C
- Status
Excellent value lens. It's undoubtedly the sharpest lens under $200. IIRC, it has a MTF rating of 4.2 (out of 5) which is excellent!
Very light and easy to carry around. Since it's a prime lens, the images captured are more superior than most consumer zooms. Try one yourself. If you are using dslr, you'll be surprise to see the details in the image when blown up 100% on screen. It's around $135 - $140.
Affordable and excellent. My best value for money lens.
If canon makes affordable primes at 20, 24, 35, 85, 100, 135, 200, 300 at less than $300 each and with f stop <= 2. I will definitely go primes!
But again, I'm only dreaming that Canon will make affordable lenses..... :bsmilie:
If canon makes affordable primes at 20, 24, 35, 85, 100, 135, 200, 300 at less than $300 each and with f stop <= 2. I will definitely go primes!
But again, I'm only dreaming that Canon will make affordable lenses..... :bsmilie:
can anyone also advise on using this lens to take what type of pict?
cheers........
cheers........
christinephoto said:
I think the 50mm makes a very good portrait lens. Of course, on the 300D, it's now effectively a EF80mm 1.8. HAHAHA! :bsmilie:
plinius said:
mount the lens on a camera body.
then wat pict u see in the viewfinder is what type of pict u will be taking.
makes sense ?
PLRBEAR said:
FYI, its NOT a EF80mm 1.8. its a CROPPED EF50mm 1.8. :nono:
take a post card. cut a rectangle out in the middle, leaving 2cm borders all around.
hold the post card at arm's length, look thru the rectangular slot in the middle.
TADA .. thats your "EF80mm 1.8 on a 300D". :blah:
mervin420 said:
Ok. Sorry sir. :sweat:
Doesn't have the same effect as a 80mm on a film SLR then? I was under the impression that Canon gave the 300D a 18-55mm to equal that of the 28-80mm they usually provide. I did say "effectively"... :sweatsm:
thanks for the answer.....but just want to find out majority of the ppl use the lens to take what kind of pict.........make sense?
mervin420 said:mount the lens on a camera body.
then wat pict u see in the viewfinder is what type of pict u will be taking.
makes sense ?
but for this lens, ppl say it In MF mode, can move the front lens slightly back and forth, and in side way too. If shake the lens by holding the body, it rattles. I AF mode, the axial play is locked, but you can still move it in side way.
Is it really true??
Is it really true??
It's $135 gst inclusive, and it's plastic. Can't ask for too much at that price range. Performance wise, i think it's pretty good for the $ that you fork out. 50mm 1.4 will run you about $600+ i think. I believe the 50mm macro f2 is slightly less than the 1.4, but still way more than the 1.8. The selling point of this lens is value for money.
plinus and christinephoto: this lens on a film body has a perspective close to that of the human eye's field of vision, actually around 35-45mm is more accurately closer to the human eye's perspective. so thats why this focal length is traditionally called a standard lens, if you see something interesting, you raise your camera, look thorugh the viewfinder and snap, the resulting image should be pretty close to what your eye perceives (almost, slightly magnified). the large aperture is a bonus for available light photography too...
GitS said:
err... i think this is not correct.
50mm is called standard lens cos the perspective wrt to the distance between an object in front and one behind is closest to what the human eye perceives.
Put in another way, if you use a telephoto lens, the object behind appears to be very near object in front. That is telephoto lens compresses distances.
Vice versa for wide angles : wides exaggerate distances between front & back making objects appear farther than they really are.
That's why when u compare a 50mm and your eye, you seem to think that 35-45mm is closer cos you're looking at the wrong thing.
dark
sorry, i shouldn't have used the term "closer".
I should have said "this lens on a film body has a perspective close to that of the human eye's field of vision, actually around 35-45mm is more representative of the human eye's perspective."
I should have said "this lens on a film body has a perspective close to that of the human eye's field of vision, actually around 35-45mm is more representative of the human eye's perspective."
Bought this lens simply because for the price, you get a relatively large aperture that makes it perfect for shots that require a shallow DOF. F1.8 is pretty big and can produce a good and shallow DOF. Of course, the F1.4 version is superior in several ways than the F1.8, but is many times more expensive. In short, you get what you pay for. If you're not too particular about bokeh and blades, then the 50mm F1.8 should be in any decent (Canon) photographer's bag.
Another advantage of this lens is that the lens barrel doesn't rotate when it focus, making it perfect for polarizers.
Another advantage of this lens is that the lens barrel doesn't rotate when it focus, making it perfect for polarizers.
mpenza said:
define sharp ? sharp at 2R size ? 8R size ? A2 size ? A0 size ?
its DOF is really shallow at f1.8 ... about 3-4cm. out of this range, the pic will be blured.
But yes, wide open at f1.8 is SHARP. :thumbsup:
Prime lens. Used this to shoot anything from products to people. :lovegrin:
- Status
Similar threads
