Flash is for the rich..50/1.4 for me.

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by tasnim_fahim, May 23, 2007.

  1. tasnim_fahim

    tasnim_fahim

    498
    Oct 2, 2006
    riyadh
    Just kidding folks!

    I do not generally use flash, because I am not good at it. With the nikkor
    50/1.4, I really do not miss it at all.

    when going for dinner..

    [​IMG]

    during dinner..

    [​IMG]

    after dinner..

    [​IMG]

    Try it. It makes for a good menu!!

    Regards
     
  2. Gr8Tr1x

    Gr8Tr1x Guest

    I'm trying to convince myself to give up my 50mm 1.8 in favor of the 1.4.
     
  3. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    Is half a stop really worth it?
     
  4. Maybe/maybe not, but for me, the intangible difference the 1.4 gives over the 1.8 is worth it...better color, better...just a different quality to it... and after selling the 1.8, I basically got the 1.4 for $100 more, not a bad deal in my book.
     
  5. Gr8Tr1x

    Gr8Tr1x Guest

    'Worth' is subjective. If I can pick up a 50mm 1.4 for $250 than I'd be happy. I can send my 50mm 1.8 to my Uncle who just got a D80. We both win.

    I personally wouldn't consider it 'worth' it, if the lens was $800 and I had to climb to the top of Mt. Everest to pick it up. Someone else might though.
     
  6. I'm not sure any lens is "worth it" unless I can get the shots I want. If I can, then they're worth every penny. But that's just my opinion.
     
  7. nancyr

    nancyr

    Feb 14, 2006
    La Jolla, CA
    Love your pics and the rich treatment.

    I like my 1.4 better than the 1.8, and I can't quite put my finger on it. Better bokeh, yeah, but neither one is a pretty sight wide open. And the 1.8 is my only sub-2.8 lens with AF! There is a lot to be said for the enjoyment factor on any lens: The 28/2 beats the 24/2 any way you test 'em, but I like the 24 better.
     
  8. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    I totally agree. I've gotten priceless shots with used, beaten up $50 lenses. As long as the glass does it's job...doesn't matter if it's a $50 or $1,500.
     
  9. The 50/1.4 is my least expensive lens and fast became one of my favourites! Wee little thing stuck on the front of a honking big camera looks funny to me especially after carting around the 70-200VR or the 17-55, both big fat lenses. Best bang for the buck, I'd say.
     
  10. tasnim_fahim

    tasnim_fahim

    498
    Oct 2, 2006
    riyadh
    Nancy,

    Thanks a lot for looking and your kind words.

    take care.
     
  11. I'd love to follow you around while you're shooting...just to get tips. Your shots amaze me...and none of them are alike. Very well done.
     
  12. Wonderful images. What do you do to get that color!
     
  13. The 50/1.4 is surely a good and cheap low-light solution. Since I use the 28/1.4 or the 85/1.4 for such occasions I have never considered to get one. Maybe if I find a cheap used one I might just add it to my collection one day.

    BTW - your pics are awesome.

    Cheers
     
  14. tasnim_fahim

    tasnim_fahim

    498
    Oct 2, 2006
    riyadh
    Mark,

    Thanks for your comments. feel embarrassed but highly appreciated.

    I am no expert but I have one advantage over the pros...I do it for the
    joy of it. I am under no pressure. I do not have to please anyone, but
    myself. When kind folks like yourself like some of my pics, I really feel
    elated and motivated.

    Here's what I do. While strolling, I look up, down,left,right. Most importantly
    I look for color contasts or mostly monochrome with a dash of contrast.

    Sharpness is not my primary consideration, as my hand shakes a lot, but
    I tend to set the speed higher than 1/fl.

    Tend to break photgraphic rules. ' expose to the right '..I never do!
    I expose for the subject and to the degree I judge to be right.

    I tend to underexpose..mostly always..as this brings out the color.
    I PS most fotos, but only after printing them to see how they look ( waste
    ..yes).

    I mostly shoot jpeg,because I tend not to take more than a minute to
    ps each foto.

    The example below: I was sitting on the hotel bench outside. It was a
    cold day and my wife was taking lomger than usual. In front were some
    trees and the rest of the other bench. The brown leaves contasted with
    the cold blueness of the tree and the dark backrest of the bench.

    I focused on the brown leaves on the tree, with aperture set to slightly
    defocus the bench rest. ISO was set high to give it some graininess.
    WB was set to sunlight with -3 compensation to emphasise the blue cast.

    I generally keep WB on cloudy +2

    [​IMG]

    Maybe not a special pic, but shows what and how I try to approach my
    pic taking.

    Thanks once again for your kind words.

    Regards
     
  15. tasnim_fahim

    tasnim_fahim

    498
    Oct 2, 2006
    riyadh
    Tony,

    Thanks for your kind comments. My normal PS workflow ( when I use it ):

    1. Duplicate bg
    2. blend mode to soft light
    3. opacity control
    4. masking if required.
    5. usm based on output device.

    I generally tend to underexpose my pics. sometimes by as much as 1 stop.
    Right or wrong I do not know. That is just the way I do it.

    [​IMG]

    The above steps applied to the pic resulted in what you see above.
    I do tend to shoot early morning or late afternoons.

    Thanks.
     
  16. tasnim_fahim

    tasnim_fahim

    498
    Oct 2, 2006
    riyadh
    Harry,

    Thank you for looking and your kind comments.

    Take care.
     
  17. ZBaum

    ZBaum Guest

    I love the last two. You used the backgrounds perfectly to give a sense of what was happening, but you still isolated the subjects enough to stay away from a "snapshot" look. Well done.
     
  18. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    thanks for sharing your joy with us Tas...these r just plain artisticly yummy! u and this 50 1.4 really have quite the affair i must say:smile: .however, i challenge u to work on the 35f2...i really think you'll unlock some magic in it as well:cool: 

    bless
    :Angel:
     
  19. twig

    twig

    745
    May 23, 2005
    I really feel the 1.4 IS worth it. As others have mentioned, better bokeh, it also AFs better in low light IMO, and is sharper at stops wider than f/4

    Even better than both is the Sigma 30/1.4 - VERY fast AF (and will work on those nikon bodies with no screw), and RIPPING sharp even wide open. Also, I like the 30mm FOV on a 1.5 crop body better than the 50.
     
  20. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    alot of us have given that sig a whirl and didn't like it...there's something to be said about "reliability"...;-))....and, i like the LOOK from the nikon versions better as well .....;-))
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.