# first pic with 50mm f1.8



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Not a great one due to camera shake, but I *like* the natural light. This will be a fun lens to play with. As others have said- for ~$105 (buydig.com), it's a pretty inexpensive little portrait lens.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

a little underexposed perhaps?


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

goodkarma said:


> a little underexposed perhaps?


You've already got a more discerning eye than me. I wasn't looking beyond the lens' ability to catch natural light.


----------



## Clarke (Oct 21, 2002)

The Elizabethan "We are not amused" look. Yet another great pose from your adorable little girl.:thumbup:


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

goodkarma said:


> a little underexposed perhaps?


easily fixable
but is that thing on her dress, lens or on your sensor?


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Boile said:


> easily fixable
> but is that thing on her dress, lens or on your sensor?


Wow- that *is* better! Thing? I don't see it?


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Clarke said:


> The Elizabethan "We are not amused" look.


:rofl: That's actually a response to her mother's rhetorical question whether or not she could play with the rubber stamp toy in her halloween dress. But you saw exactly what my family saw when I showed them the pic.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Build a "better bounce card" and use your flash with that lens. It works VERY WELL.










If you got questions... you know where to find me.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Test_Engineer said:


> If you got questions... you know where to find me.


Bounce card? Hell, I want to order 4,000 pink rubber bands! She'd love 'em!


----------



## obmd1 (Jan 17, 2005)

oooh... I think I found me a Hannukah gift.... 100 bucks, you say? great shot... but I think she makes it easy. 

:thumbup:


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

PropellerHead said:


> Wow- that *is* better! Thing? I don't see it?


Never mind.
I posted that from bed, half asleep and without my contacts on.
I see now that it's part of her dress. At the bottom of the pic.


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

PropellerHead said:


> Bounce card? Hell, I want to order 4,000 pink rubber bands! She'd love 'em!


It's a produce band. I think it came on some broccoli?


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Here is some info on the Better Bounce card:

http://www.abetterbouncecard.com/

I made one for $0.29! I love it. Works way better than my Omnibounce I paid $10 for.

I've used the 3 3/4" version with, ISO 200, 1/30th @ 5.6 and the flash on TTL! Works great.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

Do have a link for that lens, Prop?

Is this it?

I saw your other post re selling the 18-200 VR.
I am pretty happy with that as a travel/walk around lens, but would like something I could shoot better in low light.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

mullman said:


> Do have a link for that lens, Prop?
> 
> Is this it?


That's it! I bought mine on Wed and it was delivered (free) on Saturday from buydig. Since they raised the price to $109.99 for some reason, it's now $5 more than it was last week.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

PropellerHead said:


> That's it! I bought mine on Wed and it was delivered (free) on Saturday from buydig. Since they raised the price to $109.99 for some reason, it's now $5 more than it was last week.


Prop, since that is an equivalent of a 75mm on your camera, do you ever feel too close to the subject?
Also looking at the 35mm/f2 (which would get closer to 50mm on a Nikon DSLR).


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

mullman said:


> Prop, since that is an equivalent of a 75mm on your camera, do you ever feel too close to the subject?
> Also looking at the 35mm/f2 (which would get closer to 50mm on a Nikon DSLR).


I can only speak from one weekend of experience, but I sort of expected that I'd have to use the ole human zoom to get the pic I wanted. Hasn't been so bad so far.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

PropellerHead said:


> I can only speak from one weekend of experience, but I sort of expected that I'd have to use the ole human zoom to get the pic I wanted. Hasn't been so bad so far.


I had a credit so I ordered the 50mm f/1.4 and will post my thoughts after a few days of playing with it.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

50mm f/1.4 arrived today.
I am pretty impressed with it.

Focusing is quite a bit faster than the 18-200VR.

Just a few test pics:


----------



## Snareman (Nov 24, 2006)

Both the 1.8 and 1.4 are great lenses for the money, although they are certainly both a bit soft wide open.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

So cool to watch your little girl grow up right before our eyes, Jae...

:thumbup:


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

Snareman said:


> Both the 1.8 and 1.4 are great lenses for the money, although they are certainly both a bit soft wide open.


Personally, I think the added cost of the 1.4 is a bit of a waste of money. 1.4 is not very usable for this type of lens. The majority of your shot are going to be between 2.8 and 5.6 with this lens, and those areas on the 1.8 lens work fantastic for $100. It is a standard portrait lens and it works great for that.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

Snareman said:


> Both the 1.8 and 1.4 are great lenses for the money, although they are certainly both a bit soft wide open.


I have an old 50mm f1.8 manual focus Nikon lens. It's is ok, but nothing great. I wonder how much better the new lens is.


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

There's no real cheap 35 mm fixed focal lenses right? Cause 50 mm seems a bit too zoomed in.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

Dawg90 said:


> There's no real cheap 35 mm fixed focal lenses right? Cause 50 mm seems a bit too zoomed in.


I shot today at Chimney Rock, NC with the 50mm f/1.4 on a D80.
It was about 75mm effective focal length, which I really enjoyed.

I felt it was sharp enough, but not 'razor sharp'. 
Ultimately much easier to carry around than the 18-200VR.

Anyone have the Nikkor 35mm f/2 on a Nikon DSLR who can comment on how sharp it is?


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Great shots! Beautiful subjects, too! Keep 'em coming!


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

This lens is absolutely NOT sharp wide open and I have quite steady hands.

Here is a pic at f1.4 @ 800 ISO handheld by 25w light.

Focusing was spot on, I took about 12 of the same scene, and this was the sharpest.
Un-retouched save for reducing size.

At 2.0 and above it is much better, but then I have to increase film speed which gives more noise.

You cannot have everything I guess, but still considering I can get this handheld & flash free I guess it is as good as I can get.

Wife will not approve an 'investment' (my terms) in a Leica M8 w/ 50mm f1.0 Noctilux (approx $10K total  )










Like you Prop, I am really digging natural light photography versus harsh or staged flash shots.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

Despite your lens, your subject saved the day. :thumbup:


----------



## Test_Engineer (Sep 11, 2004)

mullman said:


> This lens is absolutely NOT sharp wide open and I have quite steady hands.
> 
> Here is a pic at f1.4 @ 800 ISO handheld by 25w light.
> 
> ...


First off, I don't care how steady you "think" your hands are, but at a shutter speed of 1/13, even a PRO would have a hard time with that shot handheld. Try to keep the shutter speed above 1/50 and it will get sharper.....You Moved! When I am really, really, really lucky and all the stars aling, I can get down to 1/30-1/40 handheld.

Second, you shot that at 1.4 and were pretty close to your subject. Your Depth of Field is very narrow at that point. Assuming you were about 1 meter from your subject, your Depth of field was only about 2 cm. So, only a plane about 2cm thick will be in focus at your focus point.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

Test_Engineer said:


> First off, I don't care how steady you "think" your hands are, but at a shutter speed of 1/13, even a PRO would have a hard time with that shot handheld. Try to keep the shutter speed above 1/50 and it will get sharper.....You Moved! When I am really, really, really lucky and all the stars aling, I can get down to 1/30-1/40 handheld.
> 
> Second, you shot that at 1.4 and were pretty close to your subject. Your Depth of Field is very narrow at that point. Assuming you were about 1 meter from your subject, your Depth of field was only about 2 cm. So, only a plane about 2cm thick will be in focus at your focus point.


Thx T_E for the advice


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

Well it is still not the sharpest lens I have ever seen (Leica M), but considering these are flash free and handheld it is good.
I'll keep it, but might also get a 35mm f/2.

The NSDAP party pin in the last pic might cause some alarm.
I found this in an antique shop on Portobello Rd in London some years back.
My wife and I never fail to visit this place each time we are in London for unique finds.


----------



## Boile (Jul 5, 2005)

mullman said:


> The NSDAP party pin in the last pic might cause some alarm.


Nope.
What causes alarm is the Mac OS DVD. :rofl:


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

Boile said:


> Nope.
> What causes alarm is the Mac OS DVD. :rofl:


We might be only 5% of the computer market, but there is nothing wrong with being the top 5% :thumbup:


----------

