Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

Is it worth shelling out the $300+ for a 50mm f/1.4 prime lens?

Also: cant...stop...thinking...about...buying more shit...for my camera...

Especially as I've now started taking my first photography class.
 
Last edited:
Is it worth shelling out the $300+ for a 50mm f/1.4 prime lens?

That depends. Do you need a 50mm lens that opens up to f/1.4, and do you have $300 to blow on said lens?
 
That depends. Do you need a 50mm lens that opens up to f/1.4, and do you have $300 to blow on said lens?

:wave: Hi Dr. Smartass.

I meant that there is the $90 option which is f/1.8 and there are several older film primes that are available for much cheaper (provided you get the adapter, which is also cheap).

I'm just asking if the glass in the f/1.4 would be more superior compared to the ones mentioned above, and if it's worth shelling out the extra $200-$280 for.
 
Last edited:
I've realized that I have an undeveloped b&w film, and I found some old chemicals. When say old, I mean that expiration date was some 1.5-2 years ago :) Should I?
 
And it's done!

Seems to have worked fine, although the waste water looked very red. Film is still B&W :) Too bad I don't have a scanner... Looks like some of the shots are from ringmeet 2009... from classic car show earlier this year, actually.

EDIT: Who needs scanners? ;)

 
Last edited:
:wave: Hi Dr. Smartass.

I meant that there is the $90 option which is f/1.8 and there are several older film primes that are available for much cheaper (provided you get the adapter, which is also cheap).

I'm just asking if the glass in the f/1.4 would be more superior compared to the ones mentioned above, and if it's worth shelling out the extra $200-$280 for.

Again, if you can afford $300 and you shoot in situations that require a 50mm f/1.4, then the lens is for you. My answers may seem like non-answers, but the reality is that we don't know whether the lack of that particular lens configuration is holding you back or not. If you need it, get it. If the 1.8 will do the trick, save some $ and buy that instead. Personally, my 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 are my most-used lenses because I shoot in dim areas a lot. Before I shot in the dark a lot, I had the 1.8 and liked it a lot, so much I've never sold it and use it as a backup and as the go-to lens on my FE. It's tough to buy a bad 50mm, regardless of aperture.
 
My scratch disk on PS CS3 is getting full. Anyway to clean it out? Getting to the point where I can only process 10 pictures at a time.
 
Again, if you can afford $300 and you shoot in situations that require a 50mm f/1.4, then the lens is for you. My answers may seem like non-answers, but the reality is that we don't know whether the lack of that particular lens configuration is holding you back or not. If you need it, get it. If the 1.8 will do the trick, save some $ and buy that instead. Personally, my 30/1.4 and 50/1.4 are my most-used lenses because I shoot in dim areas a lot. Before I shot in the dark a lot, I had the 1.8 and liked it a lot, so much I've never sold it and use it as a backup and as the go-to lens on my FE. It's tough to buy a bad 50mm, regardless of aperture.

Understood man, I'll invest in the 1.8. Even my photography teacher was saying it's a good investment.

I was encountering difficulties in India when shooting pictures of the ceremony that we had for 4 days. Since it was indoors with semi-dim flourescent tube lights providing the source of light, I was always at ISO 800 (which is the penultimate on my camera) and shooting at shutter speeds of 1/25-1/4. And even with IS, that's still difficult to manage. And because it's a ceremony you get hands moving around, heads moving, and other things and they'll end up being blurred in the final image. Anyways, this was all because I was working with a zoom lens that goes from F/3.5 - F/6.3 on the long end (270 mm).

I had this problem in other places as well, so a $90-$100 investment in something that provides a good shallow DOF (which is something I REALLY want) and provides more light gathering because of a larger aperture is well worth it.

So thank you.
 
Another +1 to fast, cheap 50mm primes here. :D

Last month, I shot quite a bit of video with my 500D. The fact that I have to use manual focusing in video mode and most of the subjects were up close meant that the narrow aperture, wide angle kit lens with IS and a short MFD was a lot easier to use, but I'll be damned if the video shot with my 50mm f/1.8 doesn't look better.
 
So apparently there's a new 55-300 from Nikon I didn't know about.

It's cheaper and lighter than the 70-300 and I wouldn't be wasting money on an FX lens, doubt I'll be changing cameras anytime soon. So is the new 55-300 a decent lens or what?
 
I think it's basically the 55-200 with an extra 100mm on the long end, so, yes, it should be a decent lens.
 
I think it's basically the 55-200 with an extra 100mm on the long end, so, yes, it should be a decent lens.

And a bit more dough, obviously. :)

Thanks for the input. I can't wait to get a new lens, been feeling like I'm stagnated with what I've got.
 
Is the GorillaPod any good for in-car use?

All the car mounts I've come across are suction cups for the outside.
 
Another +1 to fast, cheap 50mm primes here. :D

Last month, I shot quite a bit of video with my 500D. The fact that I have to use manual focusing in video mode and most of the subjects were up close meant that the narrow aperture, wide angle kit lens with IS and a short MFD was a lot easier to use, but I'll be damned if the video shot with my 50mm f/1.8 doesn't look better.

I'll challenge that though and say that 35mm primes are even better for crop cameras. 50 just gets you too close.
 
Top