A lot of 50 f1.8 bashing going on here lately... [Archive] - Digital Camera Resource Page

jamison55

02-27-2006, 06:01 PM

Did I get the only sharp copy?

I have been really puzzled by Don, Andy, and Peter's reports of unusably soft 50 f1.8's, so I dragged mine out and blew the dust off it for a few shots. The one above was straight out of the camera. Not saying that there aren't a lot of bad copies on this forum, but I've always been impressed with mine (even though I don't use it much anymore since I like the little extra headroom the 35mm's afford me...).

So anyway, I thought I was going to have to buy myself one of those amazing 50 f1.4's that everyone's picking up. There's something to be said for a 7 bladed aperture, a metal lens mount, and fast, silent, accurate USM...but seeing as I seem to have the only sharp copy of the 50 f1.8, I think I better hold onto it. It may be a collector's item some day!

(Wide open on XT, focus on eyes):

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/sm501.jpg

Rhys

02-27-2006, 06:15 PM

That didn't look wonderfully sharp to me. I know I didn't sleep much last night but even so it seems soft. I have a 50 f1.8 that I think is pretty ghastly. Maybe I'll put a shot up tomorrow.

aparmley

02-27-2006, 06:23 PM

Looks plenty sharp to me. I'd be happy with that. Jamie I believe the deal with mine is that it doesn't focus accurately, then at F4 there is enough DOF that it covers up the miss focus but anything lower than that I Get OOF results. I'll be sending mine to CPS.

If you recall I stated that I focused once and shot to simulate the normal results I get with mine, if I focus it a bunch of times I can get an ok image but I can never tell until I get it on the screen and even then its not consistant. Thats my beef with my copy. and really all the reason I needed to upgrade. . . just put it off way way way too long.

I alluded to your experience and others stating that they believe the 50 to be of excellent value and sharpness - Its not that I doubt it I just know that my copy is iffy and I can't recommend it to people because if they get my version that would be horrible, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

But it seems that your copy performs as intended and a fellow member on another forum had results like mine apparently and sent it in for repair and it came back looking like yours I suppose, he claimed it was tack sharp.

jamison55

02-27-2006, 06:29 PM

OK, we'll add Rhys to the bad copy 50 f1.8 camp. Here' another from mine. Remember this is at f1.8 so the DOF is pretty thin. Focus is on Luke's left (our right) eye:

http://www.bigredstudios.com/Bigger50f1.801.jpg

jamison55

02-27-2006, 06:36 PM

Looks plenty sharp to me. I'd be happy with that. Jamie I believe the deal with mine is that it doesn't focus accurately, then at F4 there is enough DOF that it covers up the miss focus but anything lower than that I Get OOF results. I'll be sending mine to CPS...

Andy, I'm definitely not trying to marginalize your (or anyone else's experiences) with the 50 f1.8. Seems mine's the exception here! I agree that it's not the fastest of my lenses to focus, and I'll usually try to flutter focus it to get it to really lock on accurately, but these tests were single focus. It took a little longer to achieve focus lock than my USM leses would have in the same situation but the AF was accurate when it locked... Here's hoping yours comes back from CPS with a new attitude :D

cdifoto

02-27-2006, 06:37 PM

jamison55

02-27-2006, 06:47 PM

Mine was ok wide open just not reliable enough to trust. If it would actually achieve a true focus it wasn't too bad and I would have kept it had it not missed about 95% of the wedding shots I used it for at my cousin's wedding. I've only had the 1.4 for a couple hours now and I already feel more confident with it...even with the narrower DOF...

I definitely agree that a lens you have no confidence in is no good...I remember the days of my Sigma 18-50. When I first got my 17-40 I was paranoid for two weddings, until I saw how my OOF shots basically disappeared. Now I almost never zoom in to check focus...

My 50 f1.8 was always pretty good, however. Before I bought the 35's I used it as my available light lens for the getting ready shots. Don't remember an inordinate amount of OOF shots (at least that couldn't be attributed to user error)...

ReF

02-27-2006, 06:52 PM

maybe i should send mine to CPS too, though i wonder if they will charge me for it (it's 15 years out of warranty!) or if they even service it at all anymore.

my problem is the same as cdi and parm's: very unreliable focus. better than the tamron but not good enough for portraits cuz my subjects usually move before i can try to flutter focus. actually, i can't even count on it to lock focus in test shots tripod mounted anymore, ever since i switched to the XT (i don't get why). the only real problem i had with the f1.8 optically was the pentagon bokeh above f2

cdifoto

02-27-2006, 06:54 PM

I took a shot of my cousin, standing still, at f/2.5 from approximately 8 feet. It missed focus. IMO that's bad.

ReF

02-27-2006, 07:00 PM

thinking back to the photos i shot with the 50 f1.8, they were all good with the 300d (except the bokeh. okay, it was slow to focus too, especially in low light). the problem really began with the XT - parm, cdi, rhys, and i all use the same camera, so maybe it's XT related? jamie, you used to shoot with the 300d and then swithed to the 20d right? do you ever shoot with the 50 + XT? any problems?

jamison55

02-27-2006, 07:04 PM

Both those shots above are on my XT... sorry ReF. Though, come to think of it, I've never used the lens seriously on my XT (in fact I think this might be the first time the two met). When I used the 50 for portraits and weddings, it was on my DReb, then my 10D...

You could be onto something...

Hobbit

02-27-2006, 07:05 PM

Hello everybody,
these two topics on 1.4 and 1.8 made me go through my 50 1.8 pic...
I didn't make too many on 1.8 but there are few which were between 2.0 and 3.0. Here is one of them. On 100% magnification one can see some lack of DOF but otherwise pic looks to me well focused.
On the other hand in dim light conditions the lens focuses a little slower than my 18-55. Actually there is no wonder it is 15 years older I am not wrong on this.
EXIF is 50mm, ISO 400, f/2.8, time 1/100.

aparmley

02-27-2006, 07:19 PM

I've only had the 1.4 for a couple hours now and I already feel more confident with it...even with the narrower DOF.

yah

I definitely agree that a lens you have no confidence in is no good......

uhuh very true. . .

Can I get an AMEN!

This is very true and my experience to a T. . .

Hobbit - looks like a good copy to me, nice photo!

24Peter

02-27-2006, 07:55 PM

My 50 1.8 tends to focus pretty well (though I'm not trying to capture that special moment at some live event where if I don't snap now I'll miss it.) I ride the half-shutter press three or four times in general on my XT with all my lenses giving the AF plenty of time to settle in. So from what I can tell my copy is just soft below 3.5. I'm getting my 1.4 tomorrow so I'll do some comparison shots as well. But I've never dissed the 50 1.8. I've repeatedly said it's a great deal for an amateur photographer and I wish all my lenses were as sharp and provided that kind of cost/benefit ratio.

jamison55

02-27-2006, 08:56 PM

Hey Pete, definitely nt trying to put words in your mouth, and I'm sorry if I seemed a little combatitive :o, just think there might be some major sample variance here...this might be a definite try-before-you-buy lens!

aparmley

02-27-2006, 09:05 PM

Andy, I'm definitely not trying to marginalize your (or anyone else's experiences) with the 50 f1.8

I never thought that at all. I understood what your intentions were. Its good to see someone post examples of their results rather than just making a statement about it and being on their way.

I agree with your try-before-buy assessment.

coldrain

02-28-2006, 12:44 AM

That didn't look wonderfully sharp to me. I know I didn't sleep much last night but even so it seems soft. I have a 50 f1.8 that I think is pretty ghastly. Maybe I'll put a shot up tomorrow.
OK, we'll add Rhys to the bad copy 50 f1.8 camp. Here' another from mine. Remember this is at f1.8 so the DOF is pretty thin. Focus is on Luke's left (our right) eye:
I guess we can add Rhys to the bad copy computer screen list too :D

cdifoto

02-28-2006, 01:23 AM

I guess we can add Rhys to the bad copy computer screen list too :D

His lens might actually be sharp as a tack! :eek: :D :p

Rhys

02-28-2006, 11:40 AM

OK. Here are two photos with my 50 f1.8. One (pic A) is taken with JPEG only - the other with RAW only. I can email the originals if anybody specifically requests them. Both have the point of focus cropped and inserted into a resized image.

cdifoto

02-28-2006, 11:51 AM

From what I can tell, Rhys, those aren't too bad. Not stellar...but not horrible either. Of course your target wasn't really even or flat to tell either.

Just my 2 cents.

aparmley

02-28-2006, 12:11 PM

From what I can tell, Rhys, those aren't too bad. Not stellar...but not horrible either. Of course your target wasn't really even or flat to tell either.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with this. I think these are pretty good. . . I'd like to see something that isn't so wavy. like a jar of something. . .

Nice deck and deck furniture! ;)

coldrain

02-28-2006, 12:18 PM

I agree with this. I think these are pretty good. . . I'd like to see something that isn't so wavy. like a jar of something. . .

Nice deck and deck furniture! ;)
And a grey repeating pattern like this is also not very easy to judge...

Rhys

02-28-2006, 01:45 PM

OK, Here are two more pictures - the second is a 100% crop from the focus point (the & on the tin). And for you, a tin of pork and beans!

24Peter

02-28-2006, 01:49 PM

Rhys

02-28-2006, 01:55 PM

cdifoto

02-28-2006, 02:01 PM

Rhys you got a nice copy of the 1.8.

Rhys

02-28-2006, 02:04 PM

Rhys you got a nice copy of the 1.8.

I'd hate to see a bad copy then! I think my Tamron 28-75 is a lot sharper.

cdifoto

02-28-2006, 02:07 PM

I'd hate to see a bad copy then! I think my Tamron 28-75 is a lot sharper.

It's an 80 dollar lens Rhys.

jamison55

02-28-2006, 02:17 PM

Rhys you got a nice copy of the 1.8.

I agree, doesn't get much sharper than that. Why not take the same shot with both lenses at 2.8 for comparison?

aparmley

02-28-2006, 02:34 PM

Gosh - now we're doing the "Food Channel"... :rolleyes:

Nothing personal rhys and thanks for posting. You didn't mark your photos so just to be clear were you shooting at f1.8?

My 50 1.4 should be here shortly and since I already have the 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 I'll probably post my own foodorama tomorrow or the next day. :eek: But be prepared: I'm an organic kind of guy. :o

My exif viewer in Firefox shows the following about the pork and bean image

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Image Date: 2006:02:28 16:29:00
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 50.0mm
CCD Width: 5.14mm
Exposure Time: 0.0006 s (1/1600)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO equiv: 100
White Balance: Auto
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)

Suppose it could be wrong?

Rhys

02-28-2006, 02:35 PM

My exif viewer in Firefox shows the following about the pork and bean image

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Image Date: 2006:02:28 16:29:00
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 50.0mm
CCD Width: 5.14mm
Exposure Time: 0.0006 s (1/1600)
Aperture: f/2.8
ISO equiv: 100
White Balance: Auto
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)

Suppose it could be wrong?

Nope. I think it's right. I'd just used another lens at f2.8 so I suppose I'd left it at f2.8 rather than f1.8. I'll have to reshoot the beans.

aparmley

02-28-2006, 02:36 PM

I'd hate to see a bad copy then! I think my Tamron 28-75 is a lot sharper.

You didn't see mine (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17480&page=4)? ;)

Rhys

02-28-2006, 02:52 PM

You didn't see mine (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17480&page=4)? ;)

Hmm... Please Miss, where are the sticking plasters?

aparmley

02-28-2006, 03:25 PM

Hmm... Please Miss, where are the sticking plasters?

:confused:

cdifoto

02-28-2006, 03:44 PM

Must be a Welsh thing. I don't get it either.

aparmley

02-28-2006, 03:46 PM

Must be a Welsh thing. I don't get it either.

I think he's referring to the peanut butter? Its a sticky - plaster like substance. :D

cdifoto

02-28-2006, 03:48 PM

I think he's referring to the peanut butter? Its a sticky - plaster like substance. :D

If that's the case, it didn't make any sense to this dumb American!

Clyde

02-28-2006, 04:06 PM

Hmm... Please Miss, where are the sticking plasters?

In English-english, that is what us brand concious folk might call a bandaid (tm). The inference is that your shot is just too sharp. Maybe you should look into the 135 sf?

Clyde

aparmley

02-28-2006, 04:22 PM

In English-english, that is what us brand concious folk might call a bandaid (tm). The inference is that your shot is just too sharp. Maybe you should look into the 135 sf?

Clyde

LOL ahh I see thanks for the clarification Clyde. It's like I see english words but the usuage is nothing I've ever seen before. . . :D Thanks again.

24Peter

02-28-2006, 05:06 PM

My exif viewer in Firefox shows the following about the pork and bean image
Is there an EXIF viewer for IE 6? Or do I have to save each photo to my hard drive and then check the properties to know what you guys are really up to?

aparmley

02-28-2006, 05:29 PM

Is there an EXIF viewer for IE 6? Or do I have to save each photo to my hard drive and then check the properties to know what you guys are really up to?

No clue ? ?

cdifoto

02-28-2006, 05:54 PM

Is there an EXIF viewer for IE 6? Or do I have to save each photo to my hard drive and then check the properties to know what you guys are really up to?

I have this on my IE:

http://ak.no-ip.com/EXIF/

Rhys

02-28-2006, 06:16 PM

I downloaded an exif viewer for Mozilla. Found it on fred miranda.

Rhys

03-01-2006, 11:55 AM

For those of you interested in an impromptu lens test, I enclose some handheld samples.

I note that some are not sharp. I don't believe this is a failure of the lens but more a failure of the Canon XT's focussing ability.

The lenses tested are:
Canon 18-55
Tamron 28-75
Tamron 17-35
Tamron 70-300

All shots taken wide open, handheld, single focus, matrix metering.