no bulb setting?

Oh, there most certainly is, and I've used it a fair bit in the past.

Oh, there most certainly is, and I've used it a fair bit in the past.

Also great point. All things I still need to learn about

You should work for the Halifax Chamber of Commerce. You just came up with their new campaign:

HEH! But in all seriousness, there are old settler and war cemeteries, as well as cemeteries of people from the Titanic. Moonlit night shots would be spectacular to go along with my snow and fog......

Some from an afternoon in NYC.

I'm really impressed by the composition in so many of these shots. I don't know what it is, but I can't compose a shot worth a damn. Stupidity I guess.

I'm really impressed by the composition in so many of these shots. I don't know what it is, but I can't compose a shot worth a damn. Stupidity I guess.

You've composed some nice drink on the window sill with cityscape background, so don't knock yourself too hard.

Dude, say hi next time when you're at 23rd Street. I work right there.

I am in the neighborhood all the time. Where do you work?

I spent some time at Adorama this afternoon and bought some stupid Delkin CF cards that I cannot read with my current CF reader. Also decided to get the 35 f2 to replace the 35L I bought and traded off a few weeks ago. Picked up a 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 to add to the kit as well. I have found that the difference between the 50 1.4 and the 50 1.8 is not much at all. I guess the better USM focus and build quality are the basis of price difference.

Focus was on the front edge of the red cap, both lenses at 1/60 f1.8, tripod mount. Anyone want to guess which pick came from the $100 lens and which from the $350 lens?

I'm guessing first one was taken with 50/1.4.

Well, you can't really compare when taken with different apertures. The wider one is naturally less sharp.

But yeah, like I said, the 50mm 1.4 really isn't worth it. That's mostly why I'm going away from Canon for my next setup.

Well, you can't really compare when taken with different apertures. The wider one is naturally less sharp.

But yeah, like I said, the 50mm 1.4 really isn't worth it. That's mostly why I'm going away from Canon for my next setup.

Focus was on the front edge of the red cap, both lenses at 1/60 f1.8, tripod mount. Anyone want to guess which pick came from the $100 lens and which from the $350 lens?

.

Edited September 18, 201015 yr by Salt Peanuts

Actually Frank is right, I had the pics screwed up. What was posted was the 50 f/1.4 at 1.4 and then 1.8. I am working on fixing them now.

I can say that in real world pictures, the 1.4 does have some advantages outside of the build quality.

As far as Nikon, I actually looked at the top Nikon as I am looking to get a new camera but to get the equivalent lenses in Nikon I would either have to pay a lot more or give up on some lenses as Nikon does not have them. I also felt the controls were made for people with much smaller hands as nothing seemed to be in the right place for me. I really like the D3s and it is still on the table but it would have to be dramatically better than the upcoming 1Ds for me to switch.

I've also liked the color from the 50/1.4 better, at least on sample pictures I've seen. Jeff, how is the focusing speed on 50/1.4 compared to 50/1.8?

Much faster and quieter.

When stopped down I think the 1.4 is a bit sharper. I also think the Bokeh is a bit smoother with the 1.4. Playing with it wide open gets some interesting results but I do not really see much use in day-to-day photos for such a shallow depth of field.

Wide Open focused on the weird standing mushroom.

A few more wide open.

I'm really impressed by the composition in so many of these shots. I don't know what it is, but I can't compose a shot worth a damn. Stupidity I guess.

pshh, its just practice. i want to see more monkey shots!

When stopped down I think the 1.4 is a bit sharper. I also think the Bokeh is a bit smoother with the 1.4. Playing with it wide open gets some interesting results but I do not really see much use in day-to-day photos for such a shallow depth of field.

low light shots! 1.4 + some huge iso = pretty decent "night" shots!

pshh, its just practice. i want to see more monkey shots!

x2. Though in my case, the good ol' "spray & pray" method works well.

Much faster and quieter.

I think 50/1.4 will be my next lens. Either that or Sigma 50, if I can get over my (irrational) fear of 3rd party lenses.

Edited September 18, 201015 yr by Salt Peanuts

5dmkii shots of my neighborhood

at least the camera is awesome

x2. Though in my case, the good ol' "spray & pray" method works well.

I think 50/1.4 will be my next lens. Either that or Sigma 50, if I can get over my (irrational) fear of 3rd party lenses.

Your fear of 3rd party lenses would serve you well this time. That particular lens is notorious for being variable in build quality. A lot of the Canon mount ones have issues with front-focusing. And it often can't even be fixed with AF microadjustment if your camera has that. However, if you can try it before you buy it, it's a spectacular value. A good copy is far better than the Canon 50mm 1.4 in basically every way.

i really like that subway shot.

x2

Frank, have you used both the Canon and Sigma 1.4? I looked at the Sigma and the guys at Adorama said it was a waste of money as the Canon was better for less money.

Actually Frank is right, I had the pics screwed up. What was posted was the 50 f/1.4 at 1.4 and then 1.8. I am working on fixing them now.

I can say that in real world pictures, the 1.4 does have some advantages outside of the build quality.

As far as Nikon, I actually looked at the top Nikon as I am looking to get a new camera but to get the equivalent lenses in Nikon I would either have to pay a lot more or give up on some lenses as Nikon does not have them. I also felt the controls were made for people with much smaller hands as nothing seemed to be in the right place for me. I really like the D3s and it is still on the table but it would have to be dramatically better than the upcoming 1Ds for me to switch.

I agree with your point about Nikon ergonomics. Canon is much better and I wish I could stick with them, but the Nikkor mid-range primes beckon. For you, perhaps it is more expensive to get Nikkor lenses, since you use the 24-70mm the most. The pro level primes are more expensive also.

edit: Yes, I've looked at the Sigma. When I use them for portraits, the Sigma always came out sharper for me. I've heard that it is softer around the edges, though, but that's not something I'm overly concerned about.

I agree with your point about Nikon ergonomics. Canon is much better and I wish I could stick with them, but the Nikkor mid-range primes beckon. For you, perhaps it is more expensive to get Nikkor lenses, since you use the 24-70mm the most. The pro level primes are more expensive also.

I have so many Canon lenses now that changing would be a last resort. I am supposed to pick up a 7D tomorrow when I trade in the 50D and then I will get the new 1Ds and be done for a while. Five bodies should be enough, right?

[url=http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/09/the-radical-1ds-mark-iv-cr1/]The Radical 1Ds Mark IV [CR1]

Haha, well maybe when I use the Nikon a lot, I'll get used to it. The functions are more accessible, but I don't think you can argue that Nikon is more ergonomic. Canon grips are grooved, not straight like the Nikon basically is. The shutter release button is located on a recessed area designed to fit your index finger, instead of high up and blocked by the annoying on/off switch. The wheel is just easier to turn than the second dial on the back of the Nikon.

I didn't know that counted as ergonomics. If so, I 100% agree with you.