> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > James B.Davis > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 12:45 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: EOS Which 50mm lens is the sharpest ? > > True, the candid amateur quality maybe not, but a true pro > would have used several lights to get a natural effect that > looks way better than your candid.
As others have pointed out, it wasn't possible to set up stands and strobes during this Christmas performance, but it could certainly have been done in other circumstances. My point was only that aperture is obviously important to those shooting in available light, and flash is not really a palatable option for that genre. > > Folks, I'm not saying there is no scene that a large aperture > 50mm lens isn't ideal for, but what I'm saying is that the > average photographer lusting over such a lens more often than > not doesn't really need it. Jim, I think you've made an excellent point here, it's all to easy to be swept away by the imaginary possibilities of that wonderlens and then we rediscover that photography isn't really about equipment. In terms of speed, there's not much difference between the 1.4 and 1.8. If we're really gonna lust, let's talk about the Canon EF 50mm f/1.0! http://photo.net/photo/canon/canon-50-1.0.html > > This may be a place where an amateur can make better use of a > more expensive lens. I mean the photographer who likes to > hand hold available light without flash. Perhaps a news > reporter or a documentary photographer too. > > There's all kinds of situations where one lens is best, no > other will do. But I've never found one yet that I couldn't > work around with my zoom, or just do in a different way. > > I took out my 50/1.4 many times after getting it, went > shooting with it, and got some so so shots. But nothing that > a zoom set at 50mm wouldn't have done just as well. > > Unless such a lens is an important part of your style, I'd > rather not carry it around just in case I need it. I'd rather > have a lighter bag, less lens changing, more room in my bag, > and use a flash with my zoom at f4 to capture available light > with a natural look. YMMV Hopefully, none of us are carrying around everything we own to every occasion. I didn't take a long zoom to this performance, not even a 70-200. I did take the 28-70L and a couple of fast primes because I knew that flash wasn't welcome and that I'd need fast glass to do the job. And if I were going out to shoot birds, I wouldn't bother with all the wide stuff. And I agree with you that many modern zooms have very acceptable quality compared to primes, but until the 28-90mm f/1.4 comes out, I'll hang onto my 35-50-85 trio since I still find places I can use those extra 2-3 stops. Tomp * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
