Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
Why do you say that?
http://www.pbase.com/gregbradley/image/66496862
Nikkor 50mm F1.8 on SBIG STL11. Its not the best image I have done but I thought the little lens performed quite well and its very very bright for a 30 second exposure.
Its cheap and it has the least amount of distortion, vignetting, pin cushion of virtually any lens. Same with the Canon version.
Virtually no other focal length sells a lens at F1.8 for under $150 that is distortion free and really low vignetting.
Greg. |
Sorry my previous post was a bit abrupt and offered no reasons. I had the Canon 50 f/1.8. Bought it early on because it was recommended a lot as a fast, cheap prime. Good bang for buck and so on. I found that the cheap cost of it alone didn't outweigh it's shortcomings in terms of slow AF, cheap plastic construction, noisy focus, and average image quality. The link that bojan posted above comparing all 3 50's is excellent and shows the difference between the 3.
If I could be so presumptuous as to talk for Martin, it appears to me that if he was disappointed in those initial testings with the 50L, he's reeeeally going to be disappointed with the 50 f/1.8.
I think of it kind of like suggesting to Martin to sell his FSQ106 and getting an ED80 just because it's cheaper. And the fact that he already has the 50L, it just doesn't make sense to me to sell it to get an inferior and cheaper lens.
I don't think it's as sharp as the 50L, and for astro aren't we chasing the sharpest, pinpoint stars across the field?