Canon XSi...What are my prime lens options?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by angela_collins, Nov 27, 2012.

  1. Hello all! Very new to this forum but so glad I stumbled upon it! I am merely a mom who enjoys taking pictures...mostly of my children and childrens' sporting events. I have the Canon Rebel XSi with the EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS lens. This lens suits everything I do, nicely but I would love a prime lens. I have been doing a small bit of research and I believe the lens I am looking for is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.
    Only problem with that is my budget ;) I'm looking to stay below $200. Are there any options out there for me? I have seen a similar lens but it was a 52mm filter length, whereas I have a 58mm. Is there such a thing that would allow me to use the 52mm? An attachement perhaps? Maybe an off-brand as opposed to Canon?
    Sorry if any of this seems elementary, but I am teaching myself how to take pictures, learning to only shoot in AV mode. I have a friend that does take pictures professionally but uses a Nikkon. She can't help me with my Canon.
    Thanks in advance for your help!
    Angela C.
     
  2. Look at the EF 50mm 1.8. This lens is cheap, new for just over $100 used for anywhere between $60-$80. It isn't the best build quality but it's image quality is known as one of the best for the price. I'm not sure what you mean by the filter thread but I'm guessing you are looking at add on lenses for the 18-55, I would steer clear of these since they won't offer you any benefit for what you are looking for.
     
  3. The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a very fine, if sometimes a little fragile, lens. However, the lens variously known as the "plastic fantastic" or the "nifty fifty" -- the EF 50mm f/1.8 -- is only a little slower and costs much less - I think it is still the cheapest lens in the whole Canon EOS inventory (for just one example link ).
    As its nicknames suggest, it looks a little like it came out of a Crackerjack box, but it seems to be at least as durable as the f/1.4 and its out-of-focus highlights are only a little less satisfactory than the faster lens. These 50mm lenses will be a nice, short telephoto on your camera.
    For your XSi (APS-C format) camera, a more "normal" lens solution would be the EF 35mm f/2 lens, although it goes for more $$.
     
  4. Consider the 50mm f1.8, commonly called the "plastic fantastic" because it's optical quality is amazing for a lens with a list price of $125.99.
     
  5. Hi Angela . welcome to photonet. Hope you enjoy all the features here. From the Learning tab to advice on gear. Matt.. JDM and Bill and myself agree 50mm 1.8 mk2 ... Sparkler .. Enjoy Regards miken
     
  6. The new EF 40/2.8 STM is an outstanding, super light and compact, inexpensive prime, but it is a little slow.
     
  7. There are several prime lens options available to you right now. Some are well within your budget.
    You can get the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 for around $110 new. It is actually a very good lens for the money. You will probably shoot it stopped down a few stops to be as sharp as possible. The bokeh isn't as pleasing as the 50mm f1.4 but it will definitely blur the background.
    The other option is the new EF 40mm f2.8 lens. They are for sale everywhere for $150 new. I just picked up one and really, really like it. Its around 65mm equivalent on a rebel. I have mine on a T3i and it's nice. I wish it were a f2.0 lens instead but f2.8 still lets in a lot of light. And I like the bokeh of this lens better than the 50mm f1.8. From my limited testing, my copy seems to get crazy sharp stopped down once to f3.2. But still very, very nice at f2.8. The focusing is very quiet and probably as good or slightly faster than the 50mm f1.8.
    The EF 50mm f1.4 would probably be a better overall option but it's over twice the money of the 40mm lens. And its a bit tight on the crop camera. It will focus faster than the other two so if you are trying to capture a lot of active motion maybe this is a better choice. Many people (including myself) have had the AF fail in the 50mm f1.4 so hopefully if you purchase new this is no longer an issue. Also, I rarely shoot the 50mm below f2, below that especially at f1.4 and f1.6 it is quite soft except the center.
    I'm a fan of 24mm or 35mm on crop bodies for portraits (for more FOV) but those lenses start pushing beyond $300 pretty quickly. Perhaps you can find a used Canon EF 35mm f2 or Sigma 30mm - but expect to go beyond your budget.
     
  8. Hi Angela. you can put up some of your photos here, in the critique section( if you need help just ask) then you will get some helpful advice , not just on your photos , but if you have areas where other lens (insert money to spend) might be helpful.. Be friends Regards Miken
     
  9. With some searching there are some other lenses you might find used in your price range. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 28mm f/1.8, and Canon 35mm f/2 all come to mind. But the simplest choices are the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and 40mm f/2.8.
    I have seen a similar lens but it was a 52mm filter length, whereas I have a 58mm. Is there such a thing that would allow me to use the 52mm? An attachement perhaps?​
    This only matters if you're using a filter, which you are not obligated to do. But if you do want to share filters, a 52mm-to-58mm step-up ring would work fine. They're inexpensive and effective.
     
  10. I'd start by asking:
    but I would love a prime lens​
    Why? What do you want to do with it that your current lens won't do? The answer should guide what (if anything) you buy.
    If you want something faster, either for the speed or narrower DOF, my next question would be: how fast? If f/2.8 is fast enough, you don't need a prime.
    If you do end up deciding that a prime is the way to go, the third question is: what focal length? Your current lens should help you decide. 50mm was standard in the days of 35mm film, because on a 35 mm camera, or a FF DSLR, it is roughly a 'normal' lens, that is, a lens with a perspective similar to the naked eye. When you positioned yourself to fill the frame with a face, for example, the face looked "normal"--not flattened as a telephoto would produce, and not bulbous like a wide-angle. On a crop, the field of view with a 50mm is comparable to an 80mm on a 35 mm camera. For the same framing, you would stand further back, giving you a slightly flattened perspective. This is pleasing for some purposes--a common length for portrait lenses on a 35mm was in the range of 80-105 mm--but it is not 'normal.' If you want a normal perspective on a crop sensor camera, you would need to go shorter. If 50mm is right, then it would be hard to go wrong with the nifty fifty, given your budget.
     
  11. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Welcome to Phot.net
    I have been doing a small bit of research and I believe the lens I am looking for is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4. Only problem with that is my budget ;) I'm looking to stay below $200. Are there any options out there for me?​
    EF50F/1.8 MkII
    +++
    I have seen a similar lens but it was a 52mm filter length, whereas I have a 58mm. Is there such a thing that would allow me to use the 52mm?​
    'Step Up Ring' 52mm → 58mm (should be a few dollars, sub US$20)
    +++
    Thanks in advance for your help!​
    For 'help', answering the questions posed, is necessary.
    +++
    “I believe the lens I am looking for is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.”​
    Why, specifically, do you believe this?
    WW
     
  12. First, why is it that you think that 50mm is what you need? (And others, please don't jump in and tell her why she needs it - I want to hear her reasoning first.)
    Second, what are you looking to achieve by getting a prime? Is there some way that your zoom, which also covers the 50mm focal length, is falling short for you? (Again, others, please let her answer this from her own perspective before jumping in, OK?)
    I ask these questions for several reasons:
    • First, sometimes people get advice about certain things (like focal length or like primes) that was appropriate a decade or more ago, but which makes a lot less sense today when other options are better for most photographers in your situation.
    • Second, there is some very questionable advice provided to beginners sometimes, occasionally by people trying to be helpful, that, at a minimum, calls for hearing alternative points of view.
    • Third, you mention that "this lens suits everything I do," yet you want another lens, and a specific one at that. Is there something that you want to do that is different from "everything I do?" If so, can you tell us more about that thing?
    • Finally, with a better idea of specifically what you are after (beyond trying a prime, for reasons unknown), we can probably do a much better job of helping your find what will serve your needs most effectively.
    Good luck!
    Dan
     
  13. You have several options for an under $200 prime lens. With respect to new Canon lenses, you are really limited to the
    EF 40/F2.8 and the EF 50/F1.8 in that range. With used Canon lenses from reputable sources, you can add the EF
    28/F2.8.

    You may also be able to get an under $200 used deal on one of the $300-400 primes, like the EF 20/F2.8, EF
    28/F1.8, EF 50/F1.4, EF 35/F2, or EF 85/F1.8 on an auction site.

    I really recommend that you answer some of the questions that have been posed by folks like WW and Dan, because the answers can help direct you to the right lens for you, if you even need one.
     
  14. “I believe the lens I am looking for is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.”
    Why, specifically, do you believe this?
    WW​
    Forgive my ignorance, but when reading the specs on the different lenses, I thought that the filter size (58mm) had to be the same as the lens that is currently on my XSi (58mm). My apologies...
     
  15. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Forgive my ignorance, but when reading the specs on the different lenses, I thought that the filter size (58mm) had to be the same as the lens that is currently on my XSi (58mm). My apologies...​
    OK. Thanks for the quick reply
    No apology is necessary.
    So what you are saying is the ONLY reason you chose the EF50F/1.4 as a Prime Lens, is because the Filter Size is 58mm and that is the same filter size as the lens you already have?
    If this is so: then that is NOT a good reason to buy that lens.
    The next question I would like answered is: “What can’t you do with your kit lens which you think you can do or want to do with a Prime Lens?”
    WW
     
  16. So what you are saying is the ONLY reason you chose the EF50F/1.4 as a Prime Lens, is because the Filter Size is 58mm and that is the same filter size as the lens you already have?
    The next question I would like answered is: “What can’t you do with your kit lens which you think you can do or want to do with a Prime Lens?”
    Sort of...I listed that specific lens because at this point I am clueless as to what lenses are compatible with my camera. I don't think I was intending to buy it, but rather throwing it in there to see if I was correct in my assumption that that lens was the only one compatible with my camera. I see now that my assumption was wayyyy off base :)
    As for what I want to do that I can't already achieve with my current lens...I'm not 100% sure that what I want to do is something that I can't do with what I have. I'm sure I can, but not sure I know enough to get the right results (for me). I am looking for sharper pictures with a better Depth of Field. When shooting in AV (always), shooting candid shots of my kids, I can't get the fstop to go lower than 4.5, despite it being a f3.5 lens..probably user error ;) I'm just looking for sharper focus with more bokeh..Am I making sense?
     
  17. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Sort of...​
    OK, understood.
    +++
    I listed that specific lens because at this point I am clueless as to what lenses are compatible with my camera.​
    In Canon Brand - All "EF" and "EF-S" Mount lenses, are compatable with your camera.
    +++
    As for what I want to do that I can't already achieve with my current lens...I'm not 100% sure that what I want to do is something that I can't do with what I have. I'm sure I can, but not sure I know enough to get the right results (for me). I am looking for sharper pictures with a better Depth of Field.
    OK. I understand.
    Probably ‘sharper’ is more dependent upon your Post Production technique, than a lens, assuming that Focus and the three Exposure Parameters (Av, Tv and ISO) are the most suitable for the capture.
    I think you mean “a Shallower DoF” meaning you want a ‘faster lens’, one with a LARGER Maximum Aperture (or smaller f/number).
    +++
    When shooting in AV (always), shooting candid shots of my kids, I can't get the fstop to go lower than 4.5, despite it being a f3.5 lens..probably user error ;) I'm just looking for sharper focus with more bokeh..Am I making sense?​
    Yes you make complete sense, nothing I haven’t heard before, lots of times: don’t sweat it.
    Some slightly technical stuff to make more sense of it all:
    can't get the fstop to go lower than 4.5, despite it being a f3.5 lens
    Your kit lens is a VARYING MAXIMUM APERTURE ZOOM lens, at 18mm it is capable of F/3.5, but at 55mm it is only capable of F/5.6
    (note this is designated in the lens’s nomenclature: EF-S 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS lens)
    You are likely using the kit lens in Av Mode when the lens is never ONLY at 18mm, hence it will never make F/3.5.
    looking for sharper focus
    As a preliminary guess, shooting in Av Mode I suspect that you are NOT using flash all that often? If so then the camera is adjusting the Shutter Speed (Tv) and in many circumstances it will be quite slow, slow enough to capture SUBJECT MOVEMENT - a faster lens MIGHT arrest that problem, but increasing the ISO (if possible) might, also.
    Subject Movement is OFTEN mistaken for lack of Sharpness
    more bokeh
    We can’t have ‘more’ bokeh – but we can have it ‘nicer’.
    Most people think that a Prime Lens will give you better Bokeh than the Kit lens you have.
    BUT – do not confuse Bokeh, with Subject Separation: Subject Separation can be made with the Kit Lens you have.
    ***
    BOTTOM LINE:
    If you have the cash available, I suggest you buy a Prime Lens: I suspect you will have fun with it.
    I suspect the purchase will provide you with more questions, than solutions in the short term.
    I also suggest that you follow up on learning more about what you have and how to best use it. Little steps – the first week of Piano Practice drove me mad – all I did was C Major two octaves (I was 40 when I began learning the piano), but I am so glad my Piano Teacher was such old nasty cranky teacher and made me do that first, very, very small step.
    ***
    What Prime lens to buy?
    I suggest you set a couple of PROJECTS for yourself. Set the Kit Lens at FL=50mm and use it that way for a week (NO exceptions).
    PLAN and MAKE at least 500 Photographs (I am NOT kidding) of MANY different Scenes and Subjects.
    The next week, set it at FL=35mm and do the same.
    That exercise will stand you in good stead for a choice of the FOCAL LENGTH you might want to explore.
    WW
     
  18. In addition to the excellent advice you've already received, I'll point out something that most beginners don't know: For almost any lens, the larger the aperture you use (i.e. lower aperture number), the less sharp your photo will be. On your camera, most lenses are going to be at their sharpest around f/8 or f/11. (Then for smaller apertures -- e.g. f/16, f/22 -- sharpness declines again for a different reason.)
    So it will be difficult to simultaneously meet your objectives of sharper and less depth of field IN THE SAME PHOTO. You might achieve a very shallow depth of field at some sacrifice of sharpness, or you might maximize sharpness and have a much less shallow depth of field. However, you can't really do both at the same time. I hope that makes sense.
    The other thing you should know is that your 18-55 IS lens is already a pretty sharp lens. Like the plastic fantastic (50/1.8), it's one of Canon's bargain performers.
    Anyway, there's nothing wrong with wanting to shoot at large apertures. I just wanted you to know what the tradeoffs are.
     
  19. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

  20. see images 6 and 7 (you can view them large) and note this is the poorer quality lens without IS, used wide open at F/3.5​
    The difference in 6 and 7 is remarkable! Same camera, same lens? Thank you so much for all of your help, WW! I really appreciate it! I will take your advice and set my focus at 50mm and go from there. I try to take all of this information in and sometimes it feels like it goes in one ear and out the other! Not to mention getting discouraged when I read, read, read and put the information to work on my camera then getting less than stellar results! Very frustrating :) Lots of blurry shots, where I had hoped for sharp, focused shots.
    Thank you to everyone else that offered advice and words of wisdom.
     
  21. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    The difference in 6 and 7 is remarkable! Same camera, same lens?​
    Not different images . . . it is the SAME image.
    #7 is the enlarged view of #6, to show the corner section.
    "and put the information to work on my camera then getting less than stellar results!"​
    Yes, I agree - you should hear me play the piano - I am certainly not concert material, very frustrating - and after so many years' practice.
    WW
     
  22. "Forgive my ignorance, but when reading the specs on the different lenses, I thought that the filter size (58mm) had to be the same as the lens that is currently on my XSi (58mm). My apologies..."​
    Angela, no apology needed. Every one of us has been confused by various technical things related to photography, especially early on... but even later. :)

    I'm still not quite certain what you are looking for, so let me just spill some information that may help. Feel free to ask questions or for clarification, or to point out ideas that conflict with what you may have been told elsewhere.
    • You probably understand now that the filter size of your lenses does not have to be the same. If you use filters and if you are looking at two lenses that are otherwise equally attractive, you might select the one that has a filter thread diameter matching your current lens since that means that your existing filters would work without needed adapter rings or an additional filter. But in your case, it doesn't seem like an issue.
    • One of the valid reasons for using a prime lens rather than you kit zoom might be that you want to shoot at larger apertures. (Better to refer to them as "larger" or "smaller" than as "wide/narrow.") Larger apertures (like f/1.4 instead of f/3.5) can let you shoot at the same shutter speed in lower light, and they also provide a shallower depth of field. The latter has its pluses and minuses. The narrow depth of field may produce a nice smooth out-of-focus bokeh effect on things that are in front of or behind your main subject, but is also means that only a very narrow range of subject distances will be in focus.
    • The reason your zoom only seems to go to f/5.6 is that it is a variable aperture zoom lens. The maximum aperture is smaller at longer focal lengths - e.g. f/5.6 at 55mm and f/3.5 at 18mm.
    • Sharpness is a tricky thing. At the very large apertures, sharpness generally declines, even on the subject that is exactly at the focus point - that is just the way most lenses work. As mentioned earlier, your zoom is probably at its sharpest in the f/5.6-f/8 range. If you stop down more, while you may increase the depth of field, you also begin to reduce the maximum sharpness. At f/22 you can probably see this reduction.
    • A great way to understand this stuff more clearly is, as I think you have been doing, to just try stuff out. Photograph something at f/5.6 and at f/8 and so forth and then look at the results and compare.
    • We often hear many people recommend a 50mm prime lens because back in the days a few decades ago when people shot 35mm film SLR cameras and when quality zooms were far too expensive, it was customary to start with an inexpensive prime lens that had a roughly so-called "normal" field of view. However, on your camera, with its smaller APS-C cropped sensor, the 50mm focal length performs differently that it did on those older cameras. It is no longer a "normal" focal length, but actually a short telephoto. In most ways you care about, putting a 50mm lens on your camera is like putting a 80mm lens on those old cameras.
    • The kit lens you have - assuming you have the image-stabilized (IS) version - is actually a decently sharp lens. If you are having problems getting sharp images from it, the lens is most likely not at fault. It could be your shutter speed, focusing technique, etc. As long as the lens is functioning correctly, if you are getting unsharp photographs from it at 50mm, you will likely also get unsharp photos from a 50mm prime.
    • Despite what someone said above - and it is, I suppose, technically correct (though not quite that simple) - when you write "more bokeh," we all know what you mean. :) If you write "better" or "smoother" bokeh when comparing lenses, you'll avoid that issue.
    • You have a lot of questions and are working to figure things out. (Good for you!) At this stage, I encourage people to not buy more lenses, but instead to shoot a lot, think a lot about what happens and how things work, ask questions, experiment. You want to establish a base of experience and understanding before you buy more stuff.
    • (Having said that, you did ask a question about what lenses are compatible with your camera. An easy, slightly-less-than-all-inclusive answer is that virtually any Canon EF or EFS lens will work with your camera.)
    About the 50mm lens, specifically... the only significant thing that it will get you is smoother background blur, a bit narrower depth of field, and the ability to photograph moving subjects in somewhat lower light. To get this you give up a great deal of flexibility, and you are unlikely to notice any difference in sharpness at this point. I'd wait if I were you.
    Good luck!
    Dan
     
  23. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    "Despite what someone said above . . .
    jeez, not even at Christmas time does the theme change . . .
     
  24. William W, if we really want to get into the technical root meaning of the term "bokeh," the discussion gets way more complicated than you or I or the OP want to see. It isn't even exactly about stuff that is out of focus.
    In the case of a newbie with very basic questions, I think I'd be inclined to let "more bokeh" go for now, as we all know what she means. Even at Christmas... ;-)
    Dan
     
  25. Good advice all around. I'll add one thing:
    I will take your advice and set my focus at 50mm and go from there.​
    You misunderstood, I think. Most people feel the image stabilized (IS) version of the 18-55 is superior optically to the older non-imaged stabilized version. I tend to fall into that camp, although in all honesty I've never used the non-IS version. I do have the IS version and use it sometimes because of its size and weight. William's point was that the non-IS version (which you don't have) is better than most people give it credit, and I must say his images are somewhat convincing, at least at the focal length shot. (Zooms often vary considerably in image quality throughout their zoom range.) Or perhaps his point was that your lens is even better than the lens whose images he showed you, so it must be pretty sharp. I agree.
    However, William's point WAS NOT that you should set your lens to 50mm and only use that focal length. There is nothing inherently superior about the 50mm focal length, at least for a zoom lens. You should use whatever focal length you feel suits what you're shooting!
    One last note: I think I'm reading a bit of frustration on your end from all the technical stuff. If you were to hang out on this forum long enough, you'd come to believe the technical stuff is what photography is all about. However, people arguing technical stuff here fall mostly into two camps -- those with cutting-edge equipment demands (for instance people producing wall-sized prints) and equipment geeks who simply enjoy the technical details of their equipment.
    However, my advice to you would be simply to start shooting pictures and enjoy the fruits of our optical advancements to date. Don't worry about chasing the best or sharpest, as that is usually a false pursuit. Instead, worry about photographing what you want to photograph.
    Lenses can sometimes be a limitation. However, when you encounter such a limitation, you will know it. One such limitation might be that you want a larger aperture for shallower depth of field. If you feel this way and have the budget to solve the limitation, then go ahead and get the faster lens. You will always KNOW limitations when you encounter them, and they won't feel like, "I don't know, I just would like something a bit better."
    FAIW, I'm a lens and technique heretic. I break all the rules: I rarely use a tripod. I often shoot with much "too slow" a shutter speed... HANDHELD! GASP! I usually use zoom lenses. Even worse, my zoom lenses are SLOW -- f/4 and above. I sometimes commit other transgressions that are of a technical nature you wouldn't understand (e.g. stopping down past diffraction limits). And despite this all, nobody has EVER looked at one of my photographs and said, "Geesh, kinda soft there..." If a photograph is truly good, its sharpness is maybe not so important an issue, so long as it is "acceptably" sharp.
    Oh, and here's a shot of Yorktown's Coleman bridge at night, shot handheld at 1 full second using your same lens:
    http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phcolemanbridge01.htm
    (It's for sale if you want one!) It's quite sharp. Would it have been sharper with a Zeiss 50 on a tripod-mounted 5DIII? Well, yes, slightly. However, I don't think it would have been a better photograph, and I can assure you it would not have been as enjoyable (for me) to make. Again, nobody has ever told me this photo isn't sharp enough.
     
  26. It's been mentioned multiple times, but: another vote for the Canon 35 f2.0. Overdue for a remake, slightly long on 1.6 crop factor (slightly telephoto), very sharper in the middle, so-so in the corners, funky bokeh with the pentagram aperture, but still a very decent, albeit over priced "standard" lens for 1.6 crop.
    Benefits: very compact, good close focus (min focus distance around 200mm).
     
  27. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    Most people feel the image stabilized (IS) version of the 18-55 is superior optically to the older non-imaged stabilized version.​
    I also do believe this: I have two versions of this lens – one older NON IS and the other the FIRST version of the IS. I would expect that Angela might have a newer version of the IS model than I.
    +++
    William's point was that the non-IS version (which you don't have) is better than most people give it credit, and I must say his images are somewhat convincing, at least at the focal length shot.​
    Yes. 100% correct.
    And the example I’ve posted in my portfolio was set at FL=18mm and with the lens wide open specifically to show the wide end of the lens - ‘at its worst’.
    +++
    Or perhaps his point was that your lens is even better than the lens whose images he showed you, so it must be pretty sharp. I agree.​
    Yes. 100% correct, also.
    That’s why I choose the oldest version of the kit lens: the ‘worst lens I have’ to make the point that Angela’s lens will be very sharp, in contrast to mine.
    +++
    However, William's point WAS NOT that you should set your lens to 50mm and only use that focal length.​
    Correct.
    I was suggesting that Angela could use her zoom lens for an exercise,to assist her in finding out what Focal Length Prime Lens, she might like to buy.
    During that exercise use it only at 50mm – that exercise would mimic her having a 50mm Prime Lens; then do the same exercise using the kit lens set at 35mm and that would mimic her using a 35mm Prime Lens.
    One object of the exercises is to get to understand what it is like using only ONE Focal Length. The reason I suggested to make so many Photos, is that the more photos one makes at one Focal Length the more one understands the difficulties and the nuances of using a Prime Lens.
    Another object of the exercises is to get a better understanding of WHAT Prime Lens, Angela might want to buy (for example a 35mm or a 50mm – or neither.
    +++
    Here is an example of the (older NON IS) Kit Lens used at 33mm at F/5.6.
    [​IMG]
    Li Cunxin (Mao’s Last Dancer), Sydney 2005.
    20D + EF-S 18 to 55F/3.5~5.6
    F/5.6 @ 1/40s @ ISO1600, Hand Held, Manual Exposure; Manual WB
    +++
    On the matter of mentioning ‘bokeh’:
    The point was to provide the understanding that 'bokeh' is nicer or worse – a subjective matter and it is not ‘more bokeh’ or ‘less bokeh (quantitative).
    If one reads the whole paragraph in context one will note to also that Bokeh (subjective) is different to Subject Separation, which is basically quantitative - and that was the point.
    Of course I understood what Angela meant when she wrote “more bokeh” – the response was for a specific and professional reason, as bokeh is often represented as or confused with Subject Separation.
    ***
    Here is an example of the (native) bokeh of the EF35F/2, used on an APS-C Format Camera:
    [​IMG]
    20D + EF35F/2
    F/2 @ 1/40s @ ISO100, Hand Held, Manual Mode, AWB
    +++
    Here is an example of the EF35/F2 used on a 400D as a ‘Normal Lens’ and being used as a ‘Fast Prime Lens’ for capture in low light, where Flash is not allowed (scroll to the right to see an enlargement):
    [​IMG]
    I mention scrolling to the right to see the enlargement, at the image in my portfolio, because this photo was made with a 400D at ISO1600: and the 400D is similar to Angela's camera (450D). Many new Photogarhers do not understand how well their camera is able to perform at the higher ISO's
    WW
     
  28. I was suggesting that Angela could use her zoom lens for an exercise,to assist her in finding out what Focal Length Prime Lens, she might like to buy​
    I competely understand what you meant by it, William W. I am to set my focal length at 50mm, leave it there and take upwards of 500 pictures of anything and everything, and then try again with my focal lenght at 35mm and do the same. So that I can figure out which focal length I prefer to shoot at.
    As for the "bokeh" and how to properly use the term, I appreciate your technical answer. As a beginner, I would think that it's best to know the proper usage of the word rather than looking like I have no clue what I'm talking about :)
     
  29. it's best to know the proper usage of the word​
    Absolutely, and it's also important, but difficult, for people who know too much to try to communicate a clearly as possible. Sometimes jargon is unavoidable, but not always.
    In any case, you sound like an intelligent and good person. Stick with us here on P.net, the gods know we need more people like you to keep us honest. ;)
    Welcome to the site, you've passed your test, so to speak. ;)
     
  30. Sarah Fox wisely wrote:
    "One last note: I think I'm reading a bit of frustration on your end from all the technical stuff. If you were to hang out on this forum long enough, you'd come to believe the technical stuff is what photography is all about. However, people arguing technical stuff here fall mostly into two camps -- those with cutting-edge equipment demands (for instance people producing wall-sized prints) and equipment geeks who simply enjoy the technical details of their equipment.
    "However, my advice to you would be simply to start shooting pictures and enjoy the fruits of our optical advancements to date. Don't worry about chasing the best or sharpest, as that is usually a false pursuit. Instead, worry about photographing what you want to photograph."​
    Yes. Yes. And super, double, extra, yes. Especially on things I marked in bold type!
    Dan
     

Share This Page