://www.maccosmetics.com

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 9:25:36 AM

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

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:10:44 GMT, james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>
> On a 1.6:1 DSLR, a 50mm lens is a nice portrait length.

Agreed! I had a nice time shooting my family with one of those
(Canon's cheap f/1.8) at Passover seders this weekend.

http://narcissus.net/ralph.jpg
http://narcissus.net/joe.jpg

Both photos cropped, but only slightly.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 1:32:13 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:10:44 GMT, james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>
>>On a 1.6:1 DSLR, a 50mm lens is a nice portrait length.
>
>
> Agreed! I had a nice time shooting my family with one of those
> (Canon's cheap f/1.8) at Passover seders this weekend.
>
> http://narcissus.net/ralph.jpg
> http://narcissus.net/joe.jpg

Nice. with a 50mm take your shots a little further back (esp. ralph) to
avoid over emphasizing the nose (schnoz in yiddish?). Ralph also
would have looked better shot with the camera closer to mouth/eye level
(IMO).

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:22:51 PM

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

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:32:13 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
>> http://narcissus.net/ralph.jpg
>> http://narcissus.net/joe.jpg
>
> Nice. with a 50mm take your shots a little further back (esp. ralph) to
> avoid over emphasizing the nose (schnoz in yiddish?). Ralph also
> would have looked better shot with the camera closer to mouth/eye level
> (IMO).

I don't think his sister would have appreciated my standing on her
piano to photograph him, which is where you have me. :-) These
were candid/casuals, not posed or staged.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
April 26, 2005 6:22:52 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> I don't think his sister would have appreciated my standing on her
> piano to photograph him, which is where you have me. :-) These
> were candid/casuals, not posed or staged.

Candids/casuals can be improved 1000% with a moments thought to the
shot. These were actually quite nice with the high key BG and soft
light. A slight positioning change and you go from nice to great.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 9:17:59 PM

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

Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:23:43 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>> Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> While I like the FOV, some of the casual unposed portraits
>>> I've taken with the Canon 50 f/1.8 are *too* sharp.
>>
>> Shaking the camera really hard while taking the picture can help with that.

> Hey, I've gotta try that!

>> I mean, do you like blurry pictures?

> Usually not. But looking at a very sharp picture of an older
> relative and realizing that showing it to her might bruise her
> self-image, I did appreciate that one doesn't necessarily want
> to use one's sharpest lenses for portraits.

See http://www.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&selm=01...

Andrew.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 9:32:33 PM

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

On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:17:59 -0000, andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart <br+rpdss@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> Usually not. But looking at a very sharp picture of an older
>> relative and realizing that showing it to her might bruise her
>> self-image, I did appreciate that one doesn't necessarily want
>> to use one's sharpest lenses for portraits.
>
> See http://www.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en&selm=01...

Cool! Um, aside from the strangeness of combining the concepts of
"older relatives" and "men's magazines". Ok, let's just kill that
line of thought right now.

Thanks.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
!