True to form, Canon releases another mediocre "film" lens

Discussion in 'Canon' started by RichA, Sep 2, 2008.

  1. Unfortunately build quality and pleasing haptics don't come with
    the f/1.8. Still, a good buy, unless you already have a fast 50mm.
    If they need what the Sigma delivers and not what the Canon does,
    yes, absolutely. Choice is good. (Just as an independent example:
    in portraits, seeing every pore is not always the best thing.)

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 4, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    RichA Guest

    "Well?" If it was working well, it wouldn't be a piece of junk, would
    it? But I get your point, Canon is loath to change anything that
    might cost them $0.02 extra cents.
    What has that got to do with the design of the glass??
    RichA, Sep 4, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    98% on the irony meter.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 5, 2008
  4. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    But it isn't a piece of junk. You don't want to accept that because
    you're a stupid bigot. You think that other people should waste
    money in order to support your ignorance.
    Ray Fischer, Sep 5, 2008
  5. My fault ... I meant "very well, near perfect in an
    imperfect world".
    If you had a brain, you'd surely use it, and if you had the
    sense God gave a goose, you'd stop talking with your backside.
    So, pray tell, how do you manage life on spinal jerk reflexes?
    Since you don't own a camera, much less a working camera,
    much less a Canon ...
    According to *you* Canon doesn't design for digital, only
    for film. I want to hear your inane justifications. Really.
    I need that for a study called "Braindead or Brainless --- real and
    artificial dumbness". You are a fascinating study in that regard,
    even though one has to wash hands and brain after each contact.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 5, 2008
  6. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : >
    : > There aren't any 1930's 50mm f:1.4 lens designs!
    : You're right! All the non-third-party 50/1.4 normal lenses are copies of the
    : Zeiss Planar, which was designed in 1896.
    : > The current Canon 50/1.4 dates from around 1971, so what! The Nikon 45mm
    : > pancake is a Tessar dating from 1903.
    : Well, the latter half is right (1902, actually).
    : The only new 50/1.4 is the Sigma, 50/1.5, which is a radically different
    : design, and performs quite a bit better at f/1.4 and somewhat better at
    : f/2.0 than the Canon 50/1.4. However the Canon pulls ahead at f/4.0.

    Forgive me if I'm responding to a typo, but how does *any* f/1.5 lens perform
    better at f/1.4 than the Canon lens?

    Robert Coe, Sep 7, 2008
  7. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    : > On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:25:25 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    : > > The only new 50/1.4 is the Sigma, 50/1.5, which is a radically different
    : > > design, and performs quite a bit better at f/1.4 and somewhat better at
    : > > f/2.0 than the Canon 50/1.4. However the Canon pulls ahead at f/4.0.
    : >
    : > >
    : >
    : > Canon's f/1.8 version also does very well at f/4.0 and smaller
    : > apertures, and it's hard to find a better buy. Canon's f/1.4 is
    : > *much* more expensive and Sigma's f/1.4 even more so. The
    : > photographers that pay such a premium are usually those that shoot
    : > in low light and need the widest apertures. For them, Sigma's f/1.4
    : > delivers where Canon's f/1.4 doesn't. As a bonus, Sigma f/1.4
    : > owners can add for very little additional money Canon's f/1.8 lens
    : > (with its small size and weight) for situations where wide apertures
    : > aren't called for. You wouldn't get the best of both worlds if both
    : > the f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses were made by Canon. As a bonus the f/1.4
    : > lens is one of Sigma's products that has no Foveon heritage to hide.
    : I'd give Sigma many points for updated that hoary old design, I only
    : hope they can maintain some level of quality, unlike with other lenses
    : they produce. Also, their 30mm f1.4 was a "new" design incorporating
    : low-dispersion glass, which did a good job on the colour error issue
    : such a lens would experience, but the residual spherical aberration
    : when the lens is wide open is terrible, and the less is far less sharp
    : with lower contrast at all apertures than either Nikon or Pentax's
    : 35mm f.20 lenses. In such a case, given the 1.4 aperture produced
    : such poor images, it almost renders the speed gain useless.

    Rich, have you ever actually used that lens? (And before you answer, you may
    wish to consider that your answer will be read by at least several who *have*
    used it.)

    Robert Coe, Sep 8, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.