WHAT
front page
entry archive
my flickr photos
my del.icio.us
the tubbs scale
professional home
my twitter
my wishlist
my facebook
WHO
Using Cheap Glass
2008-08-10 : rambling
For some reason, I’ve been trying to force myself to shoot with my cheap glass, rather than my good glass. It’s a bit of an intellectual exercise, to remind myself that photography is not about the equipment, it’s about the process.
In theory, that means I’m restricted to my:
- 50/1.4 – mine was made back in the mid nineties, saw a lot of use on my EOS-3
- 50/1.8 – my copy is new this year, you can pick one up for about $90
- 85/1.8 – picked up a few months ago second hand for about $250, has some scratching on the objective element
- 28/2.8 – picked up from a coworker back at the atmospheric sciences lab when he started getting into L glass; gray market
All of these are available for less than $400, all are dust suckers with extending elements except for the 85/1.8. Two come with the joy of non-USM motors, and the USM on the USM glass is junk. Each has either a Rodenstock or B+W filter on the front, to protect them, and to ensure I’m not “compromising” the cheap glass with cheap filters.
So far, my observations:
- I’m sort of amazed at how much the 85/1.8 gets hit with chromatic aberrations on sharp contrasts when shooting wide open. DPP’s lens-specific fixes for the 85/1.8 are not sufficient to pull these out. Damn. Purple fringing really isn’t my favorite look. The 85/1.2 should, in the mythical future when I own one, solve this problem and give me bokeh to die for. My lens also seems to hunt a lot when near the MFD; manual focus will still pull the shots, but I need to back away about a foot for autofocus to nail it. I am not sure whether I have a lousy example (that’ll teach me to buy used), or if it’s just not a great lens in this regard.
- The 28/2.8 is a damn fine lens, at least in terms of IQ. Bitch to use and slow as hell, but the pictures it takes are still pretty nice. I was popping some available light cat shots, and got some results that I’m pretty happy with, given something that can be picked up for a few hundred dollars.
With the 28/2.8:
I blew my plan and used the 17-40/4, which is still a cheap lens, but not as cheap as the above. I kept blowing the exposure (shooting high contrast stuff), but I was saved by the RAW format and enough extra information to make a 2EV shift. Why every consumer digital camera doesn’t have this is beyond me.
Interesting, but I’m a little curious how the 50’s stack up to each other.
Also, while these are relatively cheap glass, I was wondering if you curtailed your experiment to shooting with anything that was available for under $300 if you would be able to find anything you are happy with.
I have a 50mm 1.8 for my nikon, but almost NEVER shoot with it. This article might inspire me to go take some shots this week. Thanks.
BTW, if you want to go on some early morning or late evening trips when your hear, let me know, I would probably be interested in something like that, and I have a Tripod we could share.
— Zachary Cohen 11 August 2008 #
Unfortunately, I’ve just (today, that is) sent the 50/1.8 back to the shop. Its objective element is marred with a 1mm x 5mm streak; as the objective has been behind the filter since it was purchased, and it is still under warranty, it’s almost certainly a manufacturing defect. So, for now, I can’t really do a comparison of my 1.8 and 1.4.
At some point in the future I want to pick up a Sigma 1.4; initial reports are suggesting that, at nearly the same price as the Canon 1.4, it is delivering IQ about two stops superior at the wide apertures in terms of sharpness. Bokeh is reported to be perfect for point sources, focus is fast and true hypersonic (rather than the micro-USM junk in the 50/1.4 from Canon), it features a fully contained focusing system, and build quality is higher than the Canon 1.4 (between a plastic shell and an L in build quality).
Granted, these are all just speculation, I haven’t had a chance to actually hold one. Generally I’ve not been impressed with Sigma glass, and I do not own any, but a good prime may be a good excuse, unless Canon releases a 50/1.4 II at some point.
Anyhow, I’ll be happy to post some comparisons when the 1.8 is back; it seems to do a bit better than the 1.4 in a lot of situations (my 1.4 is pretty soft until about 2.8), though is about as pleasant to use as a disposable camera. The aperture design means that the bokeh is going to be a bit geometric.
Other than that, there’s always the discontinued canon 50/1.0L, which, IQ speaking, is junk, but is the king of low-light work (unless you want to shoot the .95 on a 7 or a Noctilux). The 50/1.2L is supposed to be decent, but still not really an IQ killer versus the slower primes; while it does a bit better wide open than the 1.4 (it seems), it’s still designed to be an available light lens more than a minimum DOF bokeh blaster. The 85/1.2L will probably be something I’d purchase long before that, and I already have the 35/1.4L, so I doubt I’ll bother with it, unless I just start shitting money.
I probably won’t pack too much gear when I come out (it is a work trip after all), but we’ll see what sort of free time I have.
The Nikon crowd has the advantage of spectacular results from the 18-200 VR, though primes ares still a delight for cheap IQ and subject isolation; I find primes also force a little more creativity, since you can’t just zoom and click to achieve a certain composure.
— Aaron N. Tubbs 11 August 2008 #