# 5D Mk III with 50mm f/1.8 II - bad images?



## silkfire (Jun 14, 2013)

I bought a 5D Mark III last fall as I've gotten a very keen interest in DSLR photography and I saved up a couple of months to afford the beast of a camera. Unfortunately, the only lens I could afford was the cheap nifty-fifty.

And I don't know if it's me being an amateur, but I think the images it takes are pretty crappy. Is it because of the bad lens? I'm saving up for an L lens but it may take a while.

What are your thoughts? Am I just being paranoid?

Here are some shots.


----------



## jp121 (Jun 14, 2013)

it would help if you specified why you think the lens is bad. 

the composition is not the best. what were you trying to achieve with these 3 photos? They all show DOF well enough.


----------



## silkfire (Jun 14, 2013)

I think that the colors are kind of dull. Yeah I'm still learning, I just want to make my images as attractive as in magazines I guess....


----------



## Hannes (Jun 14, 2013)

I think you are mostly missing some quality light in the shots. That and some better framing and a smidge of work in post.

A cheap manual flash or two might help you out quite a bit when it comes to getting the food shots look better. Read up on strobist.com


----------



## trygved (Jun 14, 2013)

First off, I probably would have suggested the 40mm 2.8 pancake lens.
Although it only costs $50 more, it is much less likely to be a lens you will "grow out of" as it is sharp as a tack and short to boot.

That being said however, the 50mm 1.8 is a perfectly fine lens.
There is a belief that runs rampant in the DSLR / high-end camera community: buying stuff makes you a better.
Unfortunately (or _fortunately_, depending on who you ask) this is not the case.
Your 50mm 1.8 on any DSLR is capable of brilliant results, but it won't do the work for you.
Before I go on, check out these results from your same lens.
http://dinablaszczak.hubpages.com/hub/Canon50mm18RevieworFactsaboutNiftyFifty
In the hands of a skilled photographer, much better results than those exemplified in the link above are well within reach.

The 50mm is by no means the limiting factor in these images.
Subject, composition, lighting, exposure settings, post processing, the list goes on; until you understand some of the basics, there isn't an L lens in production that will breathe life into your photos.
They will only raise the ceiling of what it possible.

If food photography is your thing, read up!
http://fstoppers.com/an-introduction-to-restaurant-food-photography
http://fstoppers.com/when-and-where-to-style-your-food-photography


----------



## Old Shooter (Jun 14, 2013)

^^^ What Hannes said...

Also, for food, I would use a gray card and custom WB...

Do you like the DOF? The quiche(?) you can clearly see the plane of focus in the center - is that what you visualized?


----------



## LordMicaTheGreat (Jun 14, 2013)

50mm 1.8 is not bad. Just giving you enogh for money what you are giving, and I think is perfect lenc for how much it cost (100chf/$/£ whatever). 
This photos are without feelings and lighting is bad (or even worst lighting not exist what is not appropriate for taking pictures of food inside of room).
You can try also with WB settings and saturation settings and alsoyou can try to go 1/3 overexp.
For making photos on this way (automatic) you do not need 5dMkIII (Camera can't make photos alone), you realy need manually to set all parametars and to play with them to make optimization (pictures which you will like ). Taking pictures of food to look same as in magazines need more practice and it's not easy as you think.
I wish you a good light in next attempt.


----------



## agierke (Jun 14, 2013)

as others have noted, your primary problem is you are using bad light. great photographers get great results first and foremost because they find/create good lighting conditions. even the best camera and lens will give crappy results in crappy light.

that being said, the 50mm 1.8 (while being a great budget lens) is pretty lackluster when compared to the best lenses canon has to offer. i have used it in good available light and studio lighting and i personally dont find its rendering of color or contrast to be sufficient. its sharpness also falls short for my preferences. some may find it perfectly suitable but to a more discerning eye it will fall short.

the lens is not your biggest problem though. you need to learn to identify what great light is first and understand how to get the best results once you have good light to work with. i would not run out yet and buy speedlights as others have suggested though. if you dont know what good available light is yet you are just as likely to produce bad results with speedlights.

i would suggest doing two things first. one, shoot in bright shade and two, shoot with a large window to the side of your subject while placing a piece of white foamboard close to the subject on the opposite side. these are basic lighting scenarios you should become familiar with first before running off and dumping money into strobe lighting.

after that, you need to understand how to post the images to pull the best results out of them without overdoing it. do not expect your images to match what you have seen from pros published in magazines straight out of your camera. top pros consider images straight out of camera as "digital negatives" in that the information has been recorded but needs to be processed to really make the image sing (so to speak). adjustments should be subtle if you got the lighting and exposure correct but a small amount of tweaking can still make a big difference in the final product.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jun 14, 2013)

The lens is an instrument. It seems sharp. The rest is up to you.
Practice! Or like Nike's slogan was/is: just do it!


----------



## Harry Muff (Jun 15, 2013)

You bought a £2,300 camera and put a £80 on it?


Keep saving for an L lens and you'll see a big difference.


----------



## M.ST (Jun 15, 2013)

Don´t put cheap lenses on expensive cameras. An expensive camera is worthless if you put cheap lenses on it.

But that is not the only problem. Why do you need an expensive camera for such images?

For a good image you need:

1. A good photographer with all the skills.
2. A vision.
3. The best light you can get.
4. A good camera with good lenses.

You need some more skills (light setups, using a flash, composition, etc.)


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 15, 2013)

Optically, the 50/1,8 II is a good lens (it's actually the 50/1,8 I in a new body) it is so cheap only because of its built quality and because the optical scheme required by a 50mm 1,8 is very easy to project and to realize.
What's missing in your pictures is "just" a great lighting and the right withe balance... it's extremely hard to make a plate of potatoes look good, the subject doesn't help you at all! Since you just started, my advise is to begin with another kind of subjects to practice with the camera, this way you'll see that your equipment is not at all the limit.
In the "film era", to buy a very good body and wait to raise more money for good lenses would have been a really unwise decision, but now, in my opinion, it is not anymore.


----------



## denton (Jun 15, 2013)

The 50mm 1.8 is an excellent lens. I use it, along with a Mkiii, for my street style work as it is small and light and easy to carry in the hand. I have lots of L glass too.
Tell me this isn't sharp:
http://www.thenycfashionguy.com/2013/04/at-met.html

Take the lens outside, you'll be happy.


----------



## Menace (Jun 15, 2013)

Here is one of mine with 5D Mk III with 50mm f/1.8 II - it is a great value for money lens and i always keep in in my bag. 

As others have said, lighting is crucial. Here my 6 year old son (my assistant's dog was sick) was holding an EX 580 II Off camera


----------



## señor Steve (Jun 15, 2013)

Not to overstate previous comments, but clearly white balance and exposure could use some refinement on these examples. The mkiii pics really look good exposed to the right. Think like a chef and consider background and presentation of the food. In the photos you posted, a bold colored plate and/or a tastefully patterned and colorful table cloth and maybe some other props would do wonders. Use a color wheel if you are not sure what colors would complement the colors in the food. Think in terms of the shapes in your photos. The photo on the stove could present the circular burners and circular dish less apologetically (I don't know how to say that less artsy, sorry) Also, I think you need to stop down. Depth of field decreases significantly when you shoot close and that lens really sharpens up at smaller apertures. Best of luck.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 15, 2013)

I really envy people who have enough money to afford such nice things.  Sadly, it just doesn't translate to good photography automatically. It's mostly dependent on your experience and your creativity. Some people (*like me*) doesn't possess that much creativity but still I believe one can train the eye. Just view photographs of those good creative photographer, not just those with the best equipment and surely your photography bit by bit will improve. Learning some post-processing will also greatly improve your pictures even if you don't have the best equipment. For me I still value good lens and good light more than the camera body. Just some samples from my old 500D and 50mm F1.8. Keep shooting even when they say you're not good at it. That's the nuisance of "learning".

Shot with directed sunlight...





Shot with single speedlight, off-camera










Ambient sunlight coming from outside the restaurant


----------



## luciolepri (Jun 15, 2013)

Really like this one!


----------



## shutterwideshut (Jun 15, 2013)

luciolepri said:


> Really like this one!



+1. Beautiful light and nice expression from the child's face. 



verysimplejason said:


> Keep shooting even when they say you're not good at it. That's the nuisance of "learning".



Well said. This is indeed the reality of learning but the self-fulfillment is very rewarding once you have achieved what you had hoped for.


----------



## SwissBear (Jun 15, 2013)

In the digital age, many things that were in the analogue area a thing to think of BEFORE pressing the shutter can now be done in post production. But for these things, post production is actually required 

So, i would like to advice you to shoot in RAW and then "develop" the images in DPP, Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture. Best would be aperture or lightroom, followed by photoshop and if you have nothing of these at hand, DPP came with your camera, works, but is quite unfriendly to anything like "workflow" 

With these tools, you can apply white balance after pressing the button, and you can also tune the colors to have that "pop". 

After 1000 images, you know which button does what.
After 5000 images, you get "that feeling" what might work.
After 10'000 images, you know the limits/merits of your gear.
After 20'000 images, your equipment has become a tool to help you capture your vision.

I'm hitting 20'000 soon and have not yet mastered all my gear, as i invested in too many lenses 

So you must see this single lens as a challenge, not as a limitation!


----------



## Click (Jun 15, 2013)

SwissBear said:


> So you must see this single lens as a challenge, not as a limitation!



Well said.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 15, 2013)

Lighting can make or break you. I was having a grand time at the Big Ten track meet, bright sunny day, then suddenly a big cold front moved in and it started misting/raining and got really dark. Even with a 1Dx and 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens and seemingly "correct" exposure, I got this really bad photo:

P.S. The more you understand lighting and WB, the better off you'll be.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 15, 2013)

Harry Muff said:


> You bought a £2,300 camera and put a £80 on it?
> 
> Keep saving for an L lens and you'll see a big difference.



If he had taken the same photos with a 50L or 24-70 LII, what are the "big differences" we would see? There's nothing wrong with these photos that a "better" lens would fix.


----------



## TexasBadger (Jun 15, 2013)

Food photography is one of the more difficult things to master. Do some online research and learn the techniques of food photography masters. Your lens is fine.


----------



## alexturton (Jun 15, 2013)

get some good raw processing software life Adobe Lightroom. Then spend a lot of time learning how to extract the best from your images.

5d3 + 50 1.8 can get some great results. just don't expect the world from either auto jpeg, or unprocessed RAW.

Ultimately though. shoot, shoot. shoot. You can only ever learn from mistakes


----------



## Pi (Jun 16, 2013)

In addition to everything said: this lens does render a bit muted colors (but not as much as to ruin your shot) and it is soft wide open.


----------



## silkfire (Jun 16, 2013)

Thank everyone for your great tips. I kind of figured that lighting is paramount to capture great photos. I just thought that the high ISO boost would be able to aid me but I guess not.

Also, I am of course using post, those photos didnt come straight out of the camera nor do I expect perfect pictures even if I shoot RAW.

I don't know why, but the best pictures right now are the ones I take outside, and that are close ups. Taking landscape pictures, they become really unattractive (don't know how exactly to describe it), but perhaps it's because this is a portrait lens?











I had a Canon 7D for 30 days but I returned it so I could buy the 5D Mark III (I wanted full frame), and I think it took better food pictures indoors (and I thought 5D couldnt be worse than 7D):


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 16, 2013)

Getting the color right on indoor shots is not as easy as it sounds. It helps to throw something white (like a sheet of paper, or even better, a colour balancing card) into the picture, shoot it, and then take the picture again without it... Use the test shot and your RAW file to figure out what the color balance should be, and then use the same settings on the second shot.


----------



## SwissBear (Jun 16, 2013)

well, the 50mm on fullframe is that a good starter as it has approximately the same field of view than the human eye.
An image begins in the head, by just looking at things with your plain eyes (not throuh the viewfinder). When you see something, imagine what the photography of it should look like, and if it might work, take out the camera and try to get exactly what you imagined.
Ken Rockwell uses the term "FART" for any creative process: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm

He has also some stuff about composition, there he talks all about "SEX", simplification and exclusion: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/composition.htm


----------

