Why can't/won't canon create a normal lens for the 1.6 folks?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by stillbound, Sep 11, 2007.

  1. Why can't/won't canon (or nikon for that matter) create a 30ish 1.8 or 1.4 to
    give a true "normal lens for the 1.6 folks - preferably one that would fit on
    any camera...
    I can't imagine that creating a 30 1.8 would cost much more to produce than the
    50 1.8...say in the $100 range...something that people could choose rather than
    the kit lens
     
  2. My guess is because they don't feel that, all things considered, it would give them a good return on their investment.

    Speaking personally, I wouldn't buy one.
     
  3. Canon has a habit of being stubborn. Take the lack of an MLU button, for example.
     
  4. Sigma's 30mm/1.4 is a pretty good contender, it seems. Of course, it's got the on-board AF motor (it's their "HSM" technology), which makes it a lot more expensive than something like those $100 50/1.8's. And, of course, it's a twitch faster, at 1.4, whether that's helpful or not seems to be debateable.
     
  5. 35mm is close enough or use a zoom. I am using a 35 on my Nikon and it seems fine. $50 at a camera show last Sunday. Also got a 50 1.4 and 24 2.8. Whole package was $250. I am keeping the 18/70 and 55/200 though.
     
  6. Colin...thanks but why?

    the "normal lens" has been a staple of photography for the entire history of 35 mm and the 50 1.8 is often hailed as the best budget lens you can buy...why wouldn't canon make one for their digital slrs...
    something with the build quality of a 50 that would be normal...

    you can't tell me that canon isn't making plenty on the 50 1.8
     
  7. >>has been<<

    Those are the key words ;)
     
  8. EF lenses 28/2.8, 28/1.8, 35/2, 35/1.4L. They're all within the "normal" range. I don't think there is such a thing as a "true" normal lens. Lenses (that I am aware of) from 40mm to 58mm have been supplied in 35mm cameras as normal by various manufacturers since the format came into being.
     
  9. I have a 50 1.8 and never use it. Why is it so important to have this focal length "normal view" that the human eye has. I much rather use a zoom. I have a 24-70 f2.8L and cant see a benifit to use the 50 instead. I know its 1.8, buy its so dull at 1.8, I stop down to 2.8 to get the sharpness usefull, and if you do that, why not use the 24-70 2.8L. Plus what effect do you get using this "normal" lens. IMO, it looks better to have a tight composition from a zoom than to move in close enough with say a 50 or even a 30 and get that distorted look.
     
  10. Dave,
    for one...(even though I have one) not many people can afford the 24-70 2.8
    number 2 - it is not dull at 1.8
    number 3 - it wieghs about a 20th of what the zoom does

    Shooting street scenes and regular photography it surely helps to have the lightness and the light sensitivity of the 50...

    As for why it's so important...I don't know why so many people used them for so long before the invention of the $1000 zoom...

    JC
     
  11. PS -
    For the record I own a 1d II, 16 - 35 II, 24 - 70 2.8, 70 - 200 2.8 IS, 100 2.8 macro, 85 1.2, and the 50 1.4 as well as a sigma 15mm fisheye

    I often shoot with the 50 simply because I like how light it is...I enjoy having to work to get my comp rather than twist my wrist...

    I also happen to work at a pretty prominent photo company and know that their are many...many people that love the 50 1.8 due to it's a. price, b. sharpness (compared to kit lens) c. bokeh/fast aperture
     
  12. Now that Nikon has a full frame camera, with Sony likely following suit soon, we know that the 1.6x and 1.5x bodies will eventually be relegated to P&S DSLR status for which a normal lens will not be necessary.
     
  13. I'm with Ansel Adams on this one:

    "In general, I do not find the normal lens especially desirable, functionally or aesthetically.
    The angle of view and depth of field characteristics do not seem favorable to me in
    interpreting space and scale. In my experience, lenses of shorter or longer focal length are
    usually preferable in an aesthetic sense."

    Page 57, "The Camera"
     
  14. The 28/1.8 is pretty "normal" since it corresponds to a 45mm fov on full frame. If it's too short the 35/2 corresponds to 56mm.

    The 28/1.8 is $400 or so, but then the Sigma 30/1.4 is around $450. If Canon made an EF-S 30/1.4 USM, I'm guessing at $600. How many do you think they would sell? I wouldn't buy one and it's certainly not going to be cheaper than the Sigma - and I would buy one of them either!
     
  15. Find me a soccer mom (or dad) who just got their first DSLR (an XTi) who is going to buy /any/ prime lens.

    Now compare that to those that will buy a zoom like the new 55-250 IS.

    Which market makes Canon more money?
     
  16. um...i can tell you for sure that we sell tons of 50 1.8's...TONS

    As for Mr. Atkins...
    The point is that I'd love to see it for the price range of the 50 1.8
    I respect you very much so I hope that doesn't come off as "snarkey"
     
  17. The 50mm F1.2 L on my 5D is about as close to heaven as I can get! I have all the fancy
    zooms, too, and I use the 50mm a lot. I love the look and perspective of the lens.
     
  18. just get a 5D.
     
  19. i know i have same complaint as you. 35 f/1.4 is too heavy for me to use as a normal walk around lens... something like a 5D and 50 f/1.4 combo. Perfect in weight and image quality.

    I am just waiting for 5D or any future FF camera to be more affordable.
     
  20. I was using a 35mm f1.4L on a 20D just today. Nice normal lens. Works great. And Canon
    makes it. :->)
     
  21. ... something like a 5D and 50 f/1.4 combo. Perfect in weight and image quality.
    Then you're in luck. A 40D with a 28mm f/1.8 lens will weigh less and cost a *whole lot* less (like half) than a 5D / 50mm f/1.4 combo.
    Image quality between the two is more-or-less the same and you probably won't miss the 2/3-stop you loose with the 28mm.
    Keep in mind a true "normal" lens isn't really possible on a 1.6 crop camera (where "normal" is defined as a lens with a focal length equal to the diagonal of the sensor and the distance from the sensor plane to the rear nodal point of the lens is the focal length).
    Let's see, using a 40D for example with a sensor dimension of 22.5mm x 14.8mm we get a diagonal measurement of 26.93mm: that's the focal length for a "normal" lens on a 40D. All EOS camera's have a lens flange to sensor/film plane measurement of 44mm. The EF-S mount gives us a little more room to sink the rear nodal point of the lens into the body, and while I don't have that measurement on hand I'm sure it's less than the 17.07mm we're short.
    That means a "normal" lens on the 40D will require a retrofocus design where the rear nodal point to sensor plane dimension is greater than the focal length of the lens. This is more expensive and heavier, unless you want to use molded plastic lens elements like those oh-so-high-quality kit lenses.
    In other words, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for Canon to release a new, cheap, lightweight, and high-quality EF-S prime of normal focal length for the 1.6x crop cameras.
    Just get the 28mm f/1.8 -- it's a good lens, doesn't cost that much, is close to normal focal length and is "full frame" which is where everyone seems to want to go anyway.
     
  22. For me, it's covered in the range of my EF16-35mm F1:2.8L USM II & EF24-70mm F1:2.8L USM lenses - not quite "sub F1:2.0", but just fine for me.

    All I can say is "If Canon thought they could make a truck load of $$$ from it then I'm sure they would make it".
     
  23. "... The point is that I'd love to see it for the price range of the 50 1.8..."

    There's the problem. A 30mm lens is more difficult to make than a 50mm lens and so it's more expensive. Just look at the 35/2. It's $230, and though it's better built than the 50/1.8 I doubt even in a cheap plastic housing it could be sold for under $150.

    Mike is absolutely correct about such a lens needing to be a retrofocus design of course. That adds cost and complexity.

    I think the closest thing you will get from Canon is the 35/2. It's pretty fast, not too expensive and it's very sharp. Being designed for full frame you'll even get minimal vignetting when used wide open! The 28/2.8 is also cheap ($170), sharp and as fast as even the most expensive "L" series zooms. If you can libe with f2.8, it's the best bargain.

    Personally I tend to use a 24/2.8 as my "normal prime" on a 1.6x DSLR, first because I already have one, and second because I like the slightly wider than normal angle of coverage.

    BTW the 50/1.8 makes a very good, very inexpensive portrait lens on a 1.6x camera. If you had full frame you'd have to pay $350 to get a lens with a similar view (85/1.8).
     
  24. Probably because most of the people who use those cameras prefer the low-end zooms.

    I am in agreement with you, in the sense that I want Canon to keep the APS sensor, but design some good format-dedicated glass for it, and make the cameras much smaller. Technically, APS is a subminiature format, roughly equivalent to using 16mm film. It would be nice if they would just clearly make the differentiation and give us a Leica-sized submini SLR with good lenses made just for it.

    As things stand, however, we are pretty well set with the 28mm f/1.8. Its field of view on a 1.6 body is technically closer to normal than a 50mm on a film of full frame body. It doesn't render depth like a normal lens, but that is not something most would notice.

    Keith
     
  25. To Joseph Carey: My 50 1.8 is a peace of S@#$. It rattles when you move it around(The barrel is moving from side to side. Canon says its fine) and when used at 1.8 is sucks. I dont know what some peoples idea of sharp is, but I expect detail and it cant touch any other lenses I have. That said, I dont expect much from a $90.00 lens, but with all the hype about primes, I expected way more. I havent seen any better even from the L's. Unless you are in the 200-600 range. Then your talking 3,000 to 6800.00. No, not everyone can afford a 24-70 2.8L. But, the kit lens that came with my 40D is sharper than any of these primes I have seen(50 1.2,1.4,1.8)and alot more versitle.

    Look at all the ISO 12233 chart tests with these(30,50,85) lenses. They suck for sharpness. Even look at Canons MTF charts. Way low on the chart unless stopped down to f8.0. Then why have a 1.2.

    I agree with Rob Bernhard, find me someone, not just a soccer mom who would use a 50 to shoot soccer. Hell, what is it good for as far as that goes. For portraits, with the 50mm, you have to move in so close the facial features become weird. And, you will miss alot of good shots if you have to take off running at the subject every time you want to compose a shot. Its like me turning my 24-70 to 24 and taking all my pictures with this. Its just stupid. Same look as using a Walgreens throw away camera. Sure for landscape shots, the wideness is fine, but these people are talking about, " I like a 35mm lens as my "Normal" walk around lens." Ok, so take a trip to the Zoo, and only use a 35mm or 50mm and nothing else. You will come back with a bunch of stupid, amateur looking shots.
     
  26. "But, the kit lens that came with my 40D is sharper than any of these primes I have seen(50 1.2,1.4,1.8)"

    No; It's not.

    Keith
     
  27. "...in the sense that I want Canon to keep the APS sensor, but design some good format-
    dedicated glass for it, ..."

    Like the EF-S 10-22mm? It's a very sharp high-quality lens that's just as good as the
    16-35mm f/2.8L (although not as fast).

    Or the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro (a prime!)? Very, very sharp. And, like the 180mm Macro,
    it's internal focusing which is very nice on a macro lens.

    Or how about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS? All the reviews I've read rate this lens as good
    as or better than any L zoom in this range. Plus, with a 27mm equivalent FOV at f/2.8
    *and* 3 stops of IS there's nothing like it in "full frame".

    I'd say Canon is doing a pretty good job so far providing us with some high-quality EF-S
    format specific glass.

    -Mike
     
  28. Mike,

    Every one of those is a slow zoom. Those lenses are great, but not of much use for a lot of things.

    Keith
     
  29. Pardon, me. I did not see the macro you listed. Great lens, but slow.
     
  30. David Amberson wrote: "[snip] But, the kit lens that came with my 40D is sharper than any of these primes I have seen(50 1.2,1.4,1.8)and alot more versitle."

    About the only thing the kit lens is sharper than is the bottom of a Coke bottle used as a lens, and even then the vote wouln't be unanimous.
     
  31. Joseph - I am with you all the way. As Bob and others have explained, a 30mm lens is a little trickier to make than a 50mm, so I would expect to pay a little more for one, but that fact alone shouldn't be a show stopper. Maybe there isn't sufficient market demand for an EF-S '50mm equivalent' lens for 1.6 crop. But if the lens was a normal full frame one, it would benefit both full frame AND 1.6 crop users.

    IMHO an upgrade to Canon's range of prime lenses around this focal length is long overdue. The 35/2 and 28/2.8 are good value but archaic; lens design has come along way since these were introduced 20 years ago. The 28/1.8 is more up to date with better build quality and USM, but mediocre away from the centre (and this is important to some people, not everyone takes shallow DOF portraits where only the centre needs to be sharp). The 35/1.4 sounds great but is big, heavy and extremely expensive.

    I find it interesting how posts on this subject appear on here so regularly. Maybe if the 28/1.8 was as good a performer away from the centre as the 50/1.4, this thread wouldnt exist.
     
  32. It seems the choir is singing, "Not enough market to make it profitable." I agree because
    Canon seems to focus the less than FF frame camera buyer on zoom lenses than a single
    fixed focal length lens(es).

    Personally I would like to see Canon market a FF 45mm "normal" lens, not just the tilt-shift
    lens they now market. I prefer that focal length than 50-55mm. Why can't they just take the
    tilt-shift of that lens and market it "plain" lens?
     
  33. "...I did not see the macro you listed. Great lens, but slow."

    An f/2.8 lens is now considered "slow"? Oh, my goodness.

    Y'all need to go out and shoot some 8x10 with a 300mm "normal" lens. Load it up with some
    Fuji RVP Velvia 50 and you'll learn what slow really is. ;-)

    -Mike
     
  34. I own a 400D, 300D before that, and I have no intentions of upgrading to FF in the near future. I print up to 12x18 and the xti is sufficient for that, I don't need FF. If Canon made a scaled-down version of the 50/1.8, say an EF-S 30/1.8 for $75 USD:

    I'd run to the store and buy one today.
     
  35. "...Why can't they just take the tilt-shift of that lens and market it "plain" lens?"

    It's not that easy.

    First, the TS-E lenses are all manual focus.

    Next, since these are designed to shift, the image circle produced by the lens is much
    larger than necessary for a non-shifting mount. This makes the lens much larger
    and heavier than needed in non-shifty mode.

    And, lastly, it's "only" f/2.8, which apparently isn't especially desirable nowadays in a short
    focal length prime.

    So, Canon could do this, but it'd be large, heavy and probably cost over $1k.

    Canon would be better off doing a 45mm from scratch.

    Again, it's not a technical question -- they can do it -- it's a business one. While they
    might sell "a ton" of cheap fast primes, there's probably more profit in one 16-35mm L
    zoom than a hundred 50mm f/1.8 primes.

    Welcome to the new business world of photography being a subset of the consumer
    electronics industry. ;-(

    -Mike
     
  36. Joseph, I think the suggestion above to "just get a 5D" is likely your best option. A little financial pain, and then lots of normal and wide lens to choose from.

    I agree, it is frustrating. Maybe the manufacture of a fast prime around 30mm focal length is more difficult than a 50mm? There is the clunky 35mm f2.0, and the 35mm f1.4. The latter is reputedly a very sharp lens with little light fall-off, but pricey and heavy.

    Funny thing, I made a point of getting a 50mm f1.4 when I got my 5D, and: it *does* seem a boring perspective, after getting used to zooms like the 24-70. Though, tt is really handy for lowlight, compact, bright in the corners, sharp. I'm thinking now to get a 35mm prime for full frame, as a preferable perspective, for walk around. The 35mm f1.4 isn't that heavy...
     
  37. I never even know where to start if it's been a few hours between reading...
    many folks here don't read the original posts or just choose to ignore them based on some other agenda's...I don't want to offend anyone so I won't point out those that I think do read and those that don't but here goes...

    I don't need an efs sized lens...I want it to be a full frame "cheap/affordabel" lens that would be normal on 1.6 and maybe even would serve as a nice wide fast lens for full frame and 1.3 cams...

    In regard to the "soccer mom argument...ummmthe kit lens is an 18 - FIFTY FIVE - not exactly a telephoto and SLOW to boot...if it was an 18 - 135 like nikon makes (which to be perfectly honest is such a better kit lens than either companies 18 - 55) then I'd hear your soccer mom arguement

    All in all thanks for some thoughtful arguements and even for the other ones...
     
  38. "I don't need an efs sized lens...I want it to be a full frame "cheap/affordabel" lens that would be normal on 1.6 and maybe even would serve as a nice wide fast lens for full frame and 1.3 cams..." <p>Sounds like you're describing the current 28/1.8. But I don't see how that could be made cheaper - Bob A's argument.
     
  39. "In regard to the "soccer mom argument.."<p>I think Rob's point was that it was a zoom - period. You tell the average, did-no-research, 1st time DSLR buyer that there getting a "zoom" lens - even if it only zoomed from 18 to 28 - they'll pick it over a prime any day. And as to the "SLOW" comment, they'll prob be like "Huh, you meant is focuses slowly...?"
     
  40. This is all a crock. Maybe *you* can't work with shorter normalish lenses, but that doesn't mean everyone can't. As to the lowly 50/1.8, either you have a defective copy or you don't know how to work with shallow DOF, mine goes head to head or beats my 24-70L... yeah, it'd be nice if it felt like my Summicron, but it can still turn out a great photo... and my Summicron ain't AF (which is sometimes nice).

    >>" I like a 35mm lens as my "Normal" walk around lens." Ok, so take a trip to the Zoo, and only use a 35mm or 50mm and nothing else. You will come back with a bunch of stupid, amateur looking shots.
     
  41. Mark, no need to be rude -- it certainly happens that some copies of lenses aren't as good as
    others. It's possible to get a bad 50mm f/1.8.

    And while a "normal" FOV lens ain't my cup of tea, it fits the needs of many. I bet lots of folks
    have decent 50mm zoo pics they could share with us.

    -Mike
     
  42. "Y'all need to go out and shoot some 8x10 with a 300mm "normal" lens. Load it up with some Fuji RVP Velvia 50 and you'll learn what slow really is. ;-)"

    It just so happens that is what I do...not Velvia, though. I use the Slow Efkes (25, 50, 100) and Fuji color 160 neg. films for that with a 300 Ektar f/4.5...that is I did until my rickety old camera became to unreliable to use and I dumped it on El Bay. I am now looking for a replacement so I can start again, as it is such fun. Will probably bite the bullet and try to find an older model P, hopefully with all three rear standards.

    Back on topic, though; I am talking about "slow" for hand holding a 35mm camera, so yes, 2.8 is slow in my book, for a 35mm camera. For a large format lens...of course not. I feel blessed with a rare 4.5 lens fr large format. I could not shoot 75% of what I shoot with an f/2.8 max. aperture. Even in light that would let you hand hold easily, sometimes I want a faster shutter speed than the bare minimum, so I like 1.4 and 1.2 lenses for that. I realize this is not true for a lot of people, but I'm sure there are a good deal of 35mm shooters who shoot at f/stops lower than 2.8 quite often.

    Keith
     
  43. >>" I like a 35mm lens as my "Normal" walk around lens." Ok, so take a trip to the Zoo, and only use a 35mm or 50mm and nothing else. You will come back with a bunch of stupid, amateur looking shots.
    Let's see. There once was a photographer named Garry Winogrand who walked around the zoo with a 28 & a 35 and made a charming little book called The Animals. I don't believe they were "stupid, amateur looking shots". It is not the camera you're carrying around, it's what you see.
     
  44. all i can say is this...(i never expected this to go this way) but I sell these cameras and the number of "soccer moms" and intro level buyers that see the difference between the quality of the 1.8 and the 18 - 55 and take the 1.8 is numerous... truthfully I end up selling tons of the 1.8 in addition once they see the "portrait effect" (what they all seem to call bokeh) of the prime.
    As for the 24 - 70 vs. 1.8 i didn't even want to get into that as I think mine is nearly as sharp as well...but some people think that zoom is the sharpest thing ever so i bit my tongue. I go to the zoo I take three lenses. 100 macro, 50 1.4, and the 70 200...at many of the "inside" exhibits the 50 is the only choice if you don't want to jack up the iso and it give excellent pics with plenty of pop at 1.8 and 2.0 that even the zoom can't match
    JC
     
  45. To Keith Lubow: >> "But, the kit lens that came with my 40D is sharper than any of these primes I have seen(50 1.2,1.4,1.8)"
    No; It's not.
    Keith.


    Keith - How can you sit behind a computer screen and tell me what "My" lens IS or IS NOT. My 50 1.8 is very soft. Dont argue with me about my lens when you havent used it.



    To Colin Southern: >>> About the only thing the kit lens is sharper than is the bottom of a Coke bottle used as a lens, and even then the vote wouln't be unanimous.


    Colin - You dont even know what lens my 40D came with and you are spouting your mouth off about how sharp it IS NOT. It happens to be a 28-135 IS USM, which is very sharp compared to my dull 50 1.8. No its not a fast 1.8, but much more usefull to walk around with than the 50 1.8.



    To Joseph Carey: >>>> In regard to the "soccer mom argument...ummmthe kit lens is an 18 - FIFTY FIVE - not exactly a telephoto and SLOW to boot...if it was an 18 - 135 like nikon makes (which to be perfectly honest is such a better kit lens than either companies 18 - 55) then I'd hear your soccer mom arguement


    Joseph - Not all cameras come with the 18-FIFT FIVE. Mine as stated above is a 28-135. Lets see someone isolate a soccer player to make a nice composition of a soccer player with a 50 prim. Wont happen. I shoot soccer for parents and they dont want 10 other kids in the shot with their kid. They want the kid with the ball and the other 1 or 2 trying to take it. Cant do that with a useless 50 prime.



    To Mark Hahn: >>>>> This is all a crock. Maybe *you* can't work with shorter normalish lenses, but that doesn't mean everyone can't. As to the lowly 50/1.8, either you have a defective copy or you don't know how to work with shallow DOF, mine goes head to head or beats my 24-70.


    Mark - I asure you I can work with a shallow DOF. I have done focus tests with the 50 and its centered. Its just dull. Simple as that. Maybe the glass is defective, I dont know. None the less, it sucks. Maybe you have a bad copy of 24-70, which if you read the posts, there seems to be more of those than the highly praised primes. People ask about a Normal walkaround lens so they can have a lens to leave on their camera that can be used for many things. The 50 or 35 can not. Its good for a wide angle shot in low light. But who the hell makes landscape shots at 1.2. I've accidentally did this and immediately after seeing the photo, knew by how dull it was, and what happened. Take a 35, 45, 55 or whatever and move in close to something and it has a distorted look. Something else, 1.2 isnt everthing. Yeah its nice to get some extra shutter speed in low light, but you need some DOF. If a portrait is taken with the head slightly turned and you focus the eyes, then the other eye will be out of focus. Which is why most portrait shots are taken at 5.6 or so. These are only usefull if its a must for shutter speed.

    For the rest of you guys that love the idea of just a camera and a 35 or 50 prime and thats all to walk around with, whats your motivation to take a picture. Do you just prance around in open space clicking away at everything you see no matter the distance or composure or subject isolation. As a photographer, you should take the shots that have something worth looking at in them. Do you just run up to everything you see and ....click.
     
  46. I don't understand why some guys get so nasty in their dislike for a normal length lens. If it doesn't work for you, that is fine. Many many of the best and most famous photos were taken with a normal lens. My take on it is that it is a "vision thing," if you walk around and everything looks miserable and boring to you you need to distort it with wide or long lenses to make it interesting. If you find things in the world interesting as they are, they you are happy to capture your vision with the same perspective that you actually see it. AA was already mentioned in this thread, so I guess that calls for the standard HCB come back... given two coffee table books laid out in front of you in a waiting room, which do you pick up? For me it would always be HCB... with every single shot having been made with a 50mm lens... and much less boring than the bulk of AA's work.

    As to my Canon lenses, my 50/1.8 and 24-70L are both good lenses. By f2.8 my 50 is about as sharp and my 24-70L @50mm. No, the Canon 50 is nowhere near as sharp as my Leica Summicron 50, but by f2-2.5 it is already "good enough," but then, when I shoot in low/available light, my expectations are not that of detail product work.

    The Sigma looks nice to me and I am happy enough with my 35/2 which is very sharp... sharper than my EF 50/1.8, but with less pleasing (to my eye) rendering.
     
  47. I agree about AA's work
     
  48. hmmm, I'm the one being rude when I respond to, "Ok, so take a trip to the Zoo, and only use a 35mm or 50mm and nothing else. You will come back with a bunch of stupid, amateur looking shots."

    I actually would go to the zoo with either a 35 or 50... and I don't think that my shots are all stupid and amateur looking!
     
  49. For the rest of you guys that love the idea of just a camera and a 35 or 50 prime and thats all to walk around with, whats your motivation to take a picture.
    What does the focal length of the lens have to do with the motivation for taking photos?
    As a photographer, you should take the shots that have something worth looking at in them. Do you just run up to everything you see and ....click.
    I generally try to take photos that are worth looking at, no matter what the subject. And, yes, I do happen to walk around (not prance) with a 50 or a 28 (on a 5D) most of the time, and walk up to subjects and take photos. Is there something wrong with that approach?
     
  50. A 50 lens is a very simple optical design (one of the reasons they were so common). Not so with a 30, which needs to be retrofocus.
     
  51. As to the Zoo trip. My comment was intended for subject isolation. I still believe moving in close distorts things. That being said, it pains me to do this, but out of respect for the knowledge and opinions of the people on this board, I got up this morning and did some more testing with my 40D(Instead of XTi) and my 50 1.8.

    UGH, I WAS WRONG. BAD WRONG! I'm sorry.

    Kieth, Mark, Colin...You guys were right. Its razor sharp at 1.8. Maybe my XTi had a hard time nailing focus with center point at 1.8 and the 40D doesnt. Center point is a cross type designed for 2.8 or faster. I still like a zoom for more versitility, but now will not hesitate to use this lens when needing a 1.8.

    However, if I haven't made any enemies here, the DOF is so shallow that with the subjects head turned 45 deg from the lens, if you focus the eye the cheek is out of focus(the eye closest to you and the cheek). Is this helped by moving further away and then croped in later. I need more than this in sharp focus.

    Well, I guess now I'm gonna go and prance around clicking pictures with my 50 1.8. I felt I owed that to some here.
     
  52. Have fun prancing around with your 50... I always do! ;)
     
  53. Personally, I like to prance.
     
  54. "check the 12233 crops..."

    OK:
    the digital picture

    50 1.8 is softer open, wins out after 2.8. CA is all over the place with the kit.
     

Share This Page