Something wrong w/me? Enjoying nifty 50 as much as 70-200 2.8!

[Scott Stephen]

2 days ago I had my new Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II delivered, and then tonight my $100 Canon nifty fifty 1.8 was waiting on the porch after work. I hate to admit this. I know what others may think of me.....but..... I am enjoying the 50 just as much as the big white one! I know this is wrong. WRONG. But the tiny DOF, the pronounced bokeh...

I am sure this madness will go away when I have had time outside with both lenses. Shooting the dog, the kids, some sparrows and a couple shots of a Cardinal on the porch so far. Like Christmas in April!

[Boatman]

Nah, it's normal. I love my old 1.4:50 Takumar on my m4/3 camera. The shallow depth of field, the brightness and the need to work within the fixed focal length of the lens create a different, and very enjoyable, shooting environment. Shoot away with it! Old primes on digital cameras are a blast.

[Ken MT]

The advantage of the prime 50mm is that you have to think more about composition, framing, and the need to place yourself in the right position, while zooming is too easy. Still you will have some situations that prevent you getting closer to the action such as water, fences etc that stops you getting the photo that you want, and then the zoom comes into place.
PS I have both a 50 mm prime and a 70-200 f4

[Scott Stephen]

I think I will make a point of using the 50 as much as possible for a while. You are right about it making you think more. I had been leaning on the 17-55 zoom and was being a little lazy. Most of my photos until now have been taken from my normal standing height (yawn).

[William W]

But the tiny DOF, the pronounced bokeh...[of the EF50F/1.8MkII]

The EF50F/1.8MkII is a nice lens, for sure - no comment against it in any way, but assuming (for shallow DoF) we agree that using the 50/1.8MkII is best at F/2.2 or maybe even F/2 - there is not really all that much difference between (equivalently framed) DoF to using the F/2.8 zoom . . . even if the zoom is used stopped down a tad to F/3.5 . . .'

The EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM, used at F/3.5:


Have fun with your new lenses.

[thatguyfromvienna]

I totally love my 50 f/1.8 and I totally love my old Minolta lenses on my Sony a55.
No expensive modern lens could be any more fun.

[herbert]

Hi Scott,

The 50mm is a great lens. For the price it is brilliant. The 50mm has a distortion similar to the human eye (which is more like 43mm). So when you look through the lens you see shape and form just like you do with your own eyes. This makes it a great tool for learning composition with your eyes (i.e. not through the camera). You can move around and put your head in the position where the image looks best. Then just raise your camera and shoot since the scene should be almost identical. The only drawback is that the camera has a narrow field of view so you may not get everything in.

However I still use zooms because they are more versatile, especially as a walk-around lens. The 70-200 is my most used lens. It best suits my style of shooting from further away.

Have fun with the new kit.

Alex

[Sidekick]

Hi,
Colour me as a fan of 50's.....
.....but....
when I was working (back in the days of film) I'd often get asked by people how they could improve their photography, and my advice at the time was to get a 24mm prime lens - now that really makes you think about composition!
There's nothing wrong with zooms - but I believe that a lot of great shots are missed because the snapper just stood in one place and let the zoom do the work rather than changing position to get the best out of both his lens and the subject.

Mike

[rpcrowe]

The advantage of the prime 50mm is that you have to think more about composition, framing, and the need to place yourself in the right position, while zooming is too easy.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why posters automatically assume that photographers who use zooms think less about "composition, framing, and the need to place yourself in the right position" than those who shoot with prime lenses.
In my case, that is simply not true...

[Colin Southern]

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why posters automatically assume that photographers who use zooms think less about "composition, framing, and the need to place yourself in the right position" than those who shoot with prime lenses.

+1 to that.

I normally shoot with a zoom lens, and composition & exposure are basically going around my head in an endless loop whilst shooting.

[Scott Stephen]

I'm pretty happy with my setup now. It works for what I shoot, which is my family, little-kid soccer games, and birds willing to come on up to visit the bird feeder. I need a monopod, but not until the girls' soccer resumes. I am sure some day I will buy another body, but I will stay asp-c for the free 1,6x length boost, assuming Canon makes a successor to the 7-D. I think that if I really need more length, I can probably get acceptable results from a 1.4x extender on the 70-200 lens without needing any new expensive glass.

[Scott Stephen]

The EF50F/1.8MkII is a nice lens, for sure - no comment against it in any way, but assuming (for shallow DoF) we agree that using the 50/1.8MkII is best at F/2.2 or maybe even F/2 - there is not really all that much difference between (equivalently framed) DoF to using the F/2.8 zoom . . . even if the zoom is used stopped down a tad to F/3.5 . . .'

The EF70 to 200F/2.8L USM, used at F/3.5:


Have fun with your new lenses.

Agreed. By the time you stop the 50 down a little, the DOF difference is not much. I am noticing a portability difference, though! Plus that certain mental freedom of not caring (too much) if I were to experience drop/damage/loss/theft that I'd get from the 50 vs the big white one!
Nice shot of the gulls, btw. A perfect illustration of DOF, and the lighting is very nice.

[William W]

I am noticing a portability difference, though! Plus that certain mental freedom of not caring (too much) if I were to experience drop/damage/loss/theft that I'd get from the 50 vs the big white one!

Yes.
Adding to you list of “portability” and “drop, damage, loss, theft” differences – include “inconspicuous”
It is almost a snub lens and it is BLACK, not white.
Another lens in the same category (inconspicuous, cheap, light weight, fast, reasonable optics wide open, etc) is the EF35/2 and that is a favourite of mine, for use with both APS-C and also 135 format cameras.

. . . the lighting is very nice.

Thanks – it is about 90 minutes after sunrise and a light cloud cover: I had to wait for the clouds to soften the direct light.
Centennial Park SYDNEY AUS.

WW

[William W]

I think that if I really need more length, I can probably get acceptable results from a 1.4x extender on the 70-200 lens without needing any new expensive glass.

You will get better than “acceptable results”.
But there are rules.

You mentioned specifically you have the EF70 to 200F/2.8L IS MkII USM – you must only use the x1.4MkIII EF Extender.

You might also wish to use the x2.0 MkIII EF Extender – it will blow your socks away.

You must nail the exposure and also the focus.

The lens will work fine with either extender: on an APS-C camera have no fear to use the lens at F/2.8 (i.e. working aperture of F/4 for the x1.4 extender)

BUT if you have to use the lens wide open (for soccer for example) you will be getting to quite low light EV and that is where you MUST nail the exposure for the most important elements in the frame . . .
And of course you will be getting to very small DoF, so your Focus Technique better be spot on - you will have a lot of fun perfecting that, bring on the Soccer season!

***

I am sure some day I will buy another body, but I will stay asp-c for the free 1,6x length boost, assuming Canon makes a successor to the 7-D.

You mention that you have a 7D:

The combinations of the EF MkIII Extenders and the MkII IS zoom lens, result in better quality images than the previous (best option) combination the EF 70 to 200F/2.8L USM (note NOT IS LENS) and the MkII Extenders.

I do not have at hand, any samples of the combination MkII IS lens and the MkIII extenders, but here are some old shots with the other combination on a 20D, I have just posted a few with the x2.0MkII extender:



20D 70-200/28L + x2.0MkII
F/8 @ 1/1250s @ ISO800;
FL = 280mm

&




20D 70-200/2.8L + x2.0MkII
F/14 @ 1/2000s @ ISO1600
FL = 400mm

***

The 7D has a far more sophisticated Image Sensor than the 20D and with your MkII IS Zoom lens, you should expect results as good as or better than this - have a look at it BIG:


© 2008 WMW / Alex Jordan P/L AUS.

5D - 70 to 200F/2.8L USM + 2.0MkII F+ = 400mm
F6.3 @ 1/1600s @ ISO250 Head-On Motion - Hand Held
Note the lens is stopped down only ⅓ Stop.

***

I need a monopod, but not until the girls' soccer resumes.

For Soccer (any field sport) shot from the sideline - use the Tripod Collar of the lens directly to the Monopod base (i.e. do not use an head on top of the monopod).

You will get comfortable with the SWAYING “in and out” action of the monopod in combination with panning to follow the play.

Leave the collar a smidge looser than “nip tight” so you can rotate from Vertical to Horizontal framing, easily.
I suggest you use this method first, before you buy an head – or the salesperson tells you the head is a “must have purchase”.

This method, tripod collar mounted to monopod, is more secure.

If you do buy an head (for the monopod), a ball head with a big lever is the best, IMO – I do use a ball head sometimes – but only from the stands or elevated platform – you mentioned Daughter’s soccer – I expect you would be situated on the sideline – similar to the Hockey samples indicated.

I haven’t killed my Manfrotto 679B and the 486 Head, yet – and they’ve both been worked hard. That is a combination you might investigate – with tripods and monopods and heads, buy once and get it right the first time, else you’ll just cry a lot.

My thoughts on tripods and monopods are summed up here (post 31):
50mm Prime Lens: f/1.8 or f/2.5 (macro)?

Nice chatting and thanks for the kind comments

WW

[Scott Stephen]

William: Thank you for the input, particularly the tips on monopods. Very nice sports shots, too!! You have built up a skill that I am still working towards.

To be precise, i just WISH that i had a 7-D. The advanced AF would be nice. Currently I have a T3i/600D. I am very happy with the camera body for now, and I will keep it for however long it takes Canon to make a 7D-version 2. Probably 2-3 years!

[William W]

To be precise, i just WISH that i had a 7-D. The advanced AF would be nice. Currently I have a T3i/600D. I am very happy with the camera body for now, and I will keep it for however long it takes Canon to make a 7D-version 2. Probably 2-3 years!

BAH HUMBUG – “advanced AF” is for the old and infirmed!

The 600D will do you fine!
Nice camera.

WW