Upload & Sell: Off
Daan B wrote:
Love the lens. Its a must have for the money. Better than any of the 50's IMHO.
Great shot... but I can do that with my 24-105L as well. And what do you mean by better? The 50's are faster than 2.8.
With better I mean that its better overall, in all aspects. Its sharp and optically very good at all apertures (distortion, CA etc). AF performance is also very nice, accurate, fast enough, quiet. Build quality is very good too. Its a great value. The 50mm f1.4 I use only when I need f2. Its optically very good above that but the AF is inconsistent, needs an update asap! I also use the 2.5 macro quite a bit but at f8. At f2.5 its not that good, has some CA and its not that sharp. That changes at f5.6-f11 where it is awesome. The 50 1.2L is awesome in the Center but not across the whole frame and its heavy and expensive. Great for low light people shots but not as a multi purpose 50. Very expensive obviously.
The 24-105 is very good and versatile. With LR4 you can correct most of its optical deficiencies but you you loose some resolution in the process at the wider angles but at 40mm it should be negligible. Its a stop slower though (although IS helps) and a heavier/larger lens for a wide range of situations.
Thanks for the insights. Like I said, I think it is a great lens. But since it is a 2.8 lens, I am in doubt wether it is a suitable addition for still photography only. I mean, compared to all the other fast primes Canon is making (L and non-L). Fortunately Canon has kept it's price relatively low and gave the lens good IQ. It is small too, but that is of little concern to me. But besides that, I am really curious how it will work with video AF compatible bodies.