Shall I Keep my Nifty?

abooth2909

abooth2909

Suspended / Banned
Messages
399
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Right, I think I finally have a lens lineup that will fit most of my needs.

I have a 10-20 for lanscape stuff, a 24-70 f2.8L for portraits and people / kids pics and some landscape stuff an a 70-200 f4L for planes, trains and automobiles!

I also have a dedicated flash that I am getting to grips with.

Question is, it it worth keeping the Nifty or shall I sell and buy myself a nice case for my iPad when it arrives?!

Has anyone got a similar lineup and does the nifty get a look in?

Cheers

Andy
 
Depends whether or not you use it?! Having the 24-70 I can't imagine it gets much use unless you're in seriously low light situations, but then again having a flash gun surely helps out.
 
I'm about to list mine actually now I have a 2.8 zoom covering the range. I don't see much point keeping it with a 24-70 TBH.
 
I mostly use primes so I'll say keep it.
 
I'd only ever dump mine for the f/1.4. Even with the 24-70 it's a great and very sharp little walkabout or portrait lens.
 
Yup, more compact too and good for low light, indoor and limitd dof stuff that f2.8 can't match.
 
I'd probably keep it for when you need something really light and cheap. It is also great at f/8 for group portraits - sharper than 24-70mm. I can't think of more reasons to keep one, certainly not for IQ wide open.
 
Ok then, it's saved from the chopping block for the time being! I'll see if it get used in the next month or so then if not, it can go. I can always get another at a later stage for similar money.

Or better still I could get the f1.4 at a later date! :whistling:
 
woof woof said:
Yup, more compact too and good for low light, indoor and limitd dof stuff that f2.8 can't match.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there isn't *that* much difference between f/2.8 and f/1.8 in terms of background blur amount.
 
abooth2909 said:
Or better still I could get the f1.4 at a later date! :whistling:
Click to expand...

The f/1.4 is an astonishingly good lens - at least on my 450D, however the real test will be when I get my 1Ds. I just hope it performs well in the corners as it's gonna be my only lens, at least for a while.
 
"To be fair, there isn't *that* much difference between f/2.8 and f/1.8 in terms of background blur amount."

There's quite a difference in shutter speed.
 
have you concidered the sigma 50mm 1.4? reviews say its better than the canon.

i still havent had a chance to use mine properly but the test shots ive done it certainly does the job very nicely.
 
I had the 50mm 1.8 Mk1 and Mk2.
Chopped them in and have the Sigma 1.4 now.
It is a great bit of glass!!!!
Considerably more expensive, and rightly so. Construction is on another level, IQ is awesome and low light capability is immense.

BUT, it is not a walkabout lens that you can 'just throw in the bag' like the 1.8 was....

Keep the 1.8, it's a cheap and cheerful bit of kit.

Just leave the ipad as an ornament .....:eek:
 
Just to throw in something else - you could always mount your 50mm Macro when you want a smaller lens on the camera. It should be fine for general work (although the one I tried was not reliable at focussing once you left the close-up range).

Phil
 
I've heard the Canon is a lot better than the Sigma?
 
Shooboo said:
I've heard the Canon is a lot better than the Sigma?
Click to expand...

the canon has older AF, the sigma is better at wider apertures (quote DP Review - "Sigma's new young pretender can outmuscle it comprehensively at wider apertures")

ready - http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/page6.asp - "of course; the 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM still can't achieve anything approaching genuine corner-to-corner sharpness on full frame at wide apertures, however it does much, much better than the other 50mm F1.4 lenses we've tested so far"
 
If you do throw it away could I have it as my 1.8 making a grinding noise as if there is sand inside also hard to auto focus so have to do it manually
would replace it but been on the dole since xmas
 
I got rid of my nifty as it never got any use. When I fancied a place with some seriously shallow dof, I bought a 50/1.4. I have to say, I love this lens, while the nifty was really something or nothing for me.

I say move it on and get a 1.4!!
 
Given the fact they're so cheap I say it's worth keeping; you never know when you might need it
 
Yeah I'd go for a 1.4, but I don't know whther to go for a Canon or Sigma....It would fit nicely with my 24mm-105mm L.
 
neil_g said:
the canon has older AF
Click to expand...

The whole entire design of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is based on two plus decade old technology and design, and to be fair it does show. It is said to perform typically of most 50mm f/1.4s out there - sharp but hazy wide open, and exceptionally good from f/2.8 onwards.

I think the Sigma is trying to copy the Canon 50mm f/1.2L - geared for as-good-as-possible performance wide open, but less impressive stopped down. This is where the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 really excel at f/5.6 - so unbelievably tack sharp, sharper than the 50mm f/1.2 and probably sharper than the Sigma.

It depends on how one uses the lens. If it never goes above f/4, the choice is obvious. personally I prefer something that performs well above f/4, and acceptably well below f/4, which the 50mm f/1.4 does with ease.
 
i was more than impressed with the test shots from the sigma at 1.4, 2.8, 4, 5.6 and 8.. tack sharp and lovely bokeh. unfortunately i deleted them from my work laptop so cant show you lol
 
Since I bought a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, I've not used my nifty fifty at all........maybe once just to have a play, and realised how much better the 17-55 IS was. I imagine the 24-70 f/2.8 to be a similar comparison.

Having said that though, I still keep it in my bag because it is so small and light, it's almost like having an invisible backup portrait lens in your bag.......
 
For those who have a 2.8 lens it's less of a necessity I guess. But for me, until I can afford the 70-200 2.8, f4 is my lowest aperture and I need something lower and faster for lower light conditions, so 1.4 is ideal for that. As well as the bokeh :)
 
Blimey, I seem to have divided opinion here!

I will have a play with both the Canon 1.4 and Sigma 1.4 when funds will allow I think. Only about £30 difference between them on Onestopdigital at the mo so will have to find somewhere that stocks both and have a good mess with them on my 40D.

By the time I can get an ipad, Canon will probably have brought a new 50mm f1.4 out!! I knew I should have pre-ordered when I had the chance! :bang:
 
I will likely always keep mine. I had a 1.4 and sent it back due to being much too soft for my liking towards wide open. As I've said before though I used mine mainly indoors in low light and my 1.8 focuses in half the time my 1.4 used to hunt for sometimes seconds.

The only way I will buy another 1.4 is if I can play first and check out the speed of the focus and softness wide open.
 
I find very little use for my 35mm as well since the DOF is so shallow when wide open at f1.8 or 2.8, not to mention the focal length limits me to smaller objects.

Maybe I should try learn how to use it better but for most occasions my 18-105mm does the job nicely.
 
lauy said:
almost like having an invisible backup portrait lens in your bag.......
Click to expand...

I would not call a 50mm a portrait lens, not on a crop body and certainly not on full frame. The picture of me on the left was taken with a 50mm on a crop body (80mm equiv.) and the camera was only around 3 meters away at the absolute most. In order to do a 'portrait' with the 50mm you'd really need to be quite close to someone which can make them feel uncomfortable and can distort facial appearances.

Proper 'portraits' need at least an 85mm lens, imo before you start to hit the jackpot.


dannyjo22 said:
I will likely always keep mine. I had a 1.4 and sent it back due to being much too soft for my liking towards wide open. As I've said before though I used mine mainly indoors in low light and my 1.8 focuses in half the time my 1.4 used to hunt for sometimes seconds.

The only way I will buy another 1.4 is if I can play first and check out the speed of the focus and softness wide open.
Click to expand...

If your 1.4 performed worse than your 1.8 in any way then you 100% certainly had a faulty one.
 
trencheel303 said:
I would not call a 50mm a portrait lens, not on a crop body and certainly not on full frame. The picture of me on the left was taken with a 50mm on a crop body (80mm equiv.) and the camera was only around 3 meters away at the absolute most. In order to do a 'portrait' with the 50mm you'd really need to be quite close to someone which can make them feel uncomfortable and can distort facial appearances.

Proper 'portraits' need at least an 85mm lens, imo before you start to hit the jackpot.
Click to expand...

Okay, the focal length isn't the best for portrait work, but I just meant that the lens is usable for portrait work because it does produce some nice images of still subjects. I've shot a couple of general portraits of family members etc which look quite good with it.
 
trencheel said:
Proper 'portraits' need at least an 85mm lens, imo before you start to hit the jackpot.
Click to expand...

On a crop body though, that's only 5mm difference - not exactly massive. Personally I think you can get great portraits at 50mm.
 
Incidently, regarding the OP, I have pretty much the same line up of lenses as yourself. I ended up keeping mine because it didn't seem worth selling. Comes in handy from time to time I think.
 
MatW said:
On a crop body though, that's only 5mm difference - not exactly massive. Personally I think you can get great portraits at 50mm.
Click to expand...

I meant at least 85mm on a crop body, so basically similarish to 135mm on a full frame which is 'the' portrait lens, no?
 
No.

The right portrait lens is the one that gets you the result that you want at the working distance that you and your subject are happy with. All else is almost certainly just optical illusion. There is nothing to stop someone using an 85mm lens for portraits whilst others may choose 20mm.

:)
 
woof woof said:
No.

The right portrait lens is the one that gets you the result that you want at the working distance that you and your subject are happy with. All else is almost certainly just optical illusion. There is nothing to stop someone using an 85mm lens for portraits whilst others may choose 20mm.

:)
Click to expand...

Using a 20mm is fine, but your image will be full of distortions.

Try taking 10 images with an 85 (or pref. a 135) and then 10 with a 20 and see which ones sell first.
 
lauy said:
Since I bought a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, I've not used my nifty fifty at all........maybe once just to have a play, and realised how much better the 17-55 IS was. I imagine the 24-70 f/2.8 to be a similar comparison...
Click to expand...

Pretty much...I did a pixel-peep test with my old 28-70 f/2.8 and my new 24-70 f/2.8 with both set to f/5.6 @ 50mm and there was no discernable difference from my AF-G Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 also set to f/5.6.

The older 28-70 exhibited some CA in extreme contrast subjects, so it got sold in favour of the newer lens...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top