Canon 50mm EF 1.8 lens!

asfixiate · Apr 2, 2008

Only thing really that makes the most sense if the 220 is better is the height of the flash. In theory if its higher than the popup flash you'd less likely have any "interference"(not sure if I should have used noise)

JerryPH · Apr 2, 2008

Village Idiot said:
In photography there's some things money can buy, for everything else, there's The Strobist Blog.

Brought to you by the cult members of The Strobist Blog.

VI has been assimilated... but there are some lenses needed that the strobist method just cannot match.

Like... how do you catch that twilight pic of the girl down the street? Use one of these: http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3

:lol:

Big Mike · Apr 2, 2008

According to the specs. The Flash on the XT has a GN of 42' (13M). The 220EX has a GN of 72' (22M). So the 220EX is certainly more powerful.

I believe it is higher than the built-in flash (which helps to avoid red-eye) but not by a whole lot.

To me, the bottom line is that it doesn't tilt or swivel, so it's not worth it.

Village Idiot · Apr 2, 2008

Big Mike said:
According to the specs. The Flash on the XT has a GN of 42' (13M). The 220EX has a GN of 72' (22M). So the 220EX is certainly more powerful.

I believe it is higher than the built-in flash (which helps to avoid red-eye) but not by a whole lot.

To me, the bottom line is that it doesn't tilt or swivel, so it's not worth it.

Or melt faces.

asfixiate · Apr 3, 2008

This lens is freaking me out. I was in my bedroom with all the lights out except for the tv which wasn't very bright. I took a shot of my dog and fiance w/o flash and it came out looking like it had a flash. I think this lens is amazing. I'm not sure whether I know what I'm doing or the lens is just that good but a lot of the photos I'm taking look almost like photo shoot quality.

Village Idiot · Apr 3, 2008

asfixiate said:
This lens is freaking me out. I was in my bedroom with all the lights out except for the tv which wasn't very bright. I took a shot of my dog and fiance w/o flash and it came out looking like it had a flash. I think this lens is amazing. I'm not sure whether I know what I'm doing or the lens is just that good but a lot of the photos I'm taking look almost like photo shoot quality.

With the right settings you can make a nearly dark room look bright.

The 50mm f/1.8's AF hunts and hunts and hunts in the slightest bit of darkness

Shooting @ f/1.8 is a little soft and often leaves you with a DOF so shallow it's not useful except in certain situations.

asfixiate · Apr 4, 2008

Would you say within 20 feet this is pretty universal for taking shots of People?

68Whiskey · Apr 4, 2008

At one time wasn't there a Canon 200mm F/2.0 or something like that?

asfixiate · Apr 4, 2008

That'd be out of my price range

I mean for the 50mm EF 1.8 Lens
Would you say within 20 feet this is pretty universal for taking shots of People?

Village Idiot · Apr 4, 2008

asfixiate said:
Would you say within 20 feet this is pretty universal for taking shots of People?

No. :-|

You ask some of the wierdest questions.

Who cares what distance you are from a person? Get as far or as close as needed with what ever lens you're using.

I've taken pictures of people with a 70-300 at 300mm.