Full Frame on a Budget

[pdxflint]

Not to start "that" discussion again, but WHAAAAT!???!?!? The bokeh produced by the 50/1.8 is in no way "really good"; do you really like those sharp-edged pentagons?

By contrast, the 50/1.4 produces much more pleasing near-circles, owing to its 8-bladed aperture; not as good as the 50/1.2L or the 85/1.2L, but miles better than the 50/1.8.

Buy right, buy once. The 50/1.4 is 2/3 of a stop faster than the 1.8; not inconsequential if you're moving from 1/50s at f/1.4 to 1/30s at f/1.8 (difference between sharp and blurry); or from ISO2000 at f/1.4 to ISO3200 at f/1.8 (difference between completely useable and fairly noisy, esp. on the 40D).

The 50/1.8 is a good lens for the money, don't get me wrong. But the 50/1.4 is in a whole different league (with the Sigma 50/1.4 in a different league again).

I'm not going to get sucked into an argument about the law of diminishing returns... sure, the 1.4 lens better be better, it costs 3 times as much. But, is it three times better? Well, if all you look at is certain out of focus shapes, then perhaps, but I simply said it produces really good bokeh, (maybe not the Canon version, heck, I don't know about that) especially when compared to the zoom lenses, and typical kit lenses... and on DX. It becomes a telephoto lens closer in behavior on a DX body to the 85mm 1.8 on full-frame than a typical normal lens. My older, Japanese Nikkor copy is plenty sharp and makes great images, is very small and light, and I can afford a spare. And it's about $120 - tops. What's not to like?? Not enough "sharp-edged petagons" to turn me off... although there are some sharp edged highlight artifacts depending on the image, they're usually round.

Just a few samples I took with the nifty-fifty when I first got it... nothing else but to see what hand-held wide-open shots would look like.

f/1.8 ISO200 1/250

f/1.8 ISO400 1/125

f/1.8 ISO800 1/90

f/1.8 ISO800 1/80

f/1.8 ISO800 1/80 (honest, I don't drink this stuff... )

 

[toxic]

This is kind of the point I tried to make above. Digital FF is only 50% larger then a digital crop frame and that is very little difference. Not enough for most people to notice

Really? 35mm is 2.56 times larger than Canon APS-C (by area). A 645 back is around 3 times larger...but the difference is clearly visible going from 135 to 645 (and so is the lack of portability). From personal experience, I don't think the extra .5x is that significant when comparing 645 to 135 to APS-C (in digital).

In this era, though, most of the images are posted online and viewed at low resolutions. Larger formats call for prints to see the resolution advantage, otherwise it's all DoF.

 

[Edge100]

There is such a thing as too little DoF you know... it's not computer RAM

Ruahrc

Couldn't disagree more. Need more DOF? Stop down. Need less DOF? Open up. Simple.

I'd rather have the choice to have nice OOF blur. One can, of course, go overboard. Not everything needs to be shot wide open for minimum DoF. But why limit yourself? And more importantly, why sacrifice not just quantity of OOF blur, but QUALITY too (as you do with the 50/1.8).

Re: your comment about the 28-70 and OWA...fine, keep it. I still think you could do a 5D, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 17-40 (for your UWA needs on a 5D) for the cost of $2000 + sale of 40D and UWA lens.

 

[Edge100]

But, is it three times better?

Yup. No question.

Well, if all you look at is certain out of focus shapes, then perhaps, but I simply said it produces really good bokeh, (maybe not the Canon version, heck, I don't know about that) especially when compared to the zoom lenses, and typical kit lenses... and on DX.

The OP has a 40D and is considering moving to a Canon FF system. The Nikon 50/1.8 might be stellar, but it's somewhat irrelevant here. The Canon 50/1.8 is good for the money, but is not by any means what I'd call a "good" lens.

 

[toxic]

The OP has a 40D and is considering moving to a Canon FF system. The Nikon 50/1.8 might be stellar, but it's somewhat irrelevant here. The Canon 50/1.8 is good for the money, but is not by any means what I'd call a "good" lens.

if you don't think the 50/1.8 is a good lens, you can't say the 50/1.4 is either. halation at f/1.4, not any sharper at wide apertures, mediocre-at-best bokeh, still relatively cheap construction, no ring USM, and it costs three times more.

on the bokeh: the 50/1.4 can produce decent bokeh if the background isn't too busy. then again, the 50/1.8 doesn't do too bad in those cases, either. once you throw a bunch of stuff in the background, the 1.4 starts going down the drain. it's even worse when there are specular highlights. combine both and you get utter garbage.

unless you specifically want a small 50, skip the 1.4 and go to the Sigma or the 1.2.

I had a 50/1.8, got the 1.4, returned it, and got another 1.8. now I have a Sigma.

 

[Ruahrc]

Couldn't disagree more. Need more DOF? Stop down. Need less DOF? Open up. Simple.

I'd rather have the choice to have nice OOF blur. One can, of course, go overboard. Not everything needs to be shot wide open for minimum DoF. But why limit yourself? And more importantly, why sacrifice not just quantity of OOF blur, but QUALITY too (as you do with the 50/1.8).

Re: your comment about the 28-70 and OWA...fine, keep it. I still think you could do a 5D, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and 17-40 (for your UWA needs on a 5D) for the cost of $2000 + sale of 40D and UWA lens.

Huh? I think we're both in agreement here regarding DoF. What I was trying to say was that there have been a lot of suggestions for the OP to get a FF camera and heck even get a f1.2 lens. Shooting FF and at f1.2 is giving you an extremely thin DoF, and is likely too thin for a lot of portraiture work. Because while the background may be nice and creamy, half the person's face will be OOF too, making for a poor portrait. I never suggested he get the 50mm f1.8 so you may be confusing my comments with someone else.

Your points re: bokeh are valid although not really along the same lines of the full frame argument. Full frame isn't going to improve the bokeh any, the lens is. Maybe the Canon 50mm f1.8 is not the right choice, but this has nothing to do with the OP going FF.

Finally, I am simply suggesting that going to FF is way overkill in the OP's situation. It's not my money and hey if he wants to spend $2k on this then sure no problem. But IMO the most logical choice would be to buy a 50mm f1.4 and keep using his current body. It will probably be more than sufficient to address his DoF concerns, and will only cost $300-400 instead of the $2000 you are proposing for an entire body and lens changeup. Not to mention the time and hassle involved in both selling off his current gear and also hunting for a good deal on a used 5D. In addition, the 50mm f1.4 lens would cover the full frame, so in the future if the OP wants to or decides to, he can carry that 50mm f1.4 over to a future FF body and still make use of it there too.

Ruahrc

 

[JeffTL]

I'm going to be the codger here and suggest any given film SLR with a 50mm f/1.8 lens and a couple rolls of your favorite film. I shot my most recent vacation on a Canon AE-1 with Velvia 100 when my Nikon D50 was in the shop for a shutter rebuild, and the shots turned out great with a wide range of DOF.