| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/18/2006 04:26:37 AM · #26 |
Hi-ho,
I have both, and decided to keep the 50/1.8.
For portraits & macros, but not for low light...
I kept it for portraits, because the 24-70 simply scares some people! the 77mm front end is big, and if you add the hood it looks huge. Take a self portrait in the mirror and see what it looks like if you don't believe me. Repeat the self portrait with the 50/1.8...
If you're doing kids, or have a nervous subject the 50/1.8 is far more subtle than pointing the girth of the 24-70 at someone.
I also kept it for sticking on the front of extension tubes to use as a macro lens.
Some people claim that low light is the reason to keep it, but I've never felt the need for the extra 1&1/3rds of a stop when using the 24-70 in some pretty dim light conditions. If I start shooting with the 24-70 I would almost never switch to the 50 to get that small advantage. I just switch to raw and push 1 stop. Same speed advantage (almost), but on a zoom and better focusing accuracy. (I normally shoot jpeg, too lazy for raw. :-) )
Cheers, Chris H.
edit: me got my numbers wrong..
Message edited by author 2006-02-18 04:29:36.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2006 06:06:23 AM · #27 |
Wow, quite an overwhelming response to just keep it...LOL! I have to say though, I HATE the lens hood to that lens. It drives me nuts!
Even with my studio shots with my strobes, I haven't had a use for 1.8. BUT, it seems like one day I may need it.
Hmmm.......
|
|
|
|
02/18/2006 09:28:28 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
Wow, quite an overwhelming response to just keep it...LOL! I have to say though, I HATE the lens hood to that lens. It drives me nuts!
Even with my studio shots with my strobes, I haven't had a use for 1.8. BUT, it seems like one day I may need it. |
A fixed length lens always has higher optical quality than any zoom. Physics dictates that. Zoom lenses are optimized for a particular focal length but make compromises for all the others. Because it has more optical elements it will produce more optical aberations.
It seems in a studio where you control distance to subject it would be your first choice unless you had to use the zoom for some compelling reason.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2006 10:25:38 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
Even with my studio shots with my strobes, I haven't had a use for 1.8. BUT, it seems like one day I may need it.
Hmmm....... |
It's not that you don't have the use for a 1.8f, it's the knowing that you have the range from a 1.8f to 22f if needed.
As far as the hood, what wrong with it? Is it Robin?
|
|
|
|
02/18/2006 05:12:59 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
It's not that you don't have the use for a 1.8f, it's the knowing that you have the range from a 1.8f to 22f if needed.
As far as the hood, what wrong with it? Is it Robin? |
I just hate how it is attatched. Most hoods screw on and seem to lock into place. This one just has little tabs and I have knocked it off several times.
|
|
|
|
02/18/2006 05:14:58 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
A fixed length lens always has higher optical quality than any zoom. Physics dictates that. Zoom lenses are optimized for a particular focal length but make compromises for all the others. Because it has more optical elements it will produce more optical aberations.
It seems in a studio where you control distance to subject it would be your first choice unless you had to use the zoom for some compelling reason. |
Does the 50mm 1.8 have higher optical quality than the 24-70 2.8L? I guess I just assumed the L lens had better quality, and that is a primary reason for using it over the 50mm so often. That and it being a zoom lens.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 03:42:58 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
Does the 50mm 1.8 have higher optical quality than the 24-70 2.8L? I guess I just assumed the L lens had better quality, and that is a primary reason for using it over the 50mm so often. That and it being a zoom lens. |
The glass on the 50mm 1.8f is not the quality of a 50mm 1.4. It's not the glass per-se, it's the coatings.
A prime lens however has less glass, meaning faster, more flexable.
What you get from L lenses are coatings as well, but telephotos are almost always slower than a prime, but what you get in return is the differant lengths.
A tit for tat.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 04:11:58 PM · #33 |
My personal high on DPC was with this shot taken with the 50mm f/1.8. This lens actually cost less than sales tax alone of either of my other lenses... go figure!
 |
|
|
|
02/19/2006 04:56:49 PM · #34 |
From my personal experience, I think it's a good idea to keep all the lenses you buy. I have had occasions to regret getting rid of lenses.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2006 05:16:51 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
Does the 50mm 1.8 have higher optical quality than the 24-70 2.8L? I guess I just assumed the L lens had better quality, and that is a primary reason for using it over the 50mm so often. That and it being a zoom lens. |
Lenses can have different quality optical elements used in their construction. Perhaps this is true in the case of the 24-70 zoom. Anyone know?
Regardless of the optical elements used, zoom lenses will inherently introduce optical aberrations that fixed lenses do not, particularly at the extremes of their range. It is basic physics.
I'd be surprised to learn most professional photographers preferred zoom over fixed length lenses in their studio work. Anyone know that for sure? I've been known to be wrong before. :)
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 05:47:12 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
I'd be surprised to learn most professional photographers preferred zoom over fixed length lenses in their studio work. Anyone know that for sure? I've been known to be wrong before. :) |
Depends on the pro I'd say....
One woman I met a few weeks back does a lot of studio work and has a nice collection of Nikkor primes shooting film and d2x, but another friend uses the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 on an EOS 1DSII.
It's a personal preference thing.
At the end of the day any high-end glass will produce stunning images under good light and in the right hands. Zoom or prime is slightly academic. Yes zooms as a general rule introduce more optical aberations, but here we're are talking about one of the best zoom lenses currently being made.
Most pros using the likes of the 24-70/2.8 are probably not interested in SA/CA anyway, they're too busy paying the bills to pixel peep.
Cheers, Me.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2006 11:35:30 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by JRalston:
Can you tell me more about reversing the 50mm with a macro lens? |
Reverse mount a 50mm lens
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 02:27:19 AM EDT.
