50 1.4

[aparmley]

Build and feel are excellent. I've taken some test photos - ok Don, some more real life photos than test - but I did take some of those focus test shots. So far I think my copy is about as sharp wide open as your gonna get DOF on 1.8 seems thin but man - 1.4 seems 5 times as thin if that makes sense. Wide open is soft ya - but its usable.

Here is my first shot out of the box outside it was just too bright for the ole XT's 1/4000 max shutter I over exposed two that I will still share, please pardon the overexposure on those - con for XT pro for 30D :D
ISO 100 1.4 1/250
straight out of camera and posted to smugmug - absolutely nothing done to it.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57425604-L.jpg

In high contrast light CA is a bit of an issue [slightly more so than the 85 - nothing 100% scientifically proven though].
ISO 100 1/4 1/4000 - slight over exposure - so the CA bashing might not be entirely fair here - but you get the point.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57426262-L.jpg

100% this was just below and i mean just below my focus point

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57426265-L.jpg


Cooper and I hit the park - I adjusted levels slightly; but thats it. ISO 100 2.8 1/3200

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57424227-L.jpg

100% crop - or as best I could do at getting a 100% crop

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57424232-L.jpg

Another 1.4 1/4000 exposure here - again it was overexposed but I brought back a little bit of it with levels - thats it. focus on the bolt where it contacts the pole.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57424713-L.jpg

100% crop - showing the CA again in the bolts shadow.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57424716-L.jpg

But to be fair who in their right mind is going to use this outside at 1.4 to get 1/4000 shutter speed ? just playing around so I'm not buggered [thats for you Christian].


So far I'm diggin it - I have 50 1.8 v 1.4 samples I'll work on but I have to hit the shower and get ready for work. . . perhaps I'll post those on my lunch break tonight. . . As far as AF servo and tracking is concerned - the 1.4 behaves just like my 85 - slow and doesn't always lock focus - This tells me its the XT. . . two lens with the same results.

Cooper loves when I get new lenses - Park time! LOL - it was nice today. . . 60*F he enjoyed himself.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57424710-L.jpg

Thanks for reading. These were all taken pretty much at high noon - stinky poo!

[cdifoto]

If my copy looks that good, I can live with it. Most definitely. Thanks for posting those...they look fantastic.

[aparmley]

I did try my hand at panning today - speed limit here is about 55. . . I took about 25 photos I think this one turned out the best. . .

It was bright though man. . . ISO 100 F22 1/100 - shutter priority

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57427473-L.jpg

edited my first post to note the time - high noon for these - yuck!

[jamison55]

Looks plenty sharp to me...Congrats! That panning shot rocks. Gives me motion sickness just looking at it!

[aparmley]

Thanks Don. I'm pretty happy so far - its funny using it with the 1.8. . . slow and loud. . . I actually had to check to make sure I was in one shot AF and not in Servo cause I couldnt hear the confirmation beep and it didn't look or sound like it was focusing - plus it was bright and the red dot was invisible. . . LOL.


Thanks Jamie. That panning shot isn't too bad for a panning newb I suppose. Thats a big crop too. not quite as much as those 100% crops but I'd say 50%. Thanks for afirmation on the sharpness - I think I'm gonna enjoy this baby. 2.0 and up simply rocks. I really do understand now why some say this could be considered a 2.0L - if it had the same contrast/saturation of images and yes ofcourse build quality and yes a red ring - but without owning an L I think its as close to one as I will get without buying one - the 85 is nice too though.

I'm a chatty cathy now so I'll just cut this short. . . I'll work on the 1.8 v 1.4 - I'll patent it with Jamie's famous "shootout" tag. ;)

[TheObiJuan]

the 50mm f/1.4 is sharper than the f/1.8 at f/1.8. So that's all that matters. The focus is quiter and better too.
The bokeh is slightly better too.

Nice pics and dog btw. :p

[24Peter]

Waaaah, photos no load... :( I wanna see. I wanna see NOW! :o

Oh, OK, now they're there. Good shots Parm. Thanks for posting 'em. Canoga Camera had been out of stock for a couple of weeks on the 50 1.4 'else I woulda tested one out already.

[aparmley]

Thanks Obi. You're right - it out performs the 1.8 at 1.8 and thats really all that matters.

Pete - Glad the photos popped up for ya. . . You live near Canoga - I got my sigma from them - fast and friendly service! I'm satisfied thus far with the 50- I think thats easy to say. I am working on a comparison of the 1.4 wide open vs the 1.8 wide open - I can't believe it but the 1.4 blows away the 1.8 well maybe not "Blows away" but its much sharper to my eyes. I'll post that later.


Hey I just noticed at work the head shot of Coop and the 100%, his eye is just a black hole on my work computer, I can't see any detail, on my CRT at home I could see plenty of detail, just curious what you guys are seeing? I certainly wouldn't have cropped his eye like that knowing it was nothing but a black circle! LOL. My apologies if it appears like a black hole.

[Mr. Peabody]

Photos look great.

Why did you choose ISO 100 on all your pics.

I would have chosen ISO400 on the panning shot.

Again, I'm just a novice trying to learn.

I would assume in bright daylight just go with ISO 100 whether it is a still shot or a moving subject shot.

[rawpaw18]

Hey I just noticed at work the head shot of Coop and the 100%, his eye is just a black hole on my work computer, I can't see any detail, on my CRT at home I could see plenty of detail, just curious what you guys are seeing? I certainly wouldn't have cropped his eye like that knowing it was nothing but a black circle! LOL. My apologies if it appears like a black hole.


All I see is black hole no detail, but then again my computer is obsolete, the modem uses a rotary dial.:D
-Rich

[cdifoto]

Andy the eye looks fine here. Plenty of detail and some really nice sharpness.

[cdifoto]

Photos look great.

Why did you choose ISO 100 on all your pics.

I would have chosen ISO400 on the panning shot.

Again, I'm just a novice trying to learn.

I would assume in bright daylight just go with ISO 100 whether it is a still shot or a moving subject shot.


He was shooting in broad daylight. ISO400 and slow shutter speeds do not come easy in broad daylight. He needed to stop down to f/22 at ISO100. ISO400 would have frozen the car, thus negating the panning effect.

[TheObiJuan]

He was shooting in broad daylight. ISO400 and slow shutter speeds do not come easy in broad daylight. He needed to stop down to f/22 at ISO100. ISO400 would have frozen the car, thus negating the panning effect.

polarizing filter or 2-stop ND filter would also help.

[aparmley]

Peabody - I was using shutter priority. I picked my shutter speed and the camera choose the aperture to correctly expose, in this case 22, the smallest it goes, the image was still a little over exposed at ISO 100 - at 400 most all of the highlights would have been blown horribly - massive over exposure. at 1/80 second the aperture value was blinking so I am guess that it was nearly two stops overexposed on my cameras meter at 1/100.

Rich - thanks for your input. I'll have to do something about that if everyone else sees a black hole, no point really in having that represent detail at 100%. you can still see it does fairly well on the eyelashes though. . .


Ok here are two TEST shots. I shot both my 50s wide open. People say the 1.4 is soft wide open and really not usuable until about 1.8 even still some say not until 2.0. My test showed these results. Images marked with the respective info.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57464126-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57464107-L.jpg

and finally a poor attempt at comparing them a little closer in one image.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57463948-L.jpg

Conclusion: [?] I might not be qualified to make an "offical" conclusion, but I'd say if the 1.4 is soft wide open for people, its perfectly acceptable for me. Compared to what I used to shoot with, the 50 1.8, the 50 1.4 is sharper to me wide open than the 50 is, which is what I wanted to find out - its alot more usuable than my 50 1.8 - which is why I bought the gosh darned thing, savvy! :D

[aparmley]

A panning shot I edited a little bit. I don't know why, I like the reflection off the fender.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57467359-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57467426-L.jpg

[24Peter]

Thanks again for doing the tests Parm. Yes the 1.4 looks fairly useable wide open (unlike the 1.8). Still, the 1.8 has got to be one of the best deals for an amateur photographer. I paid $69 for mine and as long as I'm at f3.5 or higher (4.5-5.6 is sweet spot) it's probably my sharpest lens. But being able to shoot at f2 (or perhaps even 1.4 :-)) opens up a whole new range of possibilities... I'll be picking one up next week.

BTW - love the pickup tracking shot (did you add that reflection?) and "SAC over Missouri" (vapor trail shot)!

[aparmley]

Andy the eye looks fine here. Plenty of detail and some really nice sharpness.

Ok cool. Thanks Don.


Thanks again for doing the tests Parm.

My pleasure sir. That'll be $300. LOL ;)


Yes the 1.4 looks fairly useable wide open (unlike the 1.8).


Agreed.


Still, the 1.8 has got to be one of the best deals for an amateur photographer. I paid $69 for mine and as long as I'm at f3.5 or higher (4.5-5.6 is sweet spot)

Agreed on this. good value, my sweetspot is almost identical to that, I'd say 3.5 or higher is smack dab on for my lens too.




BTW - love the pickup tracking shot (did you add that reflection?) and "SAC over Missouri" (vapor trail shot)!

Thanks Man I appreciate it - I was in the middle of about 6 soccer fields, great for the dog not a lot of opportunity for the photog with a new lens. No that reflection is 100% authentic.

Ok Sorry - Last one for tonight -
random FM reviewer: "Hey is that 1.4 usuable wide open?"
aparmley: "Ahhhh, No, not for you." :D
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57470600-L.jpg

Shot here at work in my dungeon, straight from camera to your computer screen.

[cdifoto]

Here's to hoping mine looks that good. f/1.4 is usable as-is wide open...and a little USM would sharpen it up quite nicely!

[aparmley]

. . . f/1.4 is usable as-is wide open. . .

Great! you picked up on my subtle point, hahaha! I don't know what these guys are talking about - I mean sure take a photo of a person that moves slightly and the narrow DOF just ruined the photo but to me that doesn't make it "unusable" or "soft" that just means you failed to get the photo.


Here's to hoping mine looks that good.

Yep! yours will be. But I'll bang my beer mug against yours if it'll help. ;)

[Bluedog]

Nice results Andy on what seems from your testing a very good lens.

This digital photo bug is eatin' us alive. I got a Kata R-103 Rucksack today _ :rolleyes: _ and its packed full already. Will be nice to have verses the shoulder bag hiking around the parks out West.

Thanks for the comments at POTN ... ;)

[aparmley]

Nice results Andy on what seems from your testing a very good lens.

This digital photo bug is eatin' us alive. I got a Kata R-103 Rucksack today _ :rolleyes: _ and its packed full already. Will be nice to have verses the shoulder bag hiking around the parks out West.

Thanks for the comments at POTN ... ;)

You bet! Thanks for stopping by stranger ;) That 10-22 looks very nice.

[cwphoto]

But to be fair who in their right mind is going to use this outside at 1.4 to get 1/4000 shutter speed ? just playing around so I'm not buggered [thats for you Christian].



Well I'll be buggered, you got the 1.4 Parm.:D

All the other shit's been said before, but can I just comment on the great compostion of some of these (like the Vapour trail through the sky).

Keep pushing that envelope Baby!:cool:

[aparmley]

Well I'll be buggered, you got the 1.4 Parm.:D


LMAO - yep. sure did. told ya. ;)



All the other shit's been said before, but can I just comment on the great compostion of some of these (like the Vapour trail through the sky).

Keep pushing that envelope Baby!:cool:

Thanks alot, I appreciate it. Thanks for having a look!

[aparmley]

I have some new tests to show. I did a 50 shoot out - the usual suspects, 50 1.8, 50 1.4, and my 28-105 at 50mm.

First up the 50s at large apertures. 4 images in one showing the results from both lenses at 1.8 and 2.0 respectively. I'm testing something here. The image should link you to this image at my smugmug page, there you can click on it, then at the top click "O" for original size.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57538086-L.jpg (http://parmley.smugmug.com/gallery/588781/4/57538086)

more to come. . . stay tuned.

[aparmley]

50 1.8 @ F4 vs 50 1.4 @ F4.0 vs 28-105 [50mm] @ F4.0
Again the image should link you to the image at smugmug


http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57540177-L.jpg (http://parmley.smugmug.com/gallery/588781/4/57540177)

F8 next.

[aparmley]

And finally all three lens at F8. image will link to Original size image.


http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57541068-L.jpg (http://parmley.smugmug.com/gallery/588781/4/57541068)

[aparmley]

All of these are just straight out of the camera, cropped, placed together on a large canvas for examination.

To me the 1.4 is sharper, the 1.8 is nice at F4, sharper than the zoom, but the zoom wins hands down in color reproduction in my eyes. It was partly cloudy today so I tried to get the same light for all of these. I used AV and I shot only when my camera metered the same SS as the others - still light was off just a little but I hope you can see past that.

Thanks for playing!
All images shot in AV priority at ISO 100
All f1.8 images at 1/1250
All f2.0 images at 1/1000
All f4.0 images at 1/250
All f8.0 images at 1/60

[24Peter]

Hey Parm - thanks again for setting up the test. The only thing that jumps out at me is how poorly the 28-105 did sharpness-wise. I didn't think it would be as sharp as the primes but didn't think it would be so soft. Did you use a tripod for these shots?

[aparmley]

Hey Parm - thanks again for setting up the test. The only thing that jumps out at me is how poorly the 28-105 did sharpness-wise. I didn't think it would be as sharp as the primes but didn't think it would be so soft. Did you use a tripod for these shots?

Yep. Used the 3021 for these with my remote shutter. No problem sharing my results. I'm glad I could do it.

[D70FAN]

Nice job. My only negative comment is that the bokeh is a little "edgy"...

But sharp. 'Scuse me while I find a band aid for my right eye.;)... ;)

[cdifoto]

Thanks again for doing this Andy. That 50 1.4 looks sweet. I'm not concerned with stopped down quality (although it obviously & typically sharpens up even more) but the wide open shots look very very good.

Again, if mine looks that good when I get it on Monday I'll be one happy duck! :D

[aparmley]

Nice job. My only negative comment is that the bokeh is a little "edgy"...

But sharp. 'Scuse me while I find a band aid for my right eye.;)... ;)

Thanks George. I appreciate that you stopped by and took a look, thanks for your comments as well. I can't tell you what is making the bokeh edgy? Could be all the limbs in the background - nothing but bare tree branches. . . ?


Thanks again for doing this Andy. That 50 1.4 looks sweet. I'm not concerned with stopped down quality (although it obviously & typically sharpens up even more) but the wide open shots look very very good.

Again, if mine looks that good when I get it on Monday I'll be one happy duck! :D

No problem Don - It'll be your turn on Monday! I want to see some L comparisons!

Heres the 50 1.4 test shot from the same series as the previous photos, but its all by its lonesome at f1.4 ;)

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57550387-L.jpg

I think you can tell in that exactly where my focus point was. near the top of the decorative post, there is that cap like looking feature, just below that lip, on the section of the post that slops outward, thats just where the focus point was. I'll try to get a print screen version showing the focus point in the canon software up - I was wanting to do that for this test, just to show everyone for informative purposes, but ran out of time before I had to leave for work. . .

[D70FAN]

Thanks George. I appreciate that you stopped by and took a look, thanks for your comments as well. I can't tell you what is making the bokeh edgy? Could be all the limbs in the background - nothing but bare tree branches. . . ?



No problem Don - It'll be your turn on Monday! I want to see some L comparisons!

Heres the 50 1.4 test shot from the same series as the previous photos, but its all by its lonesome at f1.4 ;)

I think you can tell in that exactly where my focus point was. near the top of the decorative post, there is that cap like looking feature, just below that lip, on the section of the post that slops outward, thats just where the focus point was. I'll try to get a print screen version showing the focus point in the canon software up - I was wanting to do that for this test, just to show everyone for informative purposes, but ran out of time before I had to leave for work. . .

Definately acting like a good sharp f/1.4 should... damn there goes the other eye.

[jamison55]

Very nice! That 50 definitely is more than usable at f1.4...have you tried shooting it in the darkest room you can find yet...?

[aparmley]

Very nice! That 50 definitely is more than usable at f1.4...have you tried shooting it in the darkest room you can find yet...?

Yes. I have Jamie. in addition to the lens cap shot on page 2, I took a few shots handheld today in my living room, with all the curtrains drawn, metered the scene at 1/10 at 1.4 but hand holding was not exactly right to do - but I did it for focus speed - I think it locked focus as fast as it did outside in the sunlight. I'll do tripod tests tonight in the dark living room with one of the many do-dads my GF has collected over the years. That should be fun for a friday night - how big of a dork am I? Well as my old man said, only bad things happen after midnight! not much to do at midnight even on a friday night if I don't feel like playing the drink and drive and pray I don't get pulled over game. :D

[aparmley]

50 1.4 v 50 1.8. Low light shoot out - the 1.4 focused slower than it does in good light, but faster than the 1.8. Camera mounted on tripod; remote shutter release used; Ok here is what I did. I took each photo than manually focused to infinity, turned AF back on and then locked AF focus and fired.

The setup:

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57601357-L.jpg (http://parmley.smugmug.com/gallery/588781/4/57601357)

Hopefully you noticed, due to picky people who will remain unamed at this time, I used a Jif jar. ;)

Camera settings:
ISO 1600
1.8 | 1/13
2.0 | 1/8
2.8 | 1/4
Focus point was on the UN in crUNchy - approximately

The results [Same deal as before; click on image to go see full image at smugmug, once at smugmug click on the image it will increase in size at the top click on "O" to view the original size.]

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57601359-L.jpg (http://parmley.smugmug.com/gallery/588781/4/57601359)

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57601360-L.jpg (http://parmley.smugmug.com/gallery/588781/4/57601360)

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57601361-L.jpg (http://parmley.smugmug.com/gallery/588781/4/57601361)

Well. While it didn't surprise me this did:

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57602772-L.jpg (http://parmley.smugmug.com/gallery/588781/4/57602772)

I knew the results with my newly dubbed "Shitty-fitty" were dissappointing but crap, I was trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit this whole time, 10 months. I'll gladly say that I hope my 50's performance is among the worst because in general the 1.8 gets recommendations and good reviews left and right. regardless of the $75 price tag I can't recommend it to anyone - even if there are better copies out there. Again, if I sat there and triple focused I think I could have gotten slightly better results, but I'm picky, I wanna see what I am going to get when I just focus and take the picture like I supposed to be able to do. like I have been doing for the past 10 months. :mad:

[cdifoto]

You don't even have to enlarge the photos to see what I experienced at my cousin's wedding. Unreliable focus. I'm like you Andy...I want a lens that focuses the first time. I can't always stand there and double, triple, quadruple check my focus, then fire hoping it got it right.

Some say "Oh but the DOF is so narrow it must be user error." I say, "I'm sorry but f/2.5 from about 50 feet should be in focus...there's PLENTY of depth of field." Only 2 out of over 40 of my cousin's wedding shots with the 50 were in focus. Maybe 3 more could have been acceptable as a 4x6 but were certainly not sharp. Fortunately I wasn't the hired gun and had run out to my car to get my 24-70L to get some semi-formals and random candids. It was spot on.




Oh and thanks for being a Choosy Mom, Andy! :p :D :rolleyes:

[cwphoto]

Yeah that nifty-fifty should be renamed the iffy-fifty based on your results.

Did you try and focus manually at all? I know; it defeats the purpose.

50 f/1.4 at f/2.0 is looking schweeet - looks like you have no copy concerns here.

Hurry up and post some out-there stuff will ya Parm?!:D

[jamison55]

...
Hopefully you noticed, due to picky people who will remain unamed at this time, I used a Jif jar. ;)...

Man, you're just paying for the label...you'll never be able to afford any L glass this way (though based on your results, you won't need to). That's a remarkable difference, and could very well be the reason Canon hasn't updated the 50 f1.0L yet...the 50 f1.4 is just too good!

[cdifoto]

Man, you're just paying for the label...you'll never be able to afford any L glass this way (though based on your results, you won't need to). That's a remarkable difference, and could very well be the reason Canon hasn't updated the 50 f1.0L yet...the 50 f1.4 is just too good!

No way dude. Last generic PB I bought tasted like chalk...

[aparmley]

You don't even have to enlarge the photos to see what I experienced at my cousin's wedding. Unreliable focus. I'm like you Andy...I want a lens that focuses the first time. I can't always stand there and double, triple, quadruple check my focus, then fire hoping it got it right.

Some say "Oh but the DOF is so narrow it must be user error." I say, "I'm sorry but f/2.5 from about 50 feet should be in focus...there's PLENTY of depth of field." Only 2 out of over 40 of my cousin's wedding shots with the 50 were in focus. Maybe 3 more could have been acceptable as a 4x6 but were certainly not sharp. Fortunately I wasn't the hired gun and had run out to my car to get my 24-70L to get some semi-formals and random candids. It was spot on.




Oh and thanks for being a Choosy Mom, Andy! :p :D :rolleyes:

No problem Don, I was laughing last night when I started, choosy moms choose jif! LOL - yep another set of terrible photos from the 50 - Its starting to look like I am doing this on purpose - I just am in awe right now - I have a lens thats sharp and reliable - I don't know what to do I'm shotting ever stupid subject there is and laughing like doctor evil!


Yeah that nifty-fifty should be renamed the iffy-fifty based on your results.

Did you try and focus manually at all? I know; it defeats the purpose.

50 f/1.4 at f/2.0 is looking schweeet - looks like you have no copy concerns here.

Hurry up and post some out-there stuff will ya Parm?!:D

I've attempted manual focus - It is a cause of great pain with the tiny view finder of the XT. Maybe I just don't have that manual focus gift but AF produced better results. I'll try to do something for ya this weekend Christian.


Man, you're just paying for the label...you'll never be able to afford any L glass this way (though based on your results, you won't need to). That's a remarkable difference, and could very well be the reason Canon hasn't updated the 50 f1.0L yet...the 50 f1.4 is just too good!

hahaha - it'll take a lot more than generic PB to help afford that stuff! =) But ya I'm pretty stoked to say the least about this lens.


No way dude. Last generic PB I bought tasted like chalk...

I thought you weened yourself off that habit?

[24Peter]

Wow - Parm looks like you got an excellent copy of the 50 1.4 since I've read many reviews which say it's soft below 2.0.

I've gotten blasted on other forums for saying the 50 1.8 is really a 3.5 lens since it's (IMHO) too sofft below that apeture to be used. Your results point that out. That being said, I still think it's a good deal for amateur photographers. Shooting at 4.5 or above under strobes I've gotten some of my best shoots using that lens (in relatively well lit environments my copy generally focuses very well.) Here's an example:

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/christinamitropoulou/huge/IMG_0033.JPG

Anyway, my 50 1.4 should be here on Tuesday. I report back then. :D

[aparmley]

Wow - Parm looks like you got an excellent copy of the 50 1.4 since I've read many reviews which say it's soft below 2.0.

Yes as have I. I'm really scraching my head when I remember those, QC issues? I think its all karma. I think most people get a plastic-fantastic and I got, as christian put it, the "iffy-fifty." so it was only right for me to get a sharp copy of the 50 1.4.



I've gotten blasted on other forums for saying the 50 1.8 is really a 3.5 lens since it's (IMHO) too sofft below that apeture to be used. Your results point that out.

Yea, I've taken a little heat declaring my 35 F2 out performs my 50 1.8. But I just know my results are very representative of what I tend to get out of my 50 and I pray that my results are very representative of what I will get out of the 1.4. So far its performing flawlessly.

Leave it up to Peter to through my nice perty little thread's margins out of whack!



[.IMG]http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/christinamitropoulou/huge/IMG_0033.JPG[/IMG.]


AHHH-HAAAA! Theres the culprit [Bolded above] "Huge" Whats the about, eh? :rolleyes:

Kinding with you its all good - Thats a great photo Pete and I agree with you again, at 4.5 + its a great value.



Anyway, my 50 1.4 should be here on Tuesday. I report back then. :D

Are you renting? Or did I convince you to flat out order it? LOL :D Pretty sweet, Dons will have his monday and you will get it on tuesday. I'm looking forward to both of your assessments and samples!

[aparmley]

Man, you're just paying for the label...you'll never be able to afford any L glass this way (though based on your results, you won't need to). That's a remarkable difference, and could very well be the reason Canon hasn't updated the 50 f1.0L yet...the 50 f1.4 is just too good!

By the way, you weren't the picky individual to whom I was referring. didn't mean for it to come off that way if it did. I wish I had a fat jar of, get this you ready guys, "Scooner Tuna" ;)

Jamie - when you asked about shooting in the darkest of rooms what did you mean exactly, incase I misintrepreted and is there anything you want me to try in particular?

[aparmley]

I've got a few bum around the wilderness shots from over at my parents house today with the new lens and I have some newly taken, low light portraits of two very lazy and very comfortable individuals, Cooper and Gizmo. I don't think I've graced you all with images of her but shes my cat - black very hard to photograph properly. I need to find an 18% gray cat! I hear they're rare. LOL :D

Well, before posting I just wanted to see what everyone else thought I should do continue with some more examples or just call it good enough and move on. My judgement is slightly impared being that I am in heaven right now with this 50.

let me know. . .

[aparmley]

I'm in the processing of reviewing and posting the low light shots tonight. If I don't hear a peep by then, I'll take the silence as a yes! :D Come on Don, you're the only one logged in now! hahahaa. . .

[cwphoto]

Good enough - move on to something typical of your style (now that's a tautology right there).

[cdifoto]

You can post 'em if you want...but it's certain you have an excellent copy...so get some glamour shots of your girlfriend now!

[aparmley]

She's fast asleep Don! Sorry.


Good enough - move on to something typical of your style (now that's a tautology right there).

haha, Understood!

these are a little more my style - I'd say the transitional photos between the "lets test this new baby out" and you're normal run of the mill photos - ie per your style. . . I think I'm going to get up early tomorrow, head out downtown Alton [Old Mississippi river town] and see what I get.

I'll just be selective here and post a couple I really liked only because I agree CW it was time to move on to something a little more me and I think these qualify.

If I had to pick a starter here it would be this one B/C its shot at 1.4

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57712513-L.jpg

Playing with DOF here also at 1.4 - bit of abstract, so I'm ok with people taking or leaving it.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57712507-L.jpg

Gizmo always has one eye on me. ISO 1600 @ 1.8 1/80th I believe.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57721455-L.jpg

I'd say this is my style if I had one at all. . .

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57721461-L.jpg

Busted!

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57721457-L.jpg

Thank you all for your time re: this thread and all of your comments and input. Its greatly appreciated.

Good Night . . .

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/57724313-L.jpg

[cwphoto]

Cracking! This is more what I expect from you.

Ain't it great when you have an awesome new toy to play with - and it delivers.

[aparmley]

Cracking! This is more what I expect from you.

Good to see it didn't "Freak" you out. hahaha. Thanks bud I appreciate the comments.



Ain't it great when you have an awesome new toy to play with - and it delivers.

Yes, yes it is indeed.

[cdifoto]

You've got a sharp, fast, smooth, awesome lens there Andy. Now I'm anxious. Hope mine's that good...I ain't gonna settle for less! :eek: :D

[aparmley]

You've got a sharp, fast, smooth, awesome lens there Andy. Now I'm anxious. Hope mine's that good...I ain't gonna settle for less! :eek: :D

Thanks. I'm sure yours will be. The lens is built great. Its my 85's mini-me. Both are outstanding, its hard to think that there may be "bad copies" out there. I think yours will be as good as mine. Looking forward to your "report."