Canon 50mm lenses
Dec 22, 2022 16:07:38 #
User ID wrote:
If you shoot at f1.2 all the time then you have no... (show quote)
Great response. Thanks for the reality.
Dec 22, 2022 16:10:52 #
Ruthlessrider wrote:
If you please, can you explain how that is technologically.
f/1.2 is about one third of a stop faster than f/1.4. It depends on whether or not that small a difference is important to you.
Dec 22, 2022 16:14:16 #
Ruthlessrider wrote:
Not the quality of response I’ve been use to on UGG.
How much effort have you really performed in researching this question for yourself? I believe every single EF-mount 50mm prime from Canon is now discontinued. So, you might consider why you'd consider any expired (out of production) DSLR lens at any price.
Moreover, in Jan 2020, I provide multiple visual comparison results of a $140 35 year old 50mm vs the (then current) f/1.2L lens:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-629455-1.html
Dec 22, 2022 16:18:08 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
How much effort have you really performed in researching this question for yourself? I believe every single EF-mount 50mm prime from Canon is now discontinued. So, you might consider why you'd consider any expired (out of production) DSLR lens at any price.
Moreover, in Jan 2020, I provide multiple visual comparison results of a $140 35 year old 50mm vs the (then current) f/1.2L lens:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-629455-1.html
Moreover, in Jan 2020, I provide multiple visual comparison results of a $140 35 year old 50mm vs the (then current) f/1.2L lens:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-629455-1.html
Why not?
If I want a 50 I'll get a 50.
Out of production means it's no longer any good?
The Sigma 18-200 I bought years ago is no longer in production, but it's a better lens that the cheaper current 18-200. I'd rather have that out of production model...
Dec 22, 2022 16:18:18 #
Ruthlessrider wrote:
If you please, can you explain how that is technologically.
f/stops have to do with the size of the aperture, not the quality of the lens.
f/stops are a ratio of the focal length of the lens in mm to the diameter of the aperture in mm. A f/1.2 lens (often written on the lens a 1:1.2) means the maximum aperture for that lens is f/1.2.
Dec 22, 2022 16:18:25 #
Mac wrote:
f/1.2 is about one third of a stop faster than f/1.4. It depends on whether or not that small a difference is important to you.
Personally, I find f/1.2 rather worthless for these lenses, and essentially anything wider than f/2, for achieving compelling images that balance sharp details with blown-out of focus.
That is: for these legacy DSLR lenses. To paraphrase Rockwell, the new f/1.2L RF version is unbelievably sharp at the focused details at the f/1.2 wide-open aperture, making the EF versions look broken in comparison.
Dec 22, 2022 16:20:48 #
Longshadow wrote:
Why not?
If I want a 50 I'll get a 50.
Out of production means it's no longer any good?
The Sigma 18-200 I bought years ago is no longer in production, but it's a better lens that the cheaper current 18-200. I'd rather have that out of production lens...
If I want a 50 I'll get a 50.
Out of production means it's no longer any good?
The Sigma 18-200 I bought years ago is no longer in production, but it's a better lens that the cheaper current 18-200. I'd rather have that out of production lens...
It could mean the equipment can't / won't be fixed. A risk that should be reflected in the purchase price. A risk the shopper should consider when shopping used, or worse, new and discontinued.
Most of my equipment was purchased used, and much of it well after discontinued. It's not much of a 'risk' overall, but certainly a risk where one would / should want to spend the least, understanding the true 'value' of expired equipment in the pricing and amount paid.
Dec 22, 2022 16:21:08 #
The 1.2 lens is a bit sharper at apertures wider than f-2.0. I have both and honestly must say the 1.4 is perfectly fine for the majority of the the work I do. Save the $1000 for something more important.
Dec 22, 2022 16:22:25 #
Longshadow wrote:
(tongue-in-cheek...)
Some will pay the $1,000 simply because they KNOW it's better.
Might not be able to discern ant differences in all instances, but they know it's better!
Some will pay the $1,000 simply because they KNOW it's better.
Might not be able to discern ant differences in all instances, but they know it's better!
Just admiring that front glass assures them of it. Also, its important not let any filter intrude slightly on ones clear admiring gaze upon all that glass.
Ive quite accidentally wound up with a few f1.4 lenses and if you hold one very close to your face that makes the glass appear bigger so you can admire it almost as if its an f/1.2. Try it sometime !
Dec 22, 2022 16:26:36 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
It could mean the equipment can't / won't be fixed. A risk that should be reflected in the purchase price. A risk the shopper should consider when shopping used, or worse, new and discontinued.
Most of my equipment was purchased used, and much of it well after discontinued. It's not much of a 'risk' overall, but certainly a risk where one would / should want to spend the least, understanding the true 'value' of expired equipment in the pricing and amount paid.
Most of my equipment was purchased used, and much of it well after discontinued. It's not much of a 'risk' overall, but certainly a risk where one would / should want to spend the least, understanding the true 'value' of expired equipment in the pricing and amount paid.
"can't/won't be fixed"???
The older one was better, the newer one was made to cost less.
If they "fixed" the newer one, they'd be making the old one again...........
Dec 22, 2022 16:36:37 #
Longshadow wrote:
It wasn't for me, I purchased the ƒ/1.4.
(Not $1,000 important...)
It wasn't for me, I purchased the ƒ/1.4.
(Not $1,000 important...)
You made no mention of your usage of this lens. Hope the f/1.4 works for you. Canon actually made an f/1.0. One was offered used about 7 years ago for about $3,000.00. Sold immediately. 50mm was the lens included by the manufacturers when one bought a camera back 50 yrs. ago. Still considered by many to be a very useful focal length. The original "Nifty-50" was a really cheap 50mm lens that everyone had for general shooting.
Dec 22, 2022 16:42:28 #
davidrb wrote:
You made no mention of your usage of this lens. Hope the f/1.4 works for you. Canon actually made an f/1.0. One was offered used about 7 years ago for about $3,000.00. Sold immediately. 50mm was the lens included by the manufacturers when one bought a camera back 50 yrs. ago. Still considered by many to be a very useful focal length. The original "Nifty-50" was a really cheap 50mm lens that everyone had for general shooting.
I did, on page one (in case you missed it):
Ruthlessrider wrote:
How has it performed for you?
I replied:
Very nicely, but I don't have either the other two to compare. Not really interested in doing so either.
I'm pleased with it. I also like the build more than the ƒ/1.8.
Dec 22, 2022 16:44:23 #
User ID wrote:
Just admiring that front glass assures them of it. Also, its important not let any filter intrude slightly on ones clear admiring gaze upon all that glass.
Ive quite accidentally wound up with a few f1.4 lenses and if you hold one very close to your face that makes the glass appear bigger so you can admire it almost as if its an f/1.2. Try it sometime !
Ive quite accidentally wound up with a few f1.4 lenses and if you hold one very close to your face that makes the glass appear bigger so you can admire it almost as if its an f/1.2. Try it sometime !
Haha. 1.2 | 1.4, what's .2 between friends.
Dec 22, 2022 17:10:22 #
User ID wrote:
If you shoot at f1.2 all the time then you have no... (show quote)
Then why did Nikon make a f0.95 lens if such lenses are just holdovers?
Dec 22, 2022 17:12:44 #
Ruthlessrider wrote:
Not the quality of response I’ve been use to on UGG.
What is UGG?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.