ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Last Quarter 49%
|
|
02-06-2009, 09:48 PM
|
|
Widefield wuss
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caboolture, Australia
Posts: 6,899
|
|
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.
|
02-06-2009, 10:00 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Monto
Posts: 16,741
|
|
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.
|
02-06-2009, 10:06 PM
|
|
amateur
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Mt Waverley, VIC
Posts: 7,002
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
|
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.
|
02-06-2009, 10:30 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ashfield NSW
Posts: 777
|
|
|
02-06-2009, 11:39 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 7,977
|
|
Thanks I've decided to buy it anyway. Gee at $150 it's one of the cheaper articles I've purchased
Cheers
|
03-06-2009, 07:27 AM
|
PI cult member
|
|
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
|
03-06-2009, 11:16 AM
|
|
Widefield wuss
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caboolture, Australia
Posts: 6,899
|
|
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.)
|
03-06-2009, 11:22 AM
|
|
IIS Member #671
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Canberra
Posts: 11,159
|
|
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
|
03-06-2009, 11:47 AM
|
|
Widefield wuss
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caboolture, Australia
Posts: 6,899
|
|
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!
|
03-06-2009, 02:13 PM
|
PI cult member
|
|
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
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:10 AM.
|
|