I need another help. I'm thinking in buying two primes, the Canon EF 50 F1.4 USM and the Canon EF 24 F2.8. This total +/- $600.
I've been reading some topics on this forum about primes and i've seen many lenses. I need want one 21mm to 24mm more or less, and one 50mm. Can you give me some advice, buy those two Canon's or go for some Carl Zeiss or Olympus lenses??
I just wanted to ask for a big favor, please place the name of the lens because i don't know them well. I know that Zuiko an Olympus and CZ is Carl Zeiss. But other i don't know. For example Rokkor, is it Minolta?
And finally if the budget could be under $400 it was great!
Canon quality is not bad on the 50 f1.4. Canon is not known to have a good wide prime thus started the search for alternative lens. Be aware that the Minolta Rokkor needs to be converted. The Zeiss and Zuiko has no auto focus and need stop down metering. If you are not familiar with manual focus and stop down metering it can be cumbersome.
You do get what you paid for including playing with alternative lens.
HansenTsang wrote:
Canon quality is not bad on the 50 f1.4. Canon is not known to have a good wide prime thus started the search for alternative lens. Be aware that the Minolta Rokkor needs to be converted. The Zeiss and Zuiko has no auto focus and need stop down metering. If you are not familiar with manual focus and stop down metering it can be cumbersome.
You do get what you paid for including playing with alternative lens.
There is always time to learn!
But stop down metering isn't that "forcing" underexposure?
Well, i think i'll go for the Canon EF 50/1.4 USM because it has a good IQ (fredmiranda.com and photozone.de) but i think i'll buy the Zuiko 24/2.8 to start. I found one zuiko in Italy for $167, so i think i'll go for this one.
Pedro Pedras wrote:
Well, i think i'll go for the Canon EF 50/1.4 USM because it has a good IQ (fredmiranda.com and photozone.de) but i think i'll buy the Zuiko 24/2.8 to start. I found one zuiko in Italy for $167, so i think i'll go for this one.
Someone actually LIKES the Canon 50/1.4?
Other thna the fact that its plagued with AF issues, and the fact that it produces boring pics, and the fact that in manual mode it doesn't have much focus-ring movement, it's a great lens.
Since you need to stay under $400 (I hope that's not for BOTH lenses) I'd recommend either:
Zeiss CZ 50/1.4 - a little richer than the Canon, and definitely sharper in the corners.
or
Pentax Super-Takumar 50/1.4 - VERY inexpensive, and well-loved around these parts. It's different from the Zeiss, and worth having.
Cableaddict wrote:
Someone actually LIKES the Canon 50/1.4?
Other thna the fact that its plagued with AF issues, and the fact that it produces boring pics, and the fact that in manual mode it doesn't have much focus-ring movement, it's a great lens.
Go for it!
The lens is very well spoken in both sites, that's why i choose it. I was thinking first in the 50/1.8 II but according to both sites its worse than the 1.4 USM.
Don't forget i have a budget and that i decided to keep this 50mm as a fully workable lens in my 50D, AF, metering, all. Only the zuiko will come manual to learn a few things.
Pedro Pedras wrote:
The lens is very well spoken in both sites, that's why i choose it. I was thinking first in the 50/1.8 II but according to both sites its worse than the 1.4 USM.
Don't forget i have a budget and that i decided to keep this 50mm as a fully workable lens in my 50D, AF, metering, all. Only the zuiko will come manual to learn a few things.
The 50/1.8 is only marginally worse than the 1.4 in most regards (it is distinctly louder and much cheaper built). But it's 1/4 the price. Is marginally better worth the difference? personally I don't think so. The 50/1.8 is the one EF lens everybody should own IMHO, even if you have a better 50.
Pedro Pedras wrote:
But i'm talking about the 1.8 II. The 50/1.8 is not on sale and i was thinking in a new lens.
Yes, that would be the 50/1.8 I'm talking about. The only difference between the I and the II is build (the I is much better built, but sells used for significantly more than the II does new)
It´s funny you guys say that, because in all reviews i've seen the 50/1.4USM (fredmiranda.com, photozone.de and slrgear.com) is better. The only point is that there's some blur under F2.0, but above they refer its really sharp. In the other things better and faster.
But i still want to know your opinion. If i find an 50/1.8 I used it's a good deal?
Hmm, I had a different experience. I Find that both of my canon 50 1.4 are better in term of sharpness and bokeh than my 50 1.8 I and 50 1.8 II. I rarely used the 1.8s after I obtained the 1.4s. The only problem I had with one of the ef 50 1.4 was its AF stopped functioning after a while. With all that said, I dont use either EF 50mm anymore. I am using the rokkor 50 1.2/1.4 and SMC tak 50 1.4. Well, I am confusing you more...?
