You must really have a ton of money if you're already considering buy a 50mm f/1.2 before you have even started to cover the most important zoom range (which is ~24-300mm IMO).
I also doubt that you will be able to fully appreciate the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4, since you are mentionning simply using this for very low light, however you have to realize that f/1.2 will provide an extremely shallow DOF, so it limits its uses in real life situations (but is great for artistic portraits, ie studio conditions), and, in my opinion, a 50mm on a 1.6x crop body isn't a very interesting nor very useful focal length.
If I were you, I would get some lenses to cover your zoom range well at first, and then buy the "extreme" lenses like the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, etc, if you want/have money for them. I'd get a full frame camera and a 17-40 f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8L, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8L, and you should be good to go. The only problem is that a FF is really expensive at the moment, but thats life. Any of these lenses will be great on a crop camera, too, so that makes them a longterm investment given that eventually you will go full frame and will be able to use the wider lenses to their full potential.
It really depends on what you want to do with your photography, which way do you want to go. If you're into studio work shooting models, then consider getting some strobes and a softbox and you will do fine with decent equipment like an 85mm f/1.8 and a 17-40mm f/4. The lighting will be more important than your lenses in this case.
PHOTOS PLEASE
Ok, I bought my Canon 400D with a 50mm F/1.8 today. I'm a total noob and really have no experience with photography, hence why I bought it because this is gonna be my new hobby.
The following pics are nothing special, but I gotta post something
[lvlshot]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/331246312_48c4b29c9c_o.jpg[/lvlshot]
[lvlshot]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/331246314_7183e8eaac_o.jpg[/lvlshot]
I hope some day that I can post really pictures like the rest of you guys.
The following pics are nothing special, but I gotta post something
[lvlshot]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/145/331246312_48c4b29c9c_o.jpg[/lvlshot]
[lvlshot]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/331246314_7183e8eaac_o.jpg[/lvlshot]
I hope some day that I can post really pictures like the rest of you guys.
ToxicBug wrote:You must really have a ton of money if you're already considering buy a 50mm f/1.2 before you have even started to cover the most important zoom range (which is ~24-300mm IMO).
I also doubt that you will be able to fully appreciate the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4, since you are mentionning simply using this for very low light, however you have to realize that f/1.2 will provide an extremely shallow DOF, so it limits its uses in real life situations (but is great for artistic portraits, ie studio conditions), and, in my opinion, a 50mm on a 1.6x crop body isn't a very interesting nor very useful focal length.
If I were you, I would get some lenses to cover your zoom range well at first, and then buy the "extreme" lenses like the 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2, etc, if you want/have money for them. I'd get a full frame camera and a 17-40 f/4L, 24-70 f/2.8L, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8L, and you should be good to go. The only problem is that a FF is really expensive at the moment, but thats life. Any of these lenses will be great on a crop camera, too, so that makes them a longterm investment given that eventually you will go full frame and will be able to use the wider lenses to their full potential.
It really depends on what you want to do with your photography, which way do you want to go. If you're into studio work shooting models, then consider getting some strobes and a softbox and you will do fine with decent equipment like an 85mm f/1.8 and a 17-40mm f/4. The lighting will be more important than your lenses in this case.
well the thing here is youre "what i would do part" ... the most important zoom range for YOU is apparently up to 300.. but i don't have any need for such long teles at all. fiddles around a bit with a lens of an friend this was 70-300 if i recall right or prolly 75 don't remeber correctly and i need to say that it was too long for me most of the time i stayed at the "wide" end. possible not my cup of tea. the range of the 17-85 on my 1.6er crop is more tele than i usualy need.
for the 50mm being rather usless focal range on croped cameras i disagree, the 50 on crop is the ~85 on ff.. and i doubt you'd say the 85 is not usefull?! as for the thin DOF i know that, which is a big plus imho
i think the choice of youre lenses have todo with what you shoot, there is no general lens that fits all. *shrug*
as for studio lights like said above, neither have the space nor the intention on going that route (yet), this is a pure hobby nothing more and i can sell the expensive lenses without much loss when i don't need them anymore or stop shooting pictures due to becoming blind or whatever
and the money thing.. is that really so much money? do you work? do you have a regular income? if yes it should be no problem at all to obtain such gear. i buy such expensive gear in rates, the gear supplier i buy from here in germany have 0% interest rates if you stay under 6 month of payment. that would make ~200€ a month for the 50 1.2 which is no problem at all .. so its an easy and fair way to obtain high end equipement that doesnt hurt the pocket much.
well my initial thinkering was between an efs 17-55 2.8 and the ef 50 1.2.. not why i want a 50 or why i would choose the 1.2 over the 1.8 etc.Dave wrote:Well, it sounds like you already know what you want
i'm still undecided between thoose 2 but it seems not many here have croped canons and! would purchase an efs lense. so i got into a duscussing about one candidate but not about the other.. well thnx anyway. will do some more review checking.. but honestly the more i compare the harder it gets to make a descision..
-
HM-PuFFNSTuFF
- Posts: 14375
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2001 8:00 am
Today I went to the Art Gallery of Ontario to peep the Ansel Adams/ Alfred Eisenstadt exhibit.
It was most excellent, some really stunning Adams stuff.
It was most excellent, some really stunning Adams stuff.
Last edited by HM-PuFFNSTuFF on Sun Dec 24, 2006 10:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MaCaBr3 wrote:Well erm, it's a picture of champagne glasses.
I think it would be better if the main point of focus wasn't in the centre. See the Rule Of Thirds.
From your exif: Program (Auto) pfft
. (yes, I still haven't posted any pictures yet)There's nothing wrong with program modePhoeniX wrote:MaCaBr3 wrote:Well erm, it's a picture of champagne glasses.
I think it would be better if the main point of focus wasn't in the centre. See the Rule Of Thirds.
From your exif: Program (Auto) pfft
