If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canon 50 mm lens
[Similar message had been posted in rec.digital, and one fine reply
received, but hope for more input].... I have a limited opportunity to buy the 2.5 50 mm macro lens and wondered if I'll regret it *other* than losing the speed of a 1.8 or 1.4. It'll be used on a Canon 20 D and/or 300 D and Elan IIe. -- John McWilliams (below from previous post, from http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50) Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding! (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding! Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.19 (4) = very-good Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. 4.17 (3) = very-good Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good Nikkor AI-S 2.8 45mm 4.00 (2) = very-good Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.98 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.96 (5) = very-good Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.91 (3) = very-good Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 3.91 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.64 (3) = good Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.62 (2) = good Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.19 (2) = average Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average ************* ******* ****** |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hi John,
While I don't have experience with either of the lenses you mention, I wouldn't place too much faith in the ratings at photozone - as the site notes, these are entirely subjective. Plus there's no controls to stop people putting multiple entries against a lens to bias the results. Even if this were not so, the ratings would be statistically unreliable until you get large numbers of rating against the same lens and some form of control to ensure different lenses are rated consistently. Cheers "John McWilliams" wrote in message news:rUE8d.126528$wV.47500@attbi_s54... [Similar message had been posted in rec.digital, and one fine reply received, but hope for more input].... I have a limited opportunity to buy the 2.5 50 mm macro lens and wondered if I'll regret it *other* than losing the speed of a 1.8 or 1.4. It'll be used on a Canon 20 D and/or 300 D and Elan IIe. -- John McWilliams (below from previous post, from http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50) Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding! (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding! Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.19 (4) = very-good Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. 4.17 (3) = very-good Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good Nikkor AI-S 2.8 45mm 4.00 (2) = very-good Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.98 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.96 (5) = very-good Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.91 (3) = very-good Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 3.91 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.64 (3) = good Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.62 (2) = good Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.19 (2) = average Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average ************* ******* ****** --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.736 / Virus Database: 490 - Release Date: 9/08/2004 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
macropod wrote:
Hi John, While I don't have experience with either of the lenses you mention, I wouldn't place too much faith in the ratings at photozone - as the site notes, these are entirely subjective. Plus there's no controls to stop people putting multiple entries against a lens to bias the results. Even if this were not so, the ratings would be statistically unreliable until you get large numbers of rating against the same lens and some form of control to ensure different lenses are rated consistently. Good point, and thanks. I guess it's off to dpreview etc, unless someone has a better specific site that's got objective and professional reviews of lenses. -- John McWilliams |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The 50 macro is one of their best.
Sharp even wide open. I compared my 1.8 to the 50 macro and I had to stop the 1.8 down one stop to get close to the sharpness of the 50 macro. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The only problem I've had with using a macro at 50mm is the lack of working
distance. I'm not sure how the crop factor on the 10D/Rebel will effect this. I can say that my 50 1.8 bailed me out when I had to shoot at ISO 3200 In a candlelit room the other night. the exposures would have been 1/15th of a second or longer with my 28-70 F2.8. Also I would look at a 50mm F1.8 as a general back up lens. at less than $100 new you can't go wrong -- Ray Creveling http://www.blackcatblog.com "John McWilliams" wrote in message news:rUE8d.126528$wV.47500@attbi_s54... [Similar message had been posted in rec.digital, and one fine reply received, but hope for more input].... I have a limited opportunity to buy the 2.5 50 mm macro lens and wondered if I'll regret it *other* than losing the speed of a 1.8 or 1.4. It'll be used on a Canon 20 D and/or 300 D and Elan IIe. -- John McWilliams (below from previous post, from http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50) Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding! (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding! Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.19 (4) = very-good Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. 4.17 (3) = very-good Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good Nikkor AI-S 2.8 45mm 4.00 (2) = very-good Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.98 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.96 (5) = very-good Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.91 (3) = very-good Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 3.91 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.64 (3) = good Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.62 (2) = good Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.19 (2) = average Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average ************* ******* ****** --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/2004 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Kibo informs me that John McWilliams stated that:
[Similar message had been posted in rec.digital, and one fine reply received, but hope for more input].... I have a limited opportunity to buy the 2.5 50 mm macro lens and wondered if I'll regret it *other* than losing the speed of a 1.8 or 1.4. It'll be used on a Canon 20 D and/or 300 D and Elan IIe. I've heard lots of good things about that particular lens. It also has a good reputation for general photography, as well as macro work. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
This is a good review site, and you might use it to temper the data from www.photozone.de . "John McWilliams" wrote in message news:ThG8d.418744$8_6.50835@attbi_s04... macropod wrote: Hi John, While I don't have experience with either of the lenses you mention, I wouldn't place too much faith in the ratings at photozone - as the site notes, these are entirely subjective. Plus there's no controls to stop people putting multiple entries against a lens to bias the results. Even if this were not so, the ratings would be statistically unreliable until you get large numbers of rating against the same lens and some form of control to ensure different lenses are rated consistently. Good point, and thanks. I guess it's off to dpreview etc, unless someone has a better specific site that's got objective and professional reviews of lenses. -- John McWilliams |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hi John, I am following this thread since I am in the same quandry as
you, looking for info on this lens performance and the Canon macro photo solutions fro my new 20D. Also, I did not see the other post in the digital newsgroup, so I hope one of the 35mm people will answer. There are many Canon experienced people here. Joe John McWilliams wrote in message news:rUE8d.126528$wV.47500@attbi_s54... [Similar message had been posted in rec.digital, and one fine reply received, but hope for more input].... I have a limited opportunity to buy the 2.5 50 mm macro lens and wondered if I'll regret it *other* than losing the speed of a 1.8 or 1.4. It'll be used on a Canon 20 D and/or 300 D and Elan IIe. -- John McWilliams (below from previous post, from http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50) Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding! (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding! Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.19 (4) = very-good Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. 4.17 (3) = very-good Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good Nikkor AI-S 2.8 45mm 4.00 (2) = very-good Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.98 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.96 (5) = very-good Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.91 (3) = very-good Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 3.91 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.64 (3) = good Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.62 (2) = good Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.19 (2) = average Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average ************* ******* ****** |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
John McWilliams wrote:
[Similar message had been posted in rec.digital, and one fine reply received, but hope for more input].... I have a limited opportunity to buy the 2.5 50 mm macro lens and wondered if I'll regret it *other* than losing the speed of a 1.8 or 1.4. It'll be used on a Canon 20 D and/or 300 D and Elan IIe. -- John McWilliams (below from previous post, from http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50) Std. Lenses 50mm Optical Quality Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro EX 4.65 (4) = outstanding! (Micro-)Nikkor AF 2.8 60mm 4.63 (4) = outstanding! Minolta AF 2.8 50mm Macro 4.35 (3) = excellent Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent Nikkor AF 1.8 50mm 4.19 (4) = very-good Pentax SMC FA 43mm f/1.9 Ltd. 4.17 (3) = very-good Pentax SMC F 1.7 50mm 4.13 (3) = very-good Nikkor AI-S 2.8 45mm 4.00 (2) = very-good Nikkor AF 1.4 50mm 3.98 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.4 50mm USM 3.96 (5) = very-good Canon EF 1.8 50mm II 3.91 (3) = very-good Minolta AF 1.4 50mm 3.91 (4) = very-good Canon EF 1.0 50mm L USM 3.64 (3) = good Pentax SMC FA 2.8 50mm Macro 3.62 (2) = good Minolta AF 1.7 50mm 3.19 (2) = average Sigma AF 2.8 50mm Macro 2.69 (2) = sub-average ************* ******* ****** After much research and debating, I bought the 50mm f/1.8 based on optics and cost. It is on all accounts optically equal to the 50mm f/1.4; mechanically, however, it is chep plastic. I have had mine for two years with no problems, and some great quality images. The macro opens up some interesting possibilities. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon A75/85/95 lens assembly | John Wright | Digital Photography | 4 | August 31st 04 07:47 PM |
Lens adapter to put Canon lens on Nikon D70 ? | bob | Digital Photography | 23 | August 24th 04 09:51 PM |
Which lens for wedding (Canon 300d) | Joseph Meehan | Digital Photography | 11 | July 8th 04 01:40 AM |
Canon EF long lens rental Florida US | Michael C. Smith | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | June 25th 04 12:23 PM |
Canon EF long lens rental Florida US | Michael C. Smith | Photographing Nature | 13 | June 25th 04 12:23 PM |