Camera Labs

Go figure. This Ultra cheap lens can perform incredibly well. Check this photos, low light no flash.



50mm
1/6 sec
f3.2
ISO 400



50mm
1/20 sec
f2.5
ISO 800



50mm
1/30 sec
f1.8
ISO 800



50mm
1/30 sec
f1.8
ISO 800

Cheers

_________________

Carlos - Caracas Venezuela
EOS 40D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD/50mm f1.8II
my flickr

Congrats Carlos on your super-cheap/high-IQ-prime!
But what is this bright circular line across the forehead in#2+3? Some reflection??

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

My wife and I were at this nice Sushi bar and we were at a table with a lamp just 40cm above the table.

That line is the reflection of the lamp, unfortunately unavoidable, but I think it does not take away the spirit of the photo.

This lens was $69.95. Can you believe that?

_________________

Carlos - Caracas Venezuela
EOS 40D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD/50mm f1.8II
my flickr

Yeah. And it's esp. nice to go shooting without need for that annoying flash.
That way you get much better pictures.
But watch out, 50mm handheld can be quite shaky. So look out for good support (in this case I assume you ut your elbows at the table?)!

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

It was the first time since 3 or 4 years that I shoot with one 50mm. I forgot that using a 50mm could be so tricky.

I had to use manual focus in the first place since auto focusing in low light was sometimes difficult. Then, low light made me use my elbows as tripod on the table, and for first shots with the lens, the quality is acceptable.

Now I have to get used to it again, but the feeling is incredible.

Cheers

_________________

Carlos - Caracas Venezuela
EOS 40D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD/50mm f1.8II
my flickr

I paid £89.99 for mine which is about $170US

50mm is always a good lens to have although a 35mm on an APS-C sensor would be handy too.

_________________
Canon EOS 5DmkII + BG-E6 + Canon EOS 40D + BG-E2N + Canon EOS 33
Canon 17-40 F/4L USM + Canon 24-70 F/2.8L USM + Canon 28mm F/1.8 USM + Canon 70-200 F/2.8L USM IS + Canon 85mm F/1.8 USM
Canon Speedlite 580EX II + Canon Speedlite 540EZ + 2 x Nikon SB-80DX
Cactus V2s Wireless Trigger - 5 x Cactus V2s Wireless Reciever

MY FLICKR!

Yeap, that's my next lens, if not one 35-80 or a 17-35 f2.8 from Tamron...

Now I have to save a little

Cheers

_________________

Carlos - Caracas Venezuela
EOS 40D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD/50mm f1.8II
my flickr

Carlos, is the 50mm your only lens at the mo?
If you want to go wider and don't bother to stay with DX (vs. expensive FX/FF capable lenses) you might consider one of the new stabilized kit lenses, esp. the rumoured DX VR 16-85mm. That should be a nice all-around lens...

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

1/6 without a tripod. Wow!

_________________
Graham
Flickr

This way you have always a tripod with you

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Nope, I have one 28-105mm non IS.

Definitely I want a wide wide lens without having to spend more with a stabilized lens. I know the advantages I get from one of those but a $200 or plus difference with standard lenses is something to consider.

I know once my budget allows it I'll try to buy one IS lens, but for now I prefer to suffer a little, use my elbows and hold my breath

Cheers

_________________

Carlos - Caracas Venezuela
EOS 40D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD/50mm f1.8II
my flickr

Hi all, was thinking about getting this lens, mainly as it is so cheap that there seems little reason not to get it, and I'd like to get some really good portraits with nice background blur. Thing is, as you'll see in my signature, I already have a good lens to cover the 50mm range with a maximum aperture of 2.8, and that seems great for these kinds of pictures anyway. So how much difference would I see between f2.8 and f1.8? Enough to make it worth getting this lens? By that, I don't really mean make it worth spending the money, as it is so cheap, but make it worth switching lenses every now and then for a slightly smaller DOF?

Thanks[/url]

_________________
Canon EOS 40D, Canon Battery Grip BG-E2N, Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM, Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM
My Flickr
My website

You can see it yourself. I have one photo at f1.8. Try to shoot one photo with the same settings as I did at your max aperture. At f2.8 you should be able to compare bokeh and DOF between your maximum aperture against f1.8. You will be able to see the difference.

I think this 50mm is a must for those who don't want to spend $300 on one 50mm f1.4 or $1200+ on one 50mm f1.2

Cheers

_________________

Carlos - Caracas Venezuela
EOS 40D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD/50mm f1.8II
my flickr

Well, here are a couple of pics with blurry backgrounds taken at f2.8, I like the backgrounds on these, but I appreciate that there is room for more blur. Do you reckon the f1.8 qould make much difference here?

_________________
Canon EOS 40D, Canon Battery Grip BG-E2N, Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF 70-200mm f4L IS USM, Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro USM
My Flickr
My website

They're both lovely photos, but yes, if you had a f1.8 lens at the same focal length at the same distance then it would be much blurrier...