Why does one still recommend the 50mm as starter today?

[derek photo-net page]

I have read all the disccussion above and I have seen the sample pics. Hack, I'll get myself one.

[boris c hann]

"Lucas, I don't have a "gear fetish"...I have a quality fetish."

 

No, you have a gear fetish to the point of disorder, added to which you have an odd

cult-like belief in the letter L. The Leica forum used to be the strangest place on photonet

but you, and a couple of others, have now seized the honor for the Canon forum. Your

belief in the divine qualities of color/contrast in L lenses is nothing more than voodoo.

 

It's worth remembering that pretty much all of the greatest reportage photographs in

history have been taken on nothing more exotic than a 28, 35, or 50mm lens. There are

photographers working at the highest level for magazines Time, Newsweek, the NYTimes

Magazine with an absolute fraction of the bizarre amount of gear that you list on your

profile page.

[awindsor]

Personally I use the 50/1.8 much more on my 20D than I did on my film bodies. I have a 35/2 but it sees only occasional use. Were I to purchase again I would get a 85/1.8 before a 35/2.

[vincent_j_m]

With every cheap DSLR bundled with a piece of junk 18-xx plastic zoom, most new DSLR owners I know don't know what a prime lens is - having mostly gravitated to a DSLR after using a digital P&S for a while. Those who "move up" to get better lenses get a sigma 18-125 or tamron etc. Pity, the quality they're missing out.

[beauh44]

<I>By the way, Canon currently offers NO 50mm that has L qualities, not in color, not in contrast, and not in wide open sharpness.</i><P>

 

I mean this in the kindest possible way but I defy you or anyone else on this planet to tell me what lens took a given shot. I'm certainly not a great photographer by any means but go to my portraits and tell me which shots I used my 70-200mm f/2.8L lens and which shots I used either a 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm Compact Macro.<P>

 

Best of luck because as sure as the sun rises tomorrow, I bet you can't do it. Best wishes . . .

[lovcom_photo]

Boris Chan, I guess jealesy can be an ugly thing....did my list of kit really bother you so badly?

 

As usual Boris, you're wrong again...I'm into quality, not red stripes....it just so happens that most of my lenses have the strip...but I also have many lenses that I consider fantastic that have no red stripe.

 

I would suggest Boris, that you find yourself a better job so that instead if disrespecting L glass owners, you too can indulge yourself.

 

Boris, the frustrations you feel in your own life, the mis-steps, the missed opertunities show profoundly in your responses, sir.

[lovcom_photo]

Do this....take the SAME shot with all your lenses that have same/similar focal range.

 

Don't process any of them....just look at them on your screen, side by side.....

 

Unless you're blind or obstenent, stubborn, or retarded, you too will see that there is a difference (very noticable) in contrast and color between your lenses. And what you'll also see is that the amount of post processing, and method will be different with L glass vs. say the 50mm F1.8.

 

I know. I've done this type of testing. The difference is very obvious, not to mention sharpness too.

[matt_chamberlain]

<i><b>Boris Chan, I guess jealesy can be an ugly thing....did my list of kit really bother you so badly?</b></i><br><br>Did my list of kit really bother you so badly? I don't think what bothered him had anything to do with your list of kit.<br><br>

 

<i><b>I would suggest Boris, that you find yourself a better job so that instead if disrespecting L glass owners, you too can indulge yourself.</b></i><br><br>

I am sure Boris wakes up in the middle of the night with cold sweat running down his face worried about his lack of L glass. Boris, stop taking so many photos and go get yourself a REAL job so you can get some good glass..<br><br>

 

<i><b>Unless you're blind or obstenent, stubborn, or retarded, you too will see that there is a difference (very noticable) in contrast and color between your lenses. And what you'll also see is that the amount of post processing, and method will be different with L glass vs. say the 50mm F1.8.</b></i><br><br>

Blindness, obstinateness, stubborness, and retardation can all be overcome by a passion for your craft. Equipment fetishism is an ailment much more likely to take the photography out of the photographer.

[lovcom_photo]

Matt, this is a gear thread...we're suppose to talk about gear.

 

This is a gear thread.

 

This Is A Gear Thread.

 

THIS IS A GEAR THREAD.

[fourfa]

let's please stop feeding the trolls

[matt_chamberlain]

Andy, you have a good point. But I have looked through Dan's portfolio on here, and the thing is that he has a lot of potential. But he likes pushing that button and hearing the shutter relase and feeling the weight of an 85/1.2 in his hands. These are beautiful examples of japanese engineering, but they are just that. Nothing more. If he would just slow down and take a good look at what's around him, there might be a lot of solid images that follow. A prolific photographer does not just magically become a proficient photographer one day. There is more to it than holding down that black button.

[lovcom_photo]

Matt, where are you photos?...would love to see them. You don't know me so you cannot speak for me, nor my photography, nor can you say what my thoughts/philosopies are.

 

It's about the image, the composition....but again, this is a gear thread, yea?

 

I shoot a lot to get better. It's about practice. I average about 1,000 pictures a month, striving to get better and better, and in fact Matt, I spent much more time shooting then on this forum talking gear. How many images have you made last week, last month?

 

You, and me Matt, we all have and will always have room for improvement. A great lens won't guarentee the making of a good picture, but it can make a good picture better.

[boris c hann]

"Boris Chan, I guess jealesy can be an ugly thing....did my list of kit really bother you so

badly?"

 

Sure, "jealesy" (much like bad spelling) can be an ugly thing, although I'm not sure why

you imagine I'm in any way jealous of you. What I object to is the absurd suggestion that

good results are the sole preserve of expensive equipment. I, along with many others,

know that this is nonesense, but, sadly, a lot of beginners are being repeatedly told that

without L lenses and a 1ds or 5d their images will be lacking. A decent photographer

could put a roll of film in the cheapest EOS film body and, using nothing more than a 28

and a 50 (neither of which currently have an L option), produce images that would keep

the harshest photo editor happy. It might shock you Dan but there are contract

photographers at both Time and Newsweek cheerfully using those "cropper" bodies that

you disdainfully refer to on a daily basis. You might need more inventory than B and H to

feel secure but they clearly don't.

 

"As usual Boris, you're wrong again..."

 

As usual? What's this a reference to?

 

"I would suggest Boris, that you find yourself a better job so that instead if disrespecting L

glass owners, you too can indulge yourself. Boris, the frustrations you feel in your own life,

the mis-steps, the missed opertunities show profoundly in your responses, sir."

 

Thanks for this Dan, it sums up the disturbing aspects of your attitude to both

photography and life far more eloquently than I could hope to.

[beauh44]

<I>Unless you're blind or obstenent, stubborn, or retarded, you too will see that there is a difference (very noticable) in contrast and color between your lenses. And what you'll also see is that the amount of post processing, and method will be different with L glass vs. say the 50mm F1.8. I know.</i><P>

 

I can see you read Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people."<P>

 

So, which are YOU? Blind, obstenent stubborn or retarded? Because you couldn't tell me could you? That's because your claim is specious at best.<P>

 

<I>I've done this type of testing. The difference is very obvious, not to mention sharpness too</i><P>

 

Not according to Photodo. But forgive me; I'm sure your testing is much more thorough, respected and accurate.<P>

 

Oh why didn't you SAY you tested it? I guess that settles everything. You tested it. End of discussion then, right? You put me in my place!<P>

 

Tell me which of my "L" glass took which of my pictures and you'll win me over to your side. You can't and you know it but good luck anyway. You may look at life through loupes but 99.9 percent of the rest of the population - photographers included - do not.

[splat]

> And for a mere $0 you can walk into your local camera shop, mount the

> lens, and see a rather drastic difference in image qualtiy between the

> 18-55 kit zoom lens and the 50/1.8. Then you can buy a lens that

> works.

 

Great advice for some people but it isn't always an option. I would have to get on a plane and spend $300 on a flight to get to the nearest store that has a Canon prime in stock.

[phyrpowr]

I can tell you why it's perfect for a 1.6 crop, but, as I have recently taken a position with Homeland Security, the answer will not be ready until 2009, and it's so classified I'll have to kill you BEFORE I tell you.

 

That said, read Marc Nagel's answer: cheap fast sharp, the most convenient and least expensive lens to really learn what aperture means to depth of field

[john_kramer3]

I got into photography 5 years ago, and from advice on this very board, I started out with a 50mm 1.4. I shot on that lens exclusively for about 3 years, then got a prime lens 28mm, and now finally I just finished spending a small fortune on a complete gear overhaul, and went over to digital, and zooms.

 

I would absolutely recommend that progression. I don't care if its a 50mm or not, but I think if you want to take good pictures, a prime lens is great because it forces you to move, and to find the shots. my friends who have always had zooms tend to be pretty lazy, put the camera up to their faces, zoom around, can't find the shot they like, and give up. 3 years with only a 50mm prime, and a budget of at least of roll a day forces you to either endure tons of really boring pictures, or to be more creative. while I still have a lot to learn, I think that starting with primes worked well for me.

 

I guess the only disadvantage is, now I'm here with a $1600 canon L series lens and CANNOT STAND how unbearably slow it is (f/2.8)! haha

[lovcom_photo]

Beau,

 

STOP relying solely on what you read...just do it.

 

Take a picture with your 50mm F1.4 or F1.8, then take the same picture with a 24-70L at 50mm....

 

Their Color And Contrast Will Be Different.

 

Do the test yourself, instead of relying solely on what you read on the internet.

[lb-]

ok....... but so what?

 

if pixel peeping unprocessed digital files is your thing fine, but your claim that a canon 50mm 1.8 lens is unsuitable for "serious or paid work" is busted.

 

be a stand up guy and concede the point.

 

and unless you plan to deliver unprocessed digital files to a client, what's the point in comparing them? be like me doing a taste test on two uncooked chickens. won't really know how the recipe pans out till I get them chickens in the fryer.

 

yummmmy.

[lovcom_photo]

Lucas, you're showing your ignorance, sir....one does NOT have to pixel-peep to see the differences in color and contrast between two lenes.

 

It's about attitude....one wanting the best quality one can provide...that starts with a great composition, then great exposure, and Lucas, now here's the really hard technical part, but I'll make it really simple and basic....a great lens will surely help.

 

Don't judge your work by what your clients say.....all the work I got paid for, they still would've loved had I used all sub-par lense....

 

...Better to use a better metric....your own sense of quality. The Bride & Groom generally have no sense of photographic quality, but I do...it's about pride of authorship, craftsmenship....so I use the best kit I can afford...and on my income I can skip the $70 very good 50mm F1.8 and go for the F1.4 without resorting to Mac & Cheese everynight for dinner.

 

So Lucas, have you shot the same comp with different lenses yet?

 

Be the STAND UP guy and do it and report back, Lucas.

[lb-]

oh brother.

 

your ham fisted attempts at condescension are worse than your photography.

 

I've no need to bother with controlled comparisons of various lenses dan.

 

I need only look at the output of my work.

 

The prints I sell.

 

the work at it appears in catalogs, advertisements, magazines and books.

 

and yes, the money that I make.

 

I have a dozen images going to print next week in a major NYC photography book. You think the editor gave a crap what lenses I used? her favorite image was made with a nikon EM and a $30 off brand 28mm I got on canal street. some were made with a leica M and 35mm summilux asph.

 

my metrics are simple. creating successful images. it's also my living and I haven't eaten mac and cheese in a long time.

 

the optical differences between two canon 50mm slr lenses is so far down the list of things that even register on my scale it's not worth mentioning. the fact that the 1.4 has a poorly designed and prone to fail AF mechanism is MUCH more relevant to me

 

you say that brides and grooms generally have "no sense of photographic quality".

 

man, you've shot ONE wedding! ONE. and you're ranting to others about relying on ones own empirical evidence and not what you've read online?

 

I am embarrassed for you.

 

this place really is the twilight zone.

[johnson_d.]

My 50mm 1.8 is on my 1.6x cropper about 85% of the time and I mostly shoot indoors! Egads, I must really be out of touch but it seems to work for me and I really can't argue with the successful images.

 

Dan, would you mind posting examples, presumably of the same subject, that demonstrate this color and contrast superiority at 50mm? I'd be glad to do it myself but my L/Non-L focal lengths do not overlap. I have a hard time believing the difference would be significant for vast majority of subject matter, especially after the fairly basic processing that usually takes place (e.g. white point compensation). If you have samples that show otherwise, I'd love to see them. Thanks.