Go Back   IceInSpace > Equipment > Astrophotography and Imaging Equipment and Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #1  
Old 04-05-2011, 08:02 PM
rcheshire's Avatar
rcheshire (Rowland)
Registered User

rcheshire is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geelong
Posts: 2,615
50mm prime lenses for Canon - recommendations?

I'm looking at prime 50mm lenses to suit Canon EF - good quality glass.

So far looked at Canon f/1.2 - 1.4

Carl Zeiss f/1.4 - no auto focus.

These two seem to be in the ball park.

Recommendations, alternatives? Like to hear what the experts think.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-05-2011, 08:24 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
The 50mm f/1.2L is gorgeous and weighs a tonne. Your jaw drops when you see the clear aperture at the back of the lens.

Focusing at f/1.2 is an absolute pain.

The 50mm f/1.4 is about the same performance as the f/1.2 at around f/5.6 or thereabouts, but, at a mere fraction of the cost.

The 50mm f/2.5 macro lens is quite sharp, too.

H
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-05-2011, 08:58 PM
avandonk's Avatar
avandonk
avandonk

avandonk is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,786
If I was in the market for a 50mm lens I would get the Sigma F1.4 EX DG HSM. It leaves the Canon F1.4 for dead and is far cheaper than the overhyped overpriced Canon F1.2L.

See here

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/

I have heard that auto focus is a problem wide open. It is not accurate up close on some Canon bodies. It depends what you want a 50mm lens for.

Bert
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-05-2011, 09:08 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,974
See here:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ght=canon+50mm
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-05-2011, 05:39 AM
rcheshire's Avatar
rcheshire (Rowland)
Registered User

rcheshire is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geelong
Posts: 2,615
Thanks H, Bert, bojan. Choices - the Sigma looks very good - I see what Bert means. Tools, skills and time I have not to do what bojan suggests - still it's the results that count.
In this lens range it's difficult to meet my expectations. Leica is up there in price... hmmmm!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-05-2011, 06:53 AM
acropolite's Avatar
acropolite (Phil)
Registered User

acropolite is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Launceston Tasmania
Posts: 8,988
Ditto what Bert said, the Sigma F1.4 is highly regarded, hunt down some reviews.
Not mentioned here, the 50mm F1.8 (nifty fifty) is regarded by many as a good budget lens but due to the small number of aperture blades has poor bokeh (out of focus effects) due to the non circular aperture when stopped down.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-05-2011, 09:19 AM
rcheshire's Avatar
rcheshire (Rowland)
Registered User

rcheshire is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geelong
Posts: 2,615
It occurs to me that a shorter focal length will better approximate a full frame 50mm given the aps-c 1.6x. 50mm is equivalent to about 80mm. I might start there first.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-05-2011, 10:12 AM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Rowland,

For a standard (50mm equivalent on a 1.6x crop) lens I went for
the Canon EF 35mm f/2. It's nice and small, and a reasonably good
performer. I think I paid about $375, which is very reasonable.

Just looking at the Canon lenses, there's pretty much 6 to choose
from, two 35's, two 28's, and two 24's, though the 24's are getting
a bit wide for a 'standard' lens.

I did a fair bit of investigation, and found the order of performance
for those six from best to worst was:

1. 35mm f/1.4
2. 35mm f/2
3. 24mm f/2.8
4. 24mm f/1.4
5. 28mm f/1.8
6. 28mm f/2.8

I decided the 35 f/2 was the best bang for the buck. I would have
preferred 28mm (45 equiv), but the two 28's seem to be fairly poor
performers. Also I wanted f/2 or faster, so that ruled out a couple.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-05-2011, 08:07 PM
rcheshire's Avatar
rcheshire (Rowland)
Registered User

rcheshire is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geelong
Posts: 2,615
Thanks Jason. I've been looking at the f/1.4 35mm and 24mm L II series tonight. I'll have a good look at the others tomorrow. That narrows the search somewhat - much appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-05-2011, 04:13 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
Oh, and the one thing I don't like about the 35mm f/2 is that it doesn't have full-time manual focus overide. You have to flick the MF/AF switch on the lens each time you want to go from one to the other. I find this a real pain. I think only the faster lens in each focal length has full-time manual focus overide.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-05-2011, 06:02 PM
rcheshire's Avatar
rcheshire (Rowland)
Registered User

rcheshire is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geelong
Posts: 2,615
The more I think on it, a zoom lens, 24mm - 70mm L series, is looking more attractive.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-05-2011, 07:02 PM
koputai's Avatar
koputai (Jason)
Registered User

koputai is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,633
It really comes down to what other lenses you have Rowland,
and where you're at in your photography. I have a few very
good zooms, but like the prime's as they make me concentrate
more on the content of the shot.

If I had the fun tickets to spend on one of these, it would be
either the 24mm f/1.4L II, or the 35mm f/1.4L, probably the 24.

You could always hire a lens or two for a couple of days to try
out and compare, though it is a bit pricey.

I did make a post here a month or two ago about a lens swap
system amongst members, but no one replied.

Cheers,
Jason.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-05-2011, 07:10 PM
rcheshire's Avatar
rcheshire (Rowland)
Registered User

rcheshire is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geelong
Posts: 2,615
That's a leap of faith. But it's not a bad idea. Problem is that I use my lenses so much that they're seldom out of sight.

I like the primes too, but see the need cost wise for a compromise at this end of the FL spectrum. It's a difficult choice. Maybe we are just spoiled for choice?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-05-2011, 04:38 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
The 50mm f/1.4 is about the same performance as the f/1.2 at around f/5.6 or thereabouts
H
Thats interesting. So what would the exposure time difference be between f1.2 and f1.4?. That is half a stop diff, 30secs at f1.4 is about 20 sec at f1.2, is that right?.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-05-2011, 05:01 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,974
Some test results for Canon lenses:
http://www.astrosurf.org/buil/us/10d/testopt.htm

and for 50mm
http://astrosurf.org/buil/50mm/test_us.htm
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-05-2011, 05:07 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Fred, I think it's more 1/3rd of a stop.

But, yes, your exposure value sounds about right.

H
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-05-2011, 05:13 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Fred, I think it's more 1/3rd of a stop.

But, yes, your exposure value sounds about right.

H
Thanks H. Im looking for the fastest f L lens I can get for astro timelapse ignoring money, sounds good, although Phil Harts 24mm 1.4f looks good too given the FOV.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-05-2011, 05:17 PM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Forget shooting at f/1.2, the seagulls would be so bad. I'd go the 24mm.

H
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-05-2011, 05:18 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by bojan View Post
The 1st list f is too slow, gone.
The second test is interesting. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-05-2011, 05:22 PM
Bassnut's Avatar
Bassnut (Fred)
Narrowfield rules!

Bassnut is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane View Post
Forget shooting at f/1.2, the seagulls would be so bad. I'd go the 24mm.

H
Excellent. So much info in so few words . Done
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 04:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Astromechanics
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement