Comments on: First Impressions: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens

By: David Manning

David Manning — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:11:07 +0000

I own the mark I version of this lens. My mom had it on her old EOS 630. When I bought my XTi, I got all her old stuff – as the 630 has a busted shutter. I use this lens at least 25-35% of the time. It’s super sharp, great in low light, and very light weight. Best part is, since it’s a mark I version, the build quality is much better.

Regardless, even if it had a plastic body, it’s well worth the cost. If mine ever tanks, I’ll immediately replace it.

By: Tim Solley

Tim Solley — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:32:48 +0000

Thanks Sandra! I think I’ll add an update to the original article mentioning to the Mark I version.

By: sandra

sandra — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:12:40 +0000

I have the above mentioned Mark I of the canon 50mm (metal mount). I think it definitly gives a better build than the plastic mount.

By: Tim Solley

Tim Solley — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:19:48 +0000

I have a Sigma 28-80mm lens and a Sigma 70-300mm lens. Couldn’t tell you model numbers off the top of my head, they weren’t particularly expensive. I’ve been very happy with them both and have no complaints whatsoever.

By: Scott Hampton

Scott Hampton — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:49:21 +0000

So, what is it with these SIgmas? The magazines rave aboutthem, but the users have a different view. I’ve only used Canon glass, myself…

By: Andrew Ferguson

Andrew Ferguson — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:10:25 +0000

“Mr. Goldengod” eh? I kinda like the sound of that

I’ve done the 2/3 trick a few times as well, but it’s hard to pull off in photography. For some reason, depicting only part of a person works better in painting than photography and I’ve never quite been able to figure out why

Thanks for the compliments! I’m glad you like it. I just (finally) got around to adding yours to my RSS feed when I realized that I’d read and enjoyed most of everything you post to PhotographyVoter. Time to cut out the middleman

By: Tim Solley

Tim Solley — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:32:10 +0000

Thanks for doing the researching Scott! That makes a lot of sense.

I’ve been an insomniac my entire life. Sleep has always been very difficult for me. A couple of years ago my doctor put me on an extreme insomnia plan to get me on track. Wanna know what part of the plan was? For the last hour before bed, I wasn’t allowed to watch TV, use the computer, or do anything where bright light would be shining into my eyes. The reason is that when it’s dark our brains give the signal that it’s time to sleep. Bright lights interrupt that signal and keep us from sleeping.

It worked, I’m no longer an insomniac. Very interesting.

By: Michael Deeter

Michael Deeter — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:30:01 +0000

I notice more of a reaction from the baby (squinting) when the parent stands with them near a sunny window than they do when I flash off 3 or 4 consecutive pictures .

According to Doctor NDTV, there’s not a problem with it: http://www.doctorndtv.com/FAQ/detailfaq.asp?id=6852

By: Scott Hampton

Scott Hampton — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:00:55 +0000

OK.
Did a little sleuthing. I’m not 100 percent sure, but some of the lights and babies stuff may be more “old wives’ tales” than truth. What I’ve found so far is that the bright lights can reset the babies’ internal clocks, thereby recharging the little fellas and keeping them up. I looked into teens, also, and the suggestion is that they wind down, and avoid cofee and/or bright lights befofre bed. Why? It’ll keep them up, if not recharge them.

Bouncing the light, like Michael Deeter does, probably won’t harm them. Heck, if you’re doing -2 EV and bouncing, you’re really putting a weak light on the tiny babes, huh?

-Scott

By: Tim Solley

Tim Solley — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:40:53 +0000

Wow, I step away from the computer for two hours and look at what you guys do…you comment up a storm.

Scott, those shots with the light peeking through are very cool. Not everyone likes that five sided look, but I think it looks cool. As for the flash being bad for babies’ eyes, I’ve seen this argument for many years. Seems the jury is out on this. God help me if it really is bad…my son will be totally blind thanks to the number of portraits we’ve taken of him. So far so good though, the other day he pointed out an airplane WAY off in the distance. I had a hard time finding it myself.

Michael, I fixed the address to your site. Since you’re a web designer, I’ll let you know that you can use anchor tags in the comments to create hyperlinks. Great shots on your site. Like you said, I think this lens is going to spend a lot of time on my camera. And thanks for the compliments to the site. Don’t ever hesitate to make any suggestions for improvement.

Mr. Goldengod, the “practical” focal length (1.6 crop factor) was noticeable for me around the house. I haven’t used the lens on any studio portraits yet, but I get the feeling it will mainly be a 2/3 or 3/4 face portrait lens (or for them teenie babies). Great site by the way, one of my regular reads. If you all haven’t checked out Andrew’s Goldengod.net, take a few minutes to be introduced.

Thanks to all for the comments.