benrotem From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 68 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3054 times:
Hi Everyone.
I ordered myself a nice old Pentax 50mm for indoor shooting, and some portraits.
Then the thought of using the prime for plane spotting came across my mind.
Has anyone had any luck with using a "Nifty-Fifty" for plane spotting? If yes, are the photos any more sharp than an 18-55 kit lens @ the same aperture?
*For YYZ Spotters* I have yet to try shooting at any runway other than 23. Would the 50mm work at any other runways? Or is it too short?
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4538 posts, RR: 26 Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3042 times:
I use Canon's "Nifty-Fifty" sometimes. But I have ramp access so that makes it easier. That Canon 50mm 1.8 II is a fantastic piece of plastic.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3016 times:
It doesn't have the flexibility of a zoom, but it does have a number of strengths beyond basic image quality -
- avoids the distorted perspective of wide or tele lenses. Some collectors are only interested in pics taken with a focal length around 50mm
- often the fastest lens in a makers range - take advantage of this and go for low light shots.
- fast lenses have a very shallow depth of field wide open. You need to be aware of this, but it can also be exploited to blur cluttered foregrounds/backgrounds and for creative shots.
In my opinion, a much over-looked focal length these days.
benrotem From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3009 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 2): But I have ramp access so that makes it easier
How close to the aircraft would you say you are to get an aircraft to fill the frame?
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 1): I can almost guarantee it'll be sharper than an 18-55 at any aperture
That is great to hear!
Quoting ckw (Reply 3): take advantage of this and go for low light shots.
I'm a complete newbie with low light aircraft shots. How slow of a shutter speed is too slow? The aperture is f/2.0 if it matters, but i would probably need it stopped down to like, f/3.5 to get decent sharpness. Or does airliners.net take noisy shots into consideration if its night?
Quoting ckw (Reply 3): fast lenses have a very shallow depth of field wide open. You need to be aware of this, but it can also be exploited to blur cluttered foregrounds/backgrounds and for creative shots.
Wouldn't f/2.0 only give me a few inches of space in focus? Or am I just exaggerating everything?
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8228 posts, RR: 28 Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2990 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting benrotem (Reply 4):
I'm a complete newbie with low light aircraft shots. How slow of a shutter speed is too slow?
As slow as you can go and still get a sharp aircraft. Slowest panning shot I've gotten on A.net is 1/8.
Quoting benrotem (Reply 4): The aperture is f/2.0 if it matters, but i would probably need it stopped down to like, f/3.5 to get decent sharpness. Or does airliners.net take noisy shots into consideration if its night?
I believe there is slightly more room for play with noise if it's a night shot, but I'm sure the standard is still pretty high.
Quoting benrotem (Reply 4): The aperture is f/2.0 if it matters, but i would probably need it stopped down to like, f/3.5 to get decent sharpness.
If you can fill the frame with the aircraft, you may be able to get away with a wider aperture, and there are lenses out there that are sharp wide open (so I hear...too expensive for me right now!). However, as you stated, you sacrifice depth-of-field.
Quoting benrotem (Reply 4):
Wouldn't f/2.0 only give me a few inches of space in focus? Or am I just exaggerating everything?
If the subject is close to you, then yes it will be small. If it's a few hundred feet away, you should have some DOF to play with. On my camera, with a 50mm lens at F2, and a subject that's 50 meters away, looks like my DOF would be around 150 meters (500 feet). That's assuming I did the calculation correctly.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2960 times:
I have a 50mm F1.4 too and at short distances the depth of field with the lens wide open is very small indeed. A 50mm fixed lens is the simplest in construction and the simplest to design well and so, these days at least, they are all good, some are just better than others. Whilst a 50mm was the commonest lens on an SLR in film days, they are not common now and I would wager that any recently made 50mm will be sharper than even the best of zooms.
An understanding of hyperfocal distance will give you an idea of the usability of the lens and bear in mind that even an f1.4 lens (any lens) will work better stopped down a bit. Put very simply, any lens will only focus PERFECTLY at one point but there is an area in front of that point and behind that point that is acceptably sharp and that is the depth of field. It varies with the focussing distance, the aperture and focal length of the lens.
This table will give you an idea of the depth of field at any given focussing distance for a lot of different lenses http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html
From an aviation photographers perspective, the 50mm has another advantage. They tend to be small and will often fit through wire fences.
rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, RR: 18 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2958 times:
Quoting benrotem (Thread starter): *For YYZ Spotters* I have yet to try shooting at any runway other than 23. Would the 50mm work at any other runways? Or is it too short?
I dont know of any place where you could use a 50mm at YYZ, except the Wendy lot ... and this would mean you take more a shot of the belly of the plane. 50mm is only useful when havin rampaccess (like stated above). Otherwise zoom is the only way to go if u spot moving objects (like planes or cars) .... except you have a 500mm or something like this.
A "fixed" 14mm or something like this could be used for pictures of planecabins or similar.
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2897 times:
Quoting viv (Reply 9): As Mick says, stop down a bit whenever you can - such a lens will be at at its best at f/8 or thereabouts.
Yes. Don't waste an evening in the dark like me, almost pitch black at f1.8 ISO 1250 trying to get a photo doesn't work to well. Ahh, but it was a nice experience, nothing to show for it though.
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
benrotem From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2894 times:
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 5): As slow as you can go and still get a sharp aircraft.
So that would be a good 1/60 for me. I definitely do not have the most steady of hands..
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 5): If you can fill the frame with the aircraft, you may be able to get away with a wider aperture, and there are lenses out there that are sharp wide open (so I hear...too expensive for me right now!).
I've heard about those as well. Only heard though, I don't think I can buy one of those any time soon!
Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 7): A 50mm fixed lens is the simplest in construction and the simplest to design well and so, these days at least, they are all good, some are just better than others. Whilst a 50mm was the commonest lens on an SLR in film days, they are not common now and I would wager that any recently made 50mm will be sharper than even the best of zooms.
The lens I ordered was built back in the 80s. I got it for a steal at only $40. I've heard that the quality of optics back then was the same, if not better, than lenses today. Is that true?
Quoting rotate (Reply 8): I dont know of any place where you could use a 50mm at YYZ, except the Wendy lot ... and this would mean you take more a shot of the belly of the plane.
Reading everyones comments gave me an idea for an A.net shot, but I don't know if the motive would work. I was thinking about getting a shot of the A380's engines in the air, with the blades frozen (I am guessing that the lens stopped down to f/2.8 would still give me a good 1/2500 on a bright day). What sort of a shot should I go for? 2 of the engines, or just one engine filling the frame?
benrotem From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
OK guys, I got the lens yesterday night and I have been doing a ton of test shots at varying apertures. I started off at f/5.6, and it was sharp as a knife. When I made my way to f/2.0, I was expecting them to be really soft, and I would need a good 3 passes of sharpening for it to be even reasonable. Wow, was I wrong. No sharpening needed at all. Everything was still very sharp. I think I got very lucky with lens, as some reviews were saying that it was unbearably soft at any aperture. I'm thinking that if I stop it down to f/2.8, I will get the fast shutter speed i need for the engine shot, but still maintain the crisp sharpness needed for airliners.net. The lens is Manual Focus, but i don't think that will be a problem, as infinite focus is right after 35 feet, and the aircraft approaching 23 at YYZ are at a good 75 feet when flying over the Petro Canada station. Please correct me if I am giving wacky information.
I think my only choices for aviation photography as of right now is either at 23 in YYZ, or wing shots from the cabin of an A/C.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2736 times:
2 things which bear on the reported sharpness of the lens ...
- Compared to what? Even a relatively low rating prime will be better than your average kit zoom!
- The worst problems of any lens tend to be most evident at the edges. One of the nice things about 'cropped' cameras is that you never get to see the lens's edges - what you record on your sensor is the central 60% or so of the lens's full image circle.
JakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4746 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2731 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 17): The worst problems of any lens tend to be most evident at the edges. One of the nice things about 'cropped' cameras is that you never get to see the lens's edges - what you record on your sensor is the central 60% or so of the lens's full image circle
With this in mind, I bet you would have to look oh-so-hard for any edge softness with a 50mm prime set to f/8-11 used with a FOVCF body.
benrotem From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2726 times:
Quoting ckw (Reply 17): Compared to what? Even a relatively low rating prime will be better than your average kit zoom!
Yes, that is true. So I guess I am exaggerating everything, as I have never had a very high end piece of glass. All I have in comparison is my Pentax 18-55 kit lens and a relatives Nikon 18-55 kit lens. I have never got the chance to use something like a Canon 50mm f/1.2 L. In comparison to my 18-55, it feels like its top of the line.
Quoting ckw (Reply 17): The worst problems of any lens tend to be most evident at the edges. One of the nice things about 'cropped' cameras is that you never get to see the lens's edges - what you record on your sensor is the central 60% or so of the lens's full image circle.
So all of this combined means I am "cropping out" the bad edges of the lens, and with the Pentax crop factor, I "have a 75mm lens."
Also, what are the bad things about a 50mm fixed ? (Other than the fact that i can not zoom in/out)
viv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3107 posts, RR: 31 Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2666 times:
Quoting benrotem (Reply 11): So that would be a good 1/60 for me. I definitely do not have the most steady of hands..
I regularly handhold a 50mm lens at 1/15th of a second with pin-sharp results. Admittedly, this is with a rangefinder camera, which has no mirror and thus no mirror slap.
With A DSLR, 1/30th should be feasible.
Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
benrotem From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 68 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2659 times:
Quoting viv (Reply 20): Absolutely nothing, if you can get close enough. A fast 50 is wonderful.
That's great to hear!
Quoting viv (Reply 21): With A DSLR, 1/30th should be feasible.
I have managed to do a 1/8 exposure handheld, but that is without the panning for catching a 200km/h+ aircraft. Then again, it was at 18mm, so i don't think that shutter speed would really transition into a 50mm and still retain a steady shot.
If this isn't a good lens at all, what telephoto would you recommend for a K Mount camera, under $300? If there is nothing good in that price range, I may be able to dish out an extra $100 or so.
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, RR: 18 Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2642 times:
Quoting JakTrax (Reply 18): With this in mind, I bet you would have to look oh-so-hard for any edge softness with a 50mm prime set to f/8-11 used with a FOVCF body
Absolutely - as I say its all relative, and given the compartive simplicity of the 50mm design, its one manufacturers tend to get right. In fact the more difficult task is to see the reason for buying an expensive top of the range version over the basic offerings.
Quoting benrotem (Reply 22): If this isn't a good lens at all, what telephoto would you recommend for a K Mount camera, under $300? If there is nothing good in that price range, I may be able to dish out an extra $100 or so.
Well I can't comment on this particular lens, but, you're lucky to have a Pentax who have a very long pedigree and have produced superb lenses for many years. And any K mount lens should fit your DSLR - though you may sacrifice some automation. Have a look at this site -
Anything with the SMC label is a safe bet, and you can find these in 2nd hand camera stores (or on eBay) for very little money with a bit of luck. Because Pentax was very slow to produce a DSLR, many Pentax film shooters sold their gear and switched to Canon or Nikon - so there should still be a lot of used gear around.
If you're prepared to do without AF, you could end up with a set of lenses optically equal to pretty much anything used on A.net.
Sponsor Message: 
From Canada, joined Nov 2010, 68 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4746 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4538 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 530 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1479 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3107 posts, 
That's great to hear!
Printer friendly format 
