50mm Prime Lens: f/1.8 or f/2.5 (macro)?

Hi Bedanta,

I am shooting with the same equipment, a new purchase for me also; my first into DSLR photography. Like you, I was surprised and disappointed with my first shots not being as sharp as I expected. I am not exactly a novice but new to DSLR and really just a hobbyist photographer who has not spent a great deal of time at it.

I found the replies here about using post-processing to get the best sharpness to be very enlightening and, well... a relief really. I have always invested some energy into post-processing and it has been with some good deal of self consciousness lately. I shoot RAW images and had no idea (as has been stated here) how important sharpening is as a step to apply.

Myself, I think I will try out the Canon 1.8 50mm lens. It is in my budget and I think I will benefit from the faster lens, even if it is not the top end quality.

-Randy Butters

I started this particular thread just to satisfy myself by collecting some random feedbacks from the forum: I had already concluded that the kit lens was of almost of no use and I needed a better (faster and sharper) lens. I did not get a reply I was expecting (like, go get it), but can anybody guess how much I learned in the process? I’ll try to summarize:

1. If you're not experienced at PP and are not effectively sharpening, no lens is going to make you happy.
2. Point and Shoot cameras that save jpeg files are doing quite a bit of sharpening internally, whereas in a DSLR, with much more control, there may be much less, depending on the camera settings.
3. Correcting operator error is a lot less expensive than buying an expensive lens.
4. cause of the “lack of sharpness” you see exhibited in this image, is, in the main, likely due to Shallow Depth of Field.
5. You will be disappointed if you spend money on another lens, take the same framed shot at the same aperture and expect that the front and back of the toy will be sharp - it will not and it will not, and cannot, because of mathematics: not optics.

I cannot be more grateful to all you wonderful people for sharing your experiences. As Donald rightly expressed in his reply, (“I hope this will be the first post of many in the course of a long-term involvement with the forum”) I’ll continue to be a regular member of this forum as long as I’m shooting.

One final question: what is the use of a faster lens if you cannot open up (as opening up will result in shallower DOF and some part of your main subject will always be out of focus)? Or is it acceptable that way only?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bedantabd

One final question: what is the use of a faster lens if you cannot open up (as opening up will result in shallower DOF and some part of your main subject will always be out of focus)? Or is it acceptable that way only?

---

There are several benefits of a fast lens – in no particular order of significance, some are:

 The ability to arrest Subject Motion, by allowing a faster Shutter Speed for any given ISO
 The ability to allow a brighter viewfinder, generally
 The ability to allow easier MF
 The ability to allow better AF; or possible AF
 The ability to allow a Tele-extender and keep AF
 The ability to capture without supplementary Lights, where such is intrusive or prohibited
 The ability to arrest camera shake, by allowing a faster shutter speed for any given ISO
 The ability to purposely use Shallow Depth of Field to enhance the Subject (separation)

These features might be more important and or relevant, for any given subject or shooting scenario at particular Focal Lengths – for example fast Telephoto Lenses are used often for Sports Photography and a fast WA lens (such as a 35mm) is used often for Events or News /Journalism.

***

Examples of these uses of fast lenses (View Large):

Because the Customer didn't want any Flash Photography at the Function: Len sused EF50F/1.4
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...1241039-lg.jpg


Arresting Subject Motion with fast shutter speed; Flash not allowed: Lens used - EF70 to 200F/2.8–
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...9193571-md.jpg
“Backstroke Start”

***

Allow better AF; Arrest Subject Motion and Camera shake; Flash would be Intrusive: Lens used - EF50F/1.4
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...9193572-lg.jpg
“Swimmer in Change Room corridor, flexing before Suiting Up”

***

Allow better AF; Arrest Subject Motion: Arrest Camera Shake; Provide Shallow DoF for Purpose; Flash would be intrusive: lens used - EF135F/2
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...0442934-lg.jpg
“The Lamp Post Will Not Divide Us”

***

Arrest Camera Shake; Additional Lighting impossible; Tripod not allowed: Lens used - EF24F/1.4
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...9199113-lg.jpg
“That Side”

***

Specifically for the Shallow Depth of Field; - Lens used EF70 to 200F/2.8
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...9913555-lg.jpg


***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bedantabd

opening up will result in shallower DOF and some part of your main subject will always be out of focus . . . Or is it acceptable . . .

---

The man is not in focus.

Not all of the backstroke swimmers are in sharp focus.

Only a portion of the Swimmer’s back is in focus – certainly her hair and head is not in focus

The man is not in focus

A reasonable portion of the scene is inacceptable focus – even though the lens was used at F/1.4

One seagull only is in focus: because that’s what was wanted.


You decide if these images are acceptable to you or not - if any image is acceptable - then it is because the WHOLE image holds you for some OTHER reason, than the need for the Subjects all to be in sharp (accepatble) focus


WW

Thanks Bill for the time you have spent in answering all my questions.......I'm highly obliged.

I'll go for the nifty fifty, because it is within my budget, and it will give me much more flexibility especially in low light situations. I will try to take care of the sharpness part by better focussing / controlling DOF / post processing, etc......

I'm also considering a tripod: Dolica AX620B100 62-Inch Proline Tripod seems to be a good one to begin with. Has anyone used it with a Canon 550D with the kit lens? Any other tripod worth considering within the same budget (Dolica AX620B100 62-Inch Proline Tripod is available at around $80 in India)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

Arrest Camera Shake; Additional Lighting impossible; Tripod not allowed: Lens used - EF24F/1.4
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...9199113-lg.jpg
“That Side”

---

Hi Bill,

I meant to comment last time you posted that shot that I think it's a darn fine shot!

Wasn't it HH @ 1/8th or something close?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

. . .?? hand held etc ??

---

Thanks,
the details for that one are . . .


“That Side 04493”
EOS 5D and EF24F/1.4
Shooting – F/1.4@1/8s@ISO1600 Hand Held


The other one is:
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...9199072-md.jpg
“This Side 04496”
Same Camera and Lens
Shooting – F/5 @ ½s @ISO1600 Hand Held,

I needed more DoF for the second one - I was in a spot wheer a Tripod or Monopod was not allowed to be carried - I used "Mirror Up" for both shots

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bedantabd

I'll go for the nifty fifty, because it is within my budget, and it will give me much more flexibility especially in low light situations. I will try to take care of the sharpness part by better focussing / controlling DOF / post processing, etc......

I'm also considering a tripod: Dolica AX620B100 62-Inch Proline Tripod seems to be a good one to begin with. Has anyone used it with a Canon 550D with the kit lens? Any other tripod worth considering within the same budget (Dolica AX620B100 62-Inch Proline Tripod is available at around $80 in India)?

---

Namaste-ji, kem cho?

Before you take the plunge, have you considered the Sigma 70mm macro EX DG? Well-respected for sharpness all the way down to f2.8 and good bokeh from the 9-blade aperture. I've just bought one new on eBay (USA) for $425 and hope it will turn out well.

Also waiting for a two-extension Giottos MT9240 tripod and a MH7001/621 ball head for not too many dollars . .

Ted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Namaste-ji, kem cho?

Before you take the plunge, have you considered the Sigma 70mm macro EX DG? Well-respected for sharpness all the way down to f2.8 and good bokeh from the 9-blade aperture. I've just bought one new on eBay (USA) for $425 and hope it will turn out well.

Also waiting for a two-extension Giottos MT9240 tripod and a MH7001/621 ball head for not too many dollars . .

Ted

---

Hi Ted, that was a nice greeting..........I'm fine, thanks.

Thanks for your suggestions on the lens/tripod, looks worth considering.....anyway, I'm still waiting for some feedback on the Dolica tripod. Anybody please????

Bedanta

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bedantabd

....anyway, I'm still waiting for some feedback on the Dolica tripod. Anybody please????

Bedanta

---

I am reserved to comment on products which have not used, however paying $80 for a new Tripod I suspect that it will (eventually) be inadequate for general requirements.

You might look here at various comments:

http://www.google.com.au/search?sour...0&aqi=g4&pbx=1

I use Manfrotto Tripods.

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

I use Manfrotto Tripods.

WW

---

Yes Bill, Manfrotto will definitely be my next upgrade (once I am able to justify myself spending 200+ bucks for a tripod). Meantime, I want a tripod that will be useful in taking those long exposure shots which are impossible to take hand held. That's why I'm inclined towards this Dolica model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bedantabd

Meantime, I want a tripod that will be useful in taking those long exposure shots which are impossible to take hand held. That's why I'm inclined towards this Dolica model.

---

Then you need to be certain that the Tripod you are considering is capable of that: I cannot answer if it will or if it won’t – but as it seemed that you were frustrated that there was not a definitive answer about this tripod,

I have given my best guess and that is - it will not be suitable for the task.

The main concern being vibrations, for any reason - because of elements like wind, for example: or the capacity and tension of the head assembly to keep the camera and lens steady and or in the place where you have set it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bedantabd

Manfrotto will definitely be my next upgrade

---

By the intrinsic nature of the duties of a tripod – it is not really tool which you “upgrade”.

If you have an F/3.5 lens which is fuzzy wide open you can use it at F/ 11 and get a reasonable picture – until you can afford to upgrade to a sharper / faster lens.

If you have a 1MP camera you can make 12 exposures and stitch them together to make a reasonable 24”x20” Print … until you can afford to upgrade to a 12MP Camera

But if you have a wonky, lightweight, flimsy or wobbly tripod, it is just frustrating as you get a blurry picture.

You could consider looking for a second hand tripod, which you could test out before you buy.

WW

PS -


It is implied that there was serious consideration in buying a lens that is much more than $200 to make sharper pictures (the EF50F/2.5 is about $300 US, I guess) . . .

Why then, is there now an argument which introduces such a budget ($80) which (IMO) is totally inadequate as the starting point budget for a quality Tripod and Head Assembly?

I bought a nifty fifty because it was so cheap and I wanted to learn how to use macros and shallow depth of field. It takes a practice and technique to make the most out of a lens that wide, when shot wide open. You may need to manually focus sometimes.
I don't know how those guys do it with the expensive f/1.2 macros. You can take a shot of someone's face and literally have trouble based on whether the lens is focusing on the person's nose, or on their closest eye, or on their farthest eye. And #1 and #3 will give you an out of focus shot. I will leave that to the masters, thank you very much!

I've got the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 and love it. It's the cheap version, and as it becomes more popular, the price keeps going up. I'd get one right away. I've heard one pro say it's just as good as the high-end version that is three or four times as expensive.