Associate
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 37
Just the one from me for now. See what else i can dig out.
Lets see some of your Fiddy shots (50mm)
- Thread starter SteveOBHave
- Start date
Soldato
I like the second one, but I think I would prefer it without the people and without the bike.
I think that there is an issue with the balance in the second one - and I think Scary is right - it's the people that throws it off a bit. You have the seats and the trees leading down to the door (the dark bit without the window) and the people then distract from the lines.
Personally I think that it wouldn't be that interesting a shot without the people but in it's current composition it hasn't quite come together.
The first one is nice in an abstract way.
Personally I think that it wouldn't be that interesting a shot without the people but in it's current composition it hasn't quite come together.
The first one is nice in an abstract way.
A couple shot in Glasgow the other night, nearly cost me my fingers!
Quite happy with this one, who says the fifty doesn't have smooth bokeh.
Not quite sure about this one tbh, can't put my finger on it.
The bokeh is fine at f1.8 stop down and it becomes very hexagonal.
Soldato
More from the 50:
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 37
Soldato
Thinking of getting the Sigma 50mm but loving this lens too much as it is!
Soldato
Something about the 50mm f/1.8 that has been bugging me for a while, which might sound silly but wanted confirming.
I know that it is good for low light photography because it goes down to a low aperture number. But surely, if you are to take it all the way down, you have a very shallow depth of field. So if you want a deeper dof (say f/8+) in low light (say evening landscape), this lens is no better than any other (other than sharpness) and you still have to rely on a long exposure?
I know that it is good for low light photography because it goes down to a low aperture number. But surely, if you are to take it all the way down, you have a very shallow depth of field. So if you want a deeper dof (say f/8+) in low light (say evening landscape), this lens is no better than any other (other than sharpness) and you still have to rely on a long exposure?
Soldato
You're not wrong, the AF isn't brilliant in low light either so it's a bit tricky! I mean to use my 430 for focus assist next time out.
Another not so tight shot:
Another not so tight shot:
Soldato
Could a lot of these shots be achieved with the kit lens and the right PP? Or is the 50mm just that good?
I've been thinking about this for a while, as I'm a noob this will be the first lens I've bought, will it completely replace the kit lens?
...and why do people call this "cheap and nasty" if it's takes such good shots?
I've been thinking about this for a while, as I'm a noob this will be the first lens I've bought, will it completely replace the kit lens?
...and why do people call this "cheap and nasty" if it's takes such good shots?
Last edited:
Soldato
Which kit lens? The 18-55 I have isn't as sharp as the 50mm and in lower light. I use the 50mm over the kit lens everytime indoors and even outdoors at times!
The build quality\materials aren't the best. Mine feels solid enough, nothing squeaks or rattles. However it is sooo light and you do get the impression that if you dropped it that it would most likely disappear in a puff of dust! Best £70 I have spent though by far
edit: Also the AF is noisy and hunts a lot in low light. Can be prone to front focusing in low ight as well.
Because it is cheap and nasty, it's built like a toy. Doesn't make it a bad lens though.
Associate
One of first goes with the fifty:
Soldato
A couple of a snaps I took a few weeks back:
Soldato
Just a quick question, my birthday soon and someones asked if I would like a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D AF Lens, is that an ok starter lens for a 50mm, I know its quite cheap just want to make sure.
Soldato
f4.0
f2.8
f2.8