#21  
Old 02-06-2009, 08:48 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
Dave - Consider this a first... I've got 2 nifty fifties, One is the original metal mount mk1, the other is the all plastic mk2 that is currently available. The mk2 shows field curvature, that is uneven across the field, its a little soft unless stopped down to F/3.5.. The Mk1 is sharp as a tak across the entire field, even wide open at F/1.8... Now, If you want a real good lens in this focal length, the 50mm F/1.4 USM or the 50mm F/1.2L are astounding..

I agree, im sort of old school in the fact that I think every photographer should have a 50mm prime lens in their kit. I just find the nifty fifties to be somewhat inconsistent with optical quality.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-06-2009, 09:00 PM
jjjnettie's Avatar
jjjnettie (Jeanette)
Registered User

jjjnettie is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Far Far Away
Posts: 16,726
David,
For daytime use it's hard to fault the lens.
But for astro imaging the coma becomes a real problem. With mine I lose about 1/4 of the image from cropping.
That just means you need to be careful how you frame your image.
I still think it's a great little lens for the price. I wouldn't part with mine.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-06-2009, 09:06 PM
bojan's Avatar
bojan
amateur

bojan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 5,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpastern View Post
Bojan - I'm yet to see someone complain about the optical quality of the nifty fifty from Canon. Sure, build quality yes, optical quality, no. I spent quite a while on POTN's equipment sub forums and never saw it bashed. Yours is the first that I've personally seen bashing the lens in question. It's a good little lens imho, one that should be in every Canon users camera bag. Whether or not it's useful for astro imaging is another story.

Dave
I mentioned complains from others in my previous post.. here they are again:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ght=canon+50mm

And I am not bashing it.. I am just saying the said lens (or some of its versions) may not be suitable for astro work.
As Jeanette said, for day work they are excellent.. but you have to bear in mind that people are almost never using lenses at full aperture. And star-like objects are very rare in everyday photography.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-06-2009, 09:30 PM
norm's Avatar
norm
Registered User

norm is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ashfield NSW
Posts: 776
Trevor:

FYI: http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.co...ategory1_1.htm

Cheers, Norm
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-06-2009, 10:39 PM
TrevorW
Registered User

TrevorW is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,995
Thanks I've decided to buy it anyway. Gee at $150 it's one of the cheaper articles I've purchased

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-06-2009, 06:27 AM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Alex - I'm lucky enough to have both a f1.8 and 1.4 version. Can't justify the 1.2 or 1 versions.

Jeanette and bojan - the comments just came across as overly negative on the great lil nifty fifty. As I said, for astro imaging with the nifty fifty, I can't comment as I haven't used it. For general purpose photography, it's a keeper. True, the OP said for widefield astro imaging, so of course bojan's comments do come into play.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-06-2009, 10:16 AM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
Dave, I currently have the 1.8 mk1 and mk 2, and the 1.2L, I had the 1.4 for a while before swapping it plus some cash for the 1.2L.. Overall the difference between the 1.4 and 1.2L is negligible. Not worth the upgrade now that I've done it.. (hindsight is awesome.)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-06-2009, 10:22 AM
Octane's Avatar
Octane (Humayun)
IIS Member #671

Octane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,158
Alex,

Nonsense!

The build quality of the 50mm f/1.2L justifies the purchase. It's not quite a hand grenade (a la 85mm f/1.2L) but, it's very close.

Like you, I traded up from the 50mm f/1.4, which is a great little performer for terrestrial use. All my early astro work was done using the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/2.5 macro. Once stopped down to f/2.5 to f/4, the CA was greatly reduced.

The 50mm f/1.2L is a beautiful lens. Well, I love mine, anyway.

Regards,
Humayun
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-06-2009, 10:47 AM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
Haha, Yeah H, I'm not taking anything away from the 1.2L, its brilliant, but optically the 1.4 is MUCH the same.. The 1.2L is better built by a long shot, I've not got the 85 F/1.2L but I WANT one! I went for the 135 F/2L as it was MUCH cheaper, and I was looking for an astro only lens... the 85 1.2L is PRICEY!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-06-2009, 01:13 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Actually, that 50 f2.5 macro lens should be good for astro - macro lenses typically have little curvature in their field from my experience and are also usually take sharp from edge to edge.

Dave
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 04:28 PM.

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