The lens is excellent in terms of the optical properties it possesses. In compared to my 17-40L and my 135L lenses, this lens is extremely flimsy and does not give off the impression that it can be relied upon. The lens's construction is subpar. General remark: an absolute necessity When it comes to portrait photography, the lens is an excellent choice for a crop sensor camera. It is rare to locate something with comparable qualities that can be purchased for this amount of money. In addition…

The lens on the solid number 4. On the crop, it is a very good portrait lens for the price, but on the full frame, you can only use it in the staff position. You won't run across any issues when photographing macro scenes if you set the MDF to 45 cm and wind the macro rings. Various advantages: - lovely bokeh - brightness - vibrant colors - effectively communicates volume and subtlety - versatile: you can take portraits as well as macro, and by adding macro rings, you can turn it into an…

The glass is hip and has stood the test of time. What you require for DSLR cameras of the amateur class. In stead of a kit lens, I went out and purchased a Canon 550D for myself. In particular for the purpose of taking portraits. Completely content. This lens need to be in everyone's possession! Some pros: The lens has a high degree of clarity and brightness. A focussing that is both quick and precise. Very excellent bokeh. For portraits and other commissions! The lens encourages one to get…

However, it is still beneficial to purchase lenses for the camera from the same manufacturer that made the camera. Very high quality glass, intended for artistic shooting that is neither hurried nor pointless. Clearness and vividness of the colors. People read about the exposure, find out what the depth of field is, then write and criticize, I don't think that those who don't like this glass will like 1.2))) They also write that the design is flimsy, but it's not flimsy; it's just plastic. I…

When compared to how it appears on the full frame, the cropped version is generally preferred. In the corners, dirt and soap buildup are less evident. for the purpose of providing a lens for everyday standards. He is not overly contrite, but it is unlikely that the picture will be improved by his presence. Extremely dependant on the lighting and other shooting conditions. Solid middle dude. The price tag is obviously excessively expensive. Some pros: On the secondary market, prices aren't too…

In Africa, he is valued at fifty dollars, and fifty dollars serves as a type of benchmark there. At this time, Canon possesses three. I have previously written about how "plasticity-fantastic" is. 1.8, while 1.2 USM is not and is not likely to become, thus for the time being I utilize 1.4 USM. One of the benefits is, if it does hit, a lovely picture that has soothing hues and a pattern that is easily recognizable as a "fifty." When there is very little light, using a flash is not an option, or…

It is not worth purchasing this lens. Of fact, the quality of the 50mm f1.8 is even worse than that of the 35mm f1.4, but its price is significantly more agreeable and its design is more robust; if you get a decent copy, you will be satisfied. There is a problem to using a 50 f/1.4 lens, and that is that if you press on the front retractable part of the lens by accident, or at least lightly impact it, the guide bends there. When this happens, the focus begins to play around, and autofocus…

This lens was recommended to all of the students at the photography school, and consequently, almost all of the 17 students owned one. I was one of those students, and although I owned one, I was disappointed that my copy wasn't the best. I used this lens for exactly a year, and I can say that the picture is not terrible, the blur is also very pleasant and beautiful, but the minus covers everything; there is no sharpness even at f/4. Perhaps for those who like everything soft and not sharp…

Ugly. Why is this pricey glass being sold when there is a 1.8 that does not smear? The aperture that actually works on my 1.8 is 1.8. I did not even consider shooting them with a more shallow depth of field. It is successful in every way. This one as well. It works great with my Canon 5D. To be more specific, I don't make use of it, but I still suffer. Constant misses. Those who argue that the picture is superior to that of 1.8 = demonstrate a crafty mentality. The scenario has hardly changed…

I will surely take that offer! You will require a package that comes complete with the Canon EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM and the Canon 5D. With all of its perks. That's it when it comes to portraits! Himself a beginner photographer, a week ago I took a single-lens reflex camera, the kit was a Sigma 17-70, I used it to take images, and I decided to give it a go for fifty kopecks, which is on an entirely different level. I was finally able to comprehend what an aperture, bokeh, superb detail, and…

Acquired more than two years ago as a purchase. I needed to acquire something quickly, so I attempted to catch up with zooms (the maximum aperture that canon cameras can achieve is f/2.8, which is fairly common knowledge). The employment of it was going to be beneficial to both the EOS 40D and the film EOS 3, respectively. I chose one out of five copies, which brought the options down to the very last one; yet, there was only one that was completely accurate. Agreed, it is soft at 1.4-1.8, but…

I've been using this lens for a few months now. Of the benefits, aperture is without a doubt the most notable; nonetheless, it is important to point out to novices that not everyone will be able to take good pictures at 1.4: To begin, the sharpness at 1.4 has quite a bit of room for improvement (which is not always bad for a portrait). The second issue is that the depth of field is not deep enough. In point of fact, the majority of shots will begin at f/2, which is also an excellent starting…

The question that causes much mental anguish for a lot of people. When there is a price drop to 1.8, is there any purpose in buying? I answer . There is unquestionably a distinction; nevertheless, a novice will almost certainly be oblivious to it. In addition, there is no discernible change with the reflected light when the covered aperture is greater than 2.0. When working with point light sources, the circumstances are different. The shape of the bokeh is superior. There is no longer any…

The safest lens focus position is + infinity when the lens block is fully inside. Its pros: An excellent picture, at 1.4 it is soft (but beautiful), from 2 - the clarity is excellent, from 2.5 it simply rests on the resolution of the matrix (at 20D). The focus is quiet and fairly accurate, the speed is also nothing. With its cons. Flimsy. I rode with a camera on a snowboard in the mountains and as a result, a blow fell on the extended lens block (mitigated by a backpack, but still). After that,

Since it's been more than a year, I've been protecting the crop with glass. On the street or in the studio, however, a wider angle is required to get the same effect; this is not the case indoors. At 1.4, ringing sharpness, I have no complaints. Perhaps I was fortunate, or perhaps the stars were in perfect alignment. Any editor may be used to quickly and easily rectify any errors. The only thing that could be considered a drawback is that despite having an ultrasonic motor, the focus is very…

Pros below: Excellent sharpness from 1.8, expressive bokeh, quiet focus With its cons. very, very fragile focus design (the guides broke after 2 months), autofocus does not work accurately

This lens is excellent in everything except one - workmanship, from which all other shortcomings stretch - focus misses, back / front focus, jamming of the af ring. I had 2 such lenses, 10 more pieces were reviewed when buying a used one and reviews from other photographers - everything converges to the fact that the lens does not withstand prolonged regular use. Probably we will never see version 2, otherwise 50 1.2 will not make sense to buy at all. Alas, Canon's most popular focal length…

I don’t understand people here who write that they need a maximum aperture, in complete darkness you can open it if you work with candles or do something else. they usually do it slowly, but other lenses exist for reporting. This is glass purely for creativity, 1.2 is expensive, but this one is affordable. Is the design bad? I don’t know, I didn’t pay attention to how many professional photographers I know, so far no one complained. In conjunction with a flash and an umbrella, he draws…

I have it on 1dX. The picture is perfect for portraits. Fast Compact. Very sharp all over the field and at full matrix. It shoots much better than it looks. I still have 85/1.2L. So, I do not immediately distinguish the picture from them. If someone has Fifty dollars unsharp or sharp from 5,6, etc., then you need to adjust, or a carcass or a Lens. I also had several 50 / 1.8, the picture is also not bad, but the quality is unstable, almost everyone has some kind of special “jamb”. This is not…

glass, which should not be the only one, but one of. I use it for subjects and portraits. landscapes, of course, you can’t shoot - not the right angle. very, very good glass, if understood and adapted, in capable hands. no need to try to replace a boring whale with it - these are completely different lenses, be aware of why you are buying it. if you want to jump from 18-55, but in the same range, take 17-40 L. Half a cent is not a panacea. as, in principle, and any other.