is it possible?

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I think the reason the 50mm is so popular as a recomendation for a low light lens is the cost. for a hundred bucks you can get a lens that works pretty good in low light. Most of the folks that are asking have just purchased their first dSLR, they just dropped a large amount of money and to then recommend they go out and drop another 500 to 1000 or more on a f/2.8 zoom just doesn't seam fitting at least to me. They may evenutally get there, but not right out of the gate.

I personally haven't put my 50 on my camera since I got the fast zooms. If I can't get the picture at f/2.8 and 3200 ISO, I figure it simply wasn't meant to be at that time.

Blasphemer! (just kidding!) I personally love my primes. I didn't buy it just because people on this website recommended it. I saw it mentioned on quite a few forums. It's cheap compared to the Nikon branded f2.8 lenses, they are light weight and the low light shots come out better to me. I don't want to shoot at ISO 3200 if at all possible because I don't know how to do PP yet. I don't even have noise reduction software! So that's why I like my 50mm and 85mm f1.8 primes. I was going to buy a 2.8 zoom, but since the economy is in the toilet, I thought I should hold off on it.

 

[Anewman]

I didn't ignore anything, as I stated before, yes those issues exist, will the average person printing nothing larger than an 8x10 notice them...NO..

When talking about Bokeh, DOF, and exposure in lower light conditions one sure can notice the difference in even wallet size photos.

A fast prime vs what is considered a fast zoom can yield much better exposures in lower light conditions. Unless one feels that shooting at f/1.4 would look the same as when shooting at f/2.8

as for the popularity of the niifty 50, sure it's popular here,, everytime a new person comes looking for advice on lens purchases, some people recommend that as a must have.. the number of people recommending it started out small and has grown with the addition of the newer people , is it a must have, NO,, you will see a lot more 2.8 zooms in the hands of pros , than you will see 50 mms,

Well pros that do not shoot very much in lower light situations do not really need fast primes their priority would be to capture as many photos as possible without switching lenses, but I have seen plenty of weddings shot with nothing but primes. by pros


On a bright sunny day can I tell the difference between a good fast zoom and a prime when both are shot with the same settings? NO I can not.

But lets remember that even in California, not every day is bright and sunny.

 

[dmccarty]

I only have one zoom, a 35-70/2.8 which I have taken to WDW. Its a great lense. Its also heavy. But its a danged good all around travel lense though it is a bit long on a D200. Another plus is that it has some limited macro not as good as my 105/28 but its all in one lense.

Certainly I have been in situations where 2.8 is not fast enough at WDW and else where.

For our next WDW trip I bought a 50/1.4 lense. My kids basketball games need a fast lense so I'll use it there as well. Should have bought it years ago when I used the 2.8 to TRY to get gymnastics photos using 800 speed film pushed to 1600.

For MK I'm taking just the 50/1.4.

EPCOT maybe take a different camera bag with the 105/2.8 or the 35-70/2.8 because of the flowers and bugs.

AK's Safari ride needs two cameras. One with a long lense and they other with a short lense. Most likely the 50/1.4 and the 180/2.8. Depends on what rides we plan on doing and what I want to do. May just stick with the 50/1.4.

Really it gets down to how much STUFF and weight do I want to lug around. It has nothing to do with prime or zoom. Faster, lighter, and smaller is my bigger issue.

 

[MICKEY88]

When talking about Bokeh, DOF, and exposure in lower light conditions one sure can notice the difference in even wallet size photos.

A fast prime vs what is considered a fast zoom can yield much better exposures in lower light conditions. Unless one feels that shooting at f/1.4 would look the same as when shooting at f/2.8



Well pros that do not shoot very much in lower light situations do not really need fast primes their priority would be to capture as many photos as possible without switching lenses, but I have seen plenty of weddings shot with nothing but primes. by pros


On a bright sunny day can I tell the difference between a good fast zoom and a prime when both are shot with the same settings? NO I can not.

But lets remember that even in California, not every day is bright and sunny.

in low light situations unless you overexpose to lighten the scene, you don't see much depth of field period/

pros shooting entertainment stuff, bands etc,, aren't using nifty fiftys, they most often shoot with 2.8 zooms and boost their iso....

i won't dispute seeing wedding pros using primes, but I've seen just as many or more using fast zooms...

and I never said one couldn't notice the difference I said the average person/amateur photographer will not notice the difference..

 

[Groucho]

I didn't ignore anything, as I stated before, yes those issues exist, will the average person printing nothing larger than an 8x10 notice them...NO.. so I don't see the point of telling someone they need primes to get good pictures, most people will find zooms more than acceptable, if you want to argue the point that you need primes so you can get the absolute best picture, then why not go medium format...

Hmm, that's a good comparison. Why don't I dump my DSLR and drop $27k on a medium format digital, which will probably max out at ISO 400. Not exactly the right tool for the job, donchaknow? Top-notch for studio or landscape stuff - lousy for demanding Disney park photos.

it wasn't a cheap shot, it was a simple statement of personal belief,, if those issues are indeed that bad then I would not want to use pentax...

don't take it personally, I never said pentax was bad, just that I wouldn't buy it IF, key word being IF, the problems are as bad as you want us to believe.

Insert about 5,000 "roll eyes" smileys here. Please stop trying to pull brand into a discussion where brand is not an issue. Again, try reading some lens reviews. Zooms almost always lag behind primes in terms of the issues I stated, to one degree or another. It has nothing to do with who makes the zooms or who makes the primes. Look at any review. Heck, I just read Pop Photo's review of the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 - a $1,700 lens that they thought was "optically flawless", and they do say that it has visible barrel distortion at the wide end, pincushioning on the tele end, and vignetting when wide open. These are issues that would be minimized with a prime.

Anecdotal stories of using old lenses on film shooting daytime parades are completely unrelated. It's much easier to see lens flaws with digital and daytime parades are hardly challenging for any camera.

have you seen these problems on normal prints or are you basing it on info that is based on older zooms...

I prefer to go by what I here from people working in the field under real shooting conditions., rather than lab tests

I haven't noticed the issues significantly but I very rarely make prints (though I am probably going to start soon) - I also value "real world" testing however the fact is that lab tests will show issues that may be harder to quantify in "normal" prints, but help explain why certain lenses produce photos that "pop" more. A mediocre lab test is also a pretty good indication that the lens is not going to be a great performer.

as for the popularity of the niifty 50, sure it's popular here,, everytime a new person comes looking for advice on lens purchases, some people recommend that as a must have.. the number of people recommending it started out small and has grown with the addition of the newer people , is it a must have, NO,, you will see a lot more 2.8 zooms in the hands of pros , than you will see 50 mms,

and while I agree Disney does have some challenging lighting situations, it is far from being unique

Bah, again with the "pros". Tell a "pro" to take his sports or paparazzi gear and try to get a good shot of the floating Madame Leota head. A "pro" will go in when the ride is stopped, turn the lights way up, and use a tripod. (Just look at any "official" on-ride photos, which are much better-lit than the actual ride.) As amateurs, we don't have that luxury. And 1600 ISO and F2.8 just aren't enough (especially from a moving ride vehicle) and most cameras don't produce clean-enough 1600 ISO to allow you to push it much further.

Again: two extra stops. That's the difference between F1.4 and F2.8. That's also the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 1600. Or the difference between 1/50th and 1/200th of a second. You can do what you want - but when the lights get dim at Disney - I'll take those two stops, please. During the day, sure, F2.8 will be fine, though I'll still probably be using the primes a lot.

 

[Master Mason]

Madam Leoto with a 2.8 at 3200

Good enough for me, this was the floating version at WDW

Stationary version they were using at DL during Nightmare overlay

Again, good enough for me

Party sceen including getting the "ghosts"

Again, good enough for me.

As I said, you can probably get better shots with the primes, but the hastle of dealing with them, to me outways any benifit I would recieve by using them. Personal preference is all.

 

[MICKEY88]

Hmm, that's a good comparison. Why don't I dump my DSLR and drop $27k on a medium format digital, which will probably max out at ISO 400. Not exactly the right tool for the job, donchaknow? Top-notch for studio or landscape stuff - lousy for demanding Disney park photos.


Insert about 5,000 "roll eyes" smileys here. Please stop trying to pull brand into a discussion where brand is not an issue. Again, try reading some lens reviews. Zooms almost always lag behind primes in terms of the issues I stated, to one degree or another. It has nothing to do with who makes the zooms or who makes the primes. Look at any review. Heck, I just read Pop Photo's review of the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 - a $1,700 lens that they thought was "optically flawless", and they do say that it has visible barrel distortion at the wide end, pincushioning on the tele end, and vignetting when wide open. These are issues that would be minimized with a prime.

Anecdotal stories of using old lenses on film shooting daytime parades are completely unrelated. It's much easier to see lens flaws with digital and daytime parades are hardly challenging for any camera.


I haven't noticed the issues significantly but I very rarely make prints (though I am probably going to start soon) - I also value "real world" testing however the fact is that lab tests will show issues that may be harder to quantify in "normal" prints, but help explain why certain lenses produce photos that "pop" more. A mediocre lab test is also a pretty good indication that the lens is not going to be a great performer.


Bah, again with the "pros". Tell a "pro" to take his sports or paparazzi gear and try to get a good shot of the floating Madame Leota head. A "pro" will go in when the ride is stopped, turn the lights way up, and use a tripod. (Just look at any "official" on-ride photos, which are much better-lit than the actual ride.) As amateurs, we don't have that luxury. And 1600 ISO and F2.8 just aren't enough (especially from a moving ride vehicle) and most cameras don't produce clean-enough 1600 ISO to allow you to push it much further.

Again: two extra stops. That's the difference between F1.4 and F2.8. That's also the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 1600. Or the difference between 1/50th and 1/200th of a second. You can do what you want - but when the lights get dim at Disney - I'll take those two stops, please. During the day, sure, F2.8 will be fine, though I'll still probably be using the primes a lot.

I'm finished on this one, not because you are right or because you win,,

but I learned a long time ago that when someone takes a debate to this level, donchaknow? Bah Insert about 5,000 "roll eyes" smileys here

it's a waste of my time..

 

[webshark3]

Knowing this will be a huge prime versus zoom debate (lol) I have'nt read most of the thread. But I DO know you asked if anyone did it recently.

In late September 2007, I brought my 300D, kit lens (18-55mm) and a 24mm prime.

The 24mm lived on my camera, and was only removed (rarely) when I needed wide angle.

I'm not a fan of lugging around zooms (did it 3 years ago), and found that my shooting style was usually wide anyways. My prime was light and fast. And with a DSLR, you have plenty of room to crop (usually).

My next trip and camera will be the pocketable Sigma DP1. It's a prime 16mm (28mm equalivent) at F4. Yeah it's not fast, but it'll fit 95% of what I do. As Groucho showed, faster is needed with the dark rides, but I find the rest of the World pretty well lit so I'm usually over F4 anyway.