On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 14:46:26 +1200, "David Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
> >Yes, I know this has been endlessly discussed, but I have some >questions. I currently have the 50/1.8 II. I have been doing a few >nightclub shoots lately (things like ISO3200, 1/30 @ f/1.8, so quite >dim). Most of the time the lens I have focusses well on my 20D, but >sometimes it goes hunting and racks all the way to close-focus, which >makes it difficult to see anything in this light. I'm normally chasing >a particular moment so I just refocus manually (roughly) to give the >AF a helping hand. Of course, this lens doesn't technically have FTM >but it doesn't take much to force the AF motor, so I don't feel bad >about doing this (especially not on a $80 lens). > >How much better (ie faster/more reliable) is the AF on the 1.4? And >how does the 1.4 perform wide open? My 1.8 seems to be a good copy, >and when the focus hits, the razor thin plane (at f/1.8) that is in >focus is tack sharp. Why not just set the lens to Manual focus. That way you can focus on what you want immediately and not wait for AF to do anything? I mean if you want to grab shots as they happen, no matter what lens you use in that light, this would be the way to go. There are a number of advantages to the 1.4 vs the 1.8 which have nothing to do with sharpness, but more to do with other factors. Photonet did a good review on the differences and it should still be online. Bokeh is one of them due to the number of aperture blades. -- Jim Davis, Nature Photography: http://naturephoto.easternbeaver.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
