APS vs. Full-format
Do you suppose this new "fast" prime will be an EF-S lens?
Photobug brought up the point (in Andy's link) that it's easier to make a good quality fast lens for an APS-sized sensor than a full format. That makes sense to me because you have less likelyhood of vignetting, stray light, and aberrations at the edges of the frame.
Many have argued that "full-format" (35 mm) is a better way to go because you get more angle of view and larger pixels (or more!) with better dynamic range. Well, with CMOS technology improving continously, it seems that a smaller sensor will eventually give you a good enough dynamic range and allow you to have larger aperture long lenses that are smaller and lighter than their full-frame equivalent would be. I think many would take higher optical quality, lighter, and smaller lenses over extended dynamic range.....
I don't understand the significance of the filter diameter size. I didn't think the front element was the limiting aperture on these lenses....
I wasn't suggesting that the filter size was limiting factor - just that both the 1.4 and 1.2 shared the same size 49mm filters, to demonstrate how little difference there really is between the two lenses.
I wasn't suggesting that the filter size was limiting factor - just that both the 1.4 and 1.2 shared the same size 49mm filters, to demonstrate how little difference there really is between the two lenses.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
0
Options
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited December 29, 2005
Okay guys, pardon my Canon-dumbness, but on KEH I see Canon FD 50mm f/1.2 FD lenses for $140 or $225, and f/1.2 L FD lenses for "only" $500. Is there any desirability with either of these lenses? Despite the fact that you have to use an adapter and then manual focus which is probably impossible with an f/1.2 lens on a 1.6x cropped viewfinder...
Okay guys, pardon my Canon-dumbness, but on KEH I see Canon FD 50mm f/1.2 FD lenses for $140 or $225, and f/1.2 L FD lenses for "only" $500. Is there any desirability with either of these lenses? Despite the fact that you have to use an adapter and then manual focus which is probably impossible with an f/1.2 lens on a 1.6x cropped viewfinder...
Any ideas?
-Matt-
Despite the lure of 1.0's, 1.2's and even an f/0.95 (yes, there was such an animal), using an adaptor will limit your focus range meaning you'll either give up focusing at infinity, or at the closer setting (I forget which). Older lenses did not focus beyond infinity as the newer auto lenses do. The lack of both autofocus and autoaperture control might not bother some shooters, but there have been significant advances in lens materials, reduction of weight and volume not to mention ergonomics. Then there's the fact that what you're really bargaining for is less than one stop of light difference.
Not trying to totally disuade anyone from mounting these antiques with converters on EF setups, but sheesh! I mean, these admittingly marvelous lenses would be better paired with their old friends -- the F-1, AE-1 or A-1 -- to better complete the novelty. Then scan the results.
I have a 50 f/1.4 FD (for my 1978 AT-1), and it just wasn't that good compared with a modern (and ultra cheap) EF 50 f/1.8. The FD lens is destined to be used again for only one reason... to reverse mount it for macros with an adaptor ring.
If you have one of these old classics in your closet, then by all means yes, try it. But I wouldn't go out and spend a couple hundred bucks on one to experiment with.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Comments
:nah I can wait for the 50 f/1.2 that's rumored
Thanks Seymore!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
and just how long will we have to wait?
Cincinnati Smug Leader
http://redbull.smugmug.com
"Money can't buy happiness...But it can buy expensive posessions that make other people envious, and that feels just as good.":D
Canon 20D, Canon 50 1.8 II, Canon 70-200 f/4L, Canon 17-40 f/4 L, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 430ex.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I don't understand the significance of the filter diameter size. I didn't think the front element was the limiting aperture on these lenses....
Do you suppose this new "fast" prime will be an EF-S lens?
Photobug brought up the point (in Andy's link) that it's easier to make a good quality fast lens for an APS-sized sensor than a full format. That makes sense to me because you have less likelyhood of vignetting, stray light, and aberrations at the edges of the frame.
Many have argued that "full-format" (35 mm) is a better way to go because you get more angle of view and larger pixels (or more!) with better dynamic range. Well, with CMOS technology improving continously, it seems that a smaller sensor will eventually give you a good enough dynamic range and allow you to have larger aperture long lenses that are smaller and lighter than their full-frame equivalent would be. I think many would take higher optical quality, lighter, and smaller lenses over extended dynamic range.....
Erich
No - EF, L.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Ooops! missed the "L" reference!
I wasn't suggesting that the filter size was limiting factor - just that both the 1.4 and 1.2 shared the same size 49mm filters, to demonstrate how little difference there really is between the two lenses.
50mm/f1.2= 41.6666 mm front aprature
50mm/f1.4= 35.7mm front aperature
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Got it. Thanks!
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Any ideas?
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Despite the lure of 1.0's, 1.2's and even an f/0.95 (yes, there was such an animal), using an adaptor will limit your focus range meaning you'll either give up focusing at infinity, or at the closer setting (I forget which). Older lenses did not focus beyond infinity as the newer auto lenses do. The lack of both autofocus and autoaperture control might not bother some shooters, but there have been significant advances in lens materials, reduction of weight and volume not to mention ergonomics. Then there's the fact that what you're really bargaining for is less than one stop of light difference.
Not trying to totally disuade anyone from mounting these antiques with converters on EF setups, but sheesh! I mean, these admittingly marvelous lenses would be better paired with their old friends -- the F-1, AE-1 or A-1 -- to better complete the novelty. Then scan the results.
I have a 50 f/1.4 FD (for my 1978 AT-1), and it just wasn't that good compared with a modern (and ultra cheap) EF 50 f/1.8. The FD lens is destined to be used again for only one reason... to reverse mount it for macros with an adaptor ring.
If you have one of these old classics in your closet, then by all means yes, try it. But I wouldn't go out and spend a couple hundred bucks on one to experiment with.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky