Larry - 50mm Lens - 1.4 v 1.8?

julia, i didn't know you were a shooter!

i've been using the 35mm/1.4 all week. great glass.

mark, i've learned to absolutely love my 17-40/4 with the sto-fen omnibounce and the 430ex. close it down to 5.6, bump the iso to 400-800 and set the shutter at 1/4 or 1/5 -- great results.

i've got a few thousand images to sift through, but i'll post a few.

i've thought about starting up a photoblog.

would you guys be interested?

 

I'd be all for a photoblog - I'm trying to pick up anything I can.

What body are you using?

 

i shoot with a canon 5d. i love the full frame.

i've got 17-40/4, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8.

i've been thinking of selling the 24-70 and 70-200 to help fund a prime lineup. however, i wouldn't have nearly enough for the 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2 and 200/2.8.

and that's not including the 35/1.4 -- which i love.

i still want the 100 macro. that'll probably be my next lens.

 

Lemme know if you really are selling those two... they are on my dream list.

 

Slightly different application, but I figured I'd keep my photog questions in the same thread.

If I take my XTi with my 28-135IS to a high school basketball game, what are my chances of getting decent results? Would I be better off using my faster 50mm lens and cropping? Will my flash be effective from the stands, or should I just try using available light? Or am i just trying to do too much with not strong enough gear?

thanks

 

depends upon how well lit the gym is, but you're probably expecting too much with not enough gear.

if it's HS, you can probably get down low. the 135/2 or the 85/1.8 are the indoor basketball lenses of choice.

get close (remember closer is always better) and use your 50/1.8. that'll work for inside the arc --- assuming you're on the baseline.

 

I'm facing a similar option - kit lens is OK, and fairly sharp at the wide end 17mm/3.5, but lacking indoor and certainly not built for bokeh/portrait. my sister swears by speed flash and I'd enjoy flash bouncing, but for both my logic and wallet the 50mm is more reasonable (I'm also looking forward to extreme macro shots using a reverse adapter).

I certainly don't want to get into all-primes (like this) but this seems like the reasonable way to go. Minolta lenses (almost all autofocus lenses fit the alpha setup) fit, and the anti-shake's in the body so it's a great way to get good, durable glass cheap. The minolta-carryover to Sony-50mmf/1.4 isn't terribly expensive, but the previous minolta f/1.7 is $80-120.

think I'm going to notice that much different in half a stop? Gotta say with the narrow viewfinder on this sony I'd love to have something that pulls in that much light either way.

 

Like I said before, I ended up buying the 1.8. I've playd around with teh 1.4 since buying the 1.8, and have thought about upgrading, but not for the half stop difference. Honestly, I doubt you'll miss that.

 

yeah, that's kinda what I figured. The f/1.7 comes highly recommended anyway. i think I'll learn a lot more on what I'm doing being restrained without telephoto in some situations.

What did you figure out on the basketball issue? I definitely want to take some summer baseball shots (should be easy since I don't care about baseball that much) at the HS level to gain some sports experience.

 

never really ended up taking any basketball shots, but found out through reading that the lenses I have wont do the trick. The Canon 85mm 1.8 is what pretty much everyone shoots basketball with. You need low light capability and fast focusing (which the 50mm 1.8 I have doesnt have).

As far as baseball, I shot a couple HS softball games last year and had great success with my 70-300. baseball & softball are probably the easiest sports to shoot because they're outdoors and played during the day, so lighting is never a problem.