50mm prime lenses for Canon - recommendations?

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

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.

[Octane (Humayun)]

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

[avandonk]

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

[bojan]

See here:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...ght=canon+50mm

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

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!

[acropolite (Phil)]

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.

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

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.

[koputai (Jason)]

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.

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

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.

[koputai (Jason)]

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.

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

The more I think on it, a zoom lens, 24mm - 70mm L series, is looking more attractive.

[koputai (Jason)]

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.

[rcheshire (Rowland)]

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?

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by Octane

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?.

[bojan]

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

[Octane (Humayun)]

Fred, I think it's more 1/3rd of a stop.

But, yes, your exposure value sounds about right.

H

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by Octane

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.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Forget shooting at f/1.2, the seagulls would be so bad. I'd go the 24mm.

H

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by bojan

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

The 1st list f is too slow, gone.
The second test is interesting. Thanks

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Originally Posted by Octane

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