canon Lenses

[TrevorW]

I recently saw advertised a Canon f1.8 50mm lens for $150 are they any good for wide angle star fields

:help:

[barx1963]

Yes, yes and very much so yes.
Check out

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment_browse.php?a=58204

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/attachment_browse.php?a=58091

The second one is mine, also ask jjj what she thinks!

[Octane]

Trevor,

All my early work was done using the 50mm lens. However, I had the f/1.4 which is built a lot sturdier. Stopped down, it performed quite well. This should work equally well.

Regards,
Humayun

[dpastern]

The 1.4 is sturdier and has USM, but optically, they are pretty closely matched. The f1.8 is a very good bargain, well worth getting. But then, I'm old school, I believe that every photographer should have a 50mm in their kit bag :P

Dave

[MrB]

Forgive my kinda embaressing noobieness(only just got a DSLR), but is the FOV of a 50mm lens on the 1.6x(APS) Canons the equiv of a 88mm on a full frame DSLR/film SLR?
Have been puzzling over this for a while whether Canon quoted FL is 'true' Fl or '35mm equiv'
I'm kinda sure its the 'true' FL coz the EF series is also used on full-frame DSLR's and film SLR, just not 100% sure.
Helps my filmSLR brain to know for sure..... ;)
Thanks

[jjjnettie]

I love my Nifty 50:love:

[Octane]

Simon,

The 50mm is designated for a 35mm frame.

The equivalent would be an 80mm lens on a crop body sensor.

Regards,
Humayun

[MrB]

Thanks Humayun :thumbsup:

[acropolite]

Optically the F1.4 and 1.8 are very close, the main difference, apart from the body construction, is in the aperture blades. The f1.8 has only 5 blades, the F1.4 has 8.

For astro use it really doesn't matter but for general photography some feel the bokeh (or out of focus effects) on the F1.8 are a little harsh in comparison to the 1.4.

[dpastern]

The 1.4 has nicer bokeh, I can confirm this, since I own both lenses ;-)

Dave

[bojan]

There were some bad experiences with nifty-fifty....
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=41657&highlight=canon+50mm

[bojan]

Focal length is folcal length.

There is no "true" of "false" focal length.

However, there is a thing called FOV (Field of View) which differs, dependig on the size of sensor used in particular body.

[TrevorW]

so the nifty fifty is a goer

[bojan]

I suggest: try before you buy.. ;)

[troypiggo]

Pretty sure you can get them cheaper than $150 used. Might be an option.

[outwestwa]

Simon
I use this FOV calculator http://www.howardedin.com/articles/fov.html (http://www.howardedin.com/articles/fov.html) then transfer the dimensions to the FOV options in starry night pro its pretty spot on when you match up your photos with it.
Laurie.

[MrB]

Thanks Laurie, have a couple of programs that do similar.
One thats getting long in the tooth... simply called CCD, the other called CCDCalc.

[scarper]

you cant go wrong for 150 bux........if u wanna try it then i have one you can try.

[bojan]

Well, $150 is a lot if thrown away for something that does not perform... And it seems the quality of nifty-fifty recently varies a lot. Perhaps an older version (second hand?) is a better option.
I can only say that my Canon FD 50mm F1.4 SSC works very well both in centre and in corners (a way better that any standard lens that comes with Canon body), but it needed mechanical mod to fit onto EOS.

[dpastern]

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

[AlexN]

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.

[jjjnettie]

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.

[bojan]

I mentioned complains from others in my previous post.. here they are again:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ght=canon+50mm (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=41657&highlight=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.

[norm]

Trevor:

FYI: http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category1_1.htm

Cheers, Norm

[TrevorW]

Thanks I've decided to buy it anyway. Gee at $150 it's one of the cheaper articles I've purchased

Cheers

[dpastern]

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

[AlexN]

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.)

[Octane]

Alex,

Nonsense! :P

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

[AlexN]

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!

[dpastern]

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