Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
Hello guys,
I am thinking of buying this lens soon. Can anybody of you guys that have this lens tell me your opinion about it? I've seen opinions on the net, but it's very nice to get some real-life opinions...
It's not so expensive here in Iceland, about 105$ U.S.A., so I don't think it'll be a loss to buy it. It's also a prime, and I shoot most often f9-f16, so sharpness will un-likely be a problem.
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2589 times:
Great lens optically and a must have I think... Arguably the best value for money in the Canon lineup. I used to have one but it died on me; build quality is its only drawback. The f/1.4 is a better lens in all respects, but is it worth the bucks?
Quoting Aero145 (Thread starter): It's also a prime, and I shoot most often f9-f16, so sharpness will un-likely be a problem.
Performance will peak at f/4 - f/5.6; at f/8 it (already) starts to suffer from diffraction. You don't buy an available-light lens to shoot it at f/16 right?
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2583 times:
Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 1): Great lens optically and a must have I think... Arguably the best value for money in the Canon lineup. I used to have one but it died on me; build quality is its only drawback. The f/1.4 is a better lens in all respects, but is it worth the bucks?
Quoting Aero145 (Thread starter):
It's also a prime, and I shoot most often f9-f16, so sharpness will un-likely be a problem.
Performance will peak at f/4 - f/5.6; at f/8 it (already) starts to suffer from diffraction. You don't buy an available-light lens to shoot it at f/16 right? Wink
Giovanni
[Edited 2006-04-21 01:11:06]
Hi there.
Well, if the lens is not good at small apartures (high numbers) then I'll not buy it. I want sharp photos, and I want a pretty cheap prime. Build quality of lens is not important for me.
So, what do you think? For photos of aircraft, maybe good enough for A.net ( ), is this lens what I should go for?
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 27 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 2): Well, if the lens is not good at small apartures (high numbers) then I'll not buy it. I want sharp photos, and I want a pretty cheap prime. Build quality of lens is not important for me.
Relatively speaking, that is. It'll easily outperform (consumer) zooms sharpness-wise at any aperture, don't worry. I just mentioned that the sweet spot is f/4 'till f/8, afterwards, quality drops, just like it drops on any lens (although some zooms peak at f/11) .
If the range is right (50mm), yes, this is a great lens, not only for A.net I hope?
Asgeirs From Iceland, joined May 2001, 513 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2573 times:
Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 1): Performance will peak at f/4 - f/5.6; at f/8 it (already) starts to suffer from diffraction. You don't buy an available-light lens to shoot it at f/16 right?
Does the f/1.4 lens give better results than the f/1.8 above f/4 - f/5.6, let's say at f/11 or thereabout?
Reykjavik Aviation Photography - Just bring the aircraft to us and we'll photograph them! :-)
GVerbeeck From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2558 times:
Didn't test the two against eachother, but they should be more or less the same. Optical quality is very similar, although most tests on the net give the 1.4 a slight edge at wide apertures (which was to be expected).
Aero145 From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, RR: 23 Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2556 times:
Quoting GVerbeeck (Reply 4): Quoting Aero145 (Reply 2):
Well, if the lens is not good at small apartures (high numbers) then I'll not buy it. I want sharp photos, and I want a pretty cheap prime. Build quality of lens is not important for me.
Relatively speaking, that is. It'll easily outperform (consumer) zooms sharpness-wise at any aperture, don't worry. I just mentioned that the sweet spot is f/4 'till f/8, afterwards, quality drops, just like it drops on any lens (although some zooms peak at f/11) Smile.
If the range is right (50mm), yes, this is a great lens, not only for A.net I hope? Wink
Take care,
Giovanni
Thanks Giovanni.
Maybe I should just buy it and see how it works. I do never at least buy a lens ONLY for A.net.
Regards,
David
PS: Phil, thank you very much for the crops. They're pretty good!
WhyWhyZed From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, RR: 18 Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2534 times:
I have this lens in my bag. I have yet to use it for Aviation photos, but for non-aviation the results are great for the price. So many owners say that it should be considered L, and I think I agree.
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2522 times:
This is probably the one of my lenses that I use the least. It's sharp, but it's a bit on the long side on a 1.6 crop camera. Never used it for aviation.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 65 Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2521 times:
David
It is within the range covered by your zoom and unless you need the low light facility which is negated by your desire to use it at small apertures, save your money.
Sponsor Message: 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Mar 2005, 245 posts, 
), is this lens what I should go for?
From Germany, joined Dec 2002, 738 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 914 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
