![]() If you buy this lens, use it for what it is, don't waste money on the "life-size converter". The little noisy motor can be frustrating when the lens AF decides to hunt in low light. What's not so great about this lens is its very slow focus motor speed. It's tack-sharp across the frame between F/4 and F/8, and has negligible vignetting, CA or distortions. It's not a true 1:1 macro, but it is great for photographing smaller items (coins, jewelery, etc) and perfect for copy work. When used alone, this is a superb lens for still subjects. I've had this lens more than a decade, and I still use it more than any other (though I have a EF-S 60 on the way, so that may change tomorrow). Slow AF, only 1:2, life-size converter degrades image But probably not your best bet for a quiet wedding shoot. Or if you just want a really sharp 50 that's just a bit slower than the rest, get it. If you are on a budget, and want a really versatile normal length lens, this is recommended. If you're comparing to all the Pentax or Sony-Minolta screw driven lenses, then it's the same deal. The negative – it's showing its age – is its focus motor, which is loud for a Canon lens. It has great bokeh for close ups and good bokeh for more distant subjects like portraits. And f/2.5 is quite fast, especially because the 50 1.8 and 1.4 don't really get sharp till around f2 or 2.5. But if you don't need to get super close to your subject (flowers, for example) it really is great. I really wanted 1:1 macro so have gone with a 100mm. I like it, but it just doesn't fit my needs. And because it goes to 1:2 macro it is much more versatile than the other fast 50s. For us, who are on a budget, this lens does a heck of a lot. Of course, if you can have it all, then the 100 mm or 200 mm macros with the 1.2 are the way to go. As my new 5d2 can shoot high ISO's well unheard of only a short time ago, the roughly 1.4 stops from here to the f 1.4 isn't relevant to my needs where the macro is of great use. Personally I'm very pleased with this lens. I also think my example is better than the f 1.4 I had for a loan a while back. If it was between this and the f 1.4, it'd depend upon my choice of low light or macro. If given a choice between saving some money and the f 1.8, I'd go with this lens. I have successfully used this in macro shots as well as general 50 mm use on my FF camera. The lens is decently sharp at 2,5 and once at 4,0, it's terrific all the way up. I've not seen the quality of this lens exceeded in any lens costing anywhere near it. From the first time I tried this lens, I was surprised almost to the point of being shocked at how good it was compared to what I was expecting from a roughly $200 new cost lens. ![]() Perhaps quality varies from sample to sample with this lens as it seems to others. It's better than most other non-USM's though. If you are used to USM lenses, this focuses less quickly and with more noise. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |