PDA

View Full Version : Picked up a 50mm f/1.8



Mr. Magoo
07-05-2007, 06:49 AM
I should have put the money into a more useful range, but it was an impulse purchase.

Wow.

The one problem I face now is managing depth of field. At 1.8 the depth of field is so shallow a group shot of 3 kids left 2 of the kids faces out of focus.
________
Wife Swap (http://www.fucktube.com/video/4437/couples-try-wife-swap-and-likes-it)

tcadwall
07-05-2007, 07:08 AM
oh but that one face was raZor sharp wasn't it?!?! :D

herc182
07-05-2007, 07:28 AM
i want it :-(

Will it have a greater DOF than my 35mm f2 (i.e. is it worth getting if i already have a fast lens...)!

erichlund
07-05-2007, 07:41 AM
i want it :-(

Will it have a greater DOF than my 35mm f2 (i.e. is it worth getting if i already have a fast lens...)!

Actually, if anything, is should have a slightly shallower depth of field wide open. It's very slightly faster and longer. On Nikon dSLRs, it is a short telephoto.

If you are looking for roughtly equivalent image quality to your 35 f2, you should look at the 50mm f1.4. That lens has similar color reproduction, is sharper wide open, and even faster. Of course, it's also similarly priced to the 35 f2.

herc182
07-05-2007, 07:45 AM
Sorry i meant shallower DOF. would get it for portraits (not that i have shot many!) and creativity with the f1.8.

tcadwall
07-05-2007, 07:51 AM
herc...

A couple things on using th 50mm f/1.8 for portraits.

1. you still have to get pretty darned close for a headshot.
2. Sort DOF is better for headshot type portraits...

This kinda conflicts... IOW you have to get real freakin close to your subject to get a head/shoulder shot. Like feet away, not yards.

Mr. Magoo
07-05-2007, 08:40 AM
A couple things on using th 50mm f/1.8 for portraits.

1. you still have to get pretty darned close for a headshot.
2. Sort DOF is better for headshot type portraits...

This kinda conflicts... IOW you have to get real freakin close to your subject to get a head/shoulder shot. Like feet away, not yards.

So what you are saying is that this is one of the reasons why people say the 50 is too short for a portrait lens?

I picked it up on impulse because it was inexpensive. While money doesn't grow on trees, I'm certain I'll keep it. Everyone called it a must have.

I did get some nice head shots on the 4th, but yeah, I was really close.
________
DEPAKOTE CLASSACTION (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/depakote/)

tcadwall
07-05-2007, 09:01 AM
Yeah, sorry it was abbreviated which is - admittedly - unusual for me...:)

You can use it for portraits, but a little longer lens would probably be a little better for head-shot portraits.

If you are shooting a group portrait, depending on the group size and location, it might work great, but you won't want to shoot a group portrait at f/1.8!!! Not unless they are really ugly people that SHOULD be out of focus...:eek:

FWIW - I am in the MUST HAVE camp... It is a great lens for low-light action, shallow DOF shots, and very sharp. IQ is probably the best bang for the buck out there.

herc182
07-05-2007, 09:14 AM
Not unless they are really ugly people that SHOULD be out of focus...:eek:


LOL. That is true in a lot of cases....

soccerjoe5
07-09-2007, 04:37 AM
got the f/1.4 for my D40 and i'm loving it even if it's MF only :)

herc182
07-09-2007, 04:39 AM
Nice one....I think in some cases its faster and easier to use MF. at least you know you will get what you want in focus :)