Jump to content

New primes for holidays


jim_larson1

Recommended Posts

<p>So- Bad week for me. My nifty 50 broke. The last shots I took where great - > but the thing now wants to come apart like a slinky. -> So, it is now permanently out of my bag. I have owned for LITERALLY 20 years; back from my film days; so I think it has served well.</p>

<p>In the past, I was a prime fanatic. For a few years, I used a 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 complement. Over time (like 10 years), the 35/2 focusing mechanism died, and I have migrated to the 10-22 and 24-105/4L as my go to Day Kit lenses. The 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 are often in my bag. . I like them both at F2.2, .but they are under utilized. The 24/2.8 is WAY under utilized. . . . it just doesn't strike me as that much better than the 24-105 at 24mm.<br>

I have been considering to freshen things up with the newish 24/2.8-IS USM -> but have been balking at the $500+ price tag. Now -> I see a new plastic-fantastic 24/2.8 and 40/2.8 STM lenses are out. . .so. . .</p>

<p>QUESTION: Is the 24/2.8-STM pancake any good? Or will I be disappointed? Should I just pony up for the 24/2.8 IS? (yes -> I am a crop shooter (70D))<br>

Followup: I do need to replace my 50. The 50/1.8 and 24/2.8 pancake are cheap enough to buy tomorrow. . . but I wonder if I am better served buying a 50/1.4 instead? <br>

The 40/2.8 pancake is cheap. . .but frankly at 40mm I really want something faster than F2.8. </p>

<p>I know. . .the obvious answer is to splurge and get the 24/2.8 and 50/1.4; but frankly that combo is a bit too pricey considering the problem I posted in another thread regarding a 24-70/4L option. </p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>. . . but I wonder if I am better served buying a 50/1.4 instead? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it depends on how you shoot, but generally speaking I would say no. Overall, unless you <em>need</em> f1.4 frequently, optically it's not really any better than the 1.8, ie, both get to reasonable IQ by ~ f2/2.2. WO, the f1.4 is considerably worse than the 1.8. So, if you need f1.4, I hope you don't need good IQ @ f1.4. When I upgraded to a 50/1.4, I was extremely disappointed in it vs. the 1.8.</p>

<p>A couple years ago (after my 3rd EF 50/1.4 died an AF related death), I finally upgraded again, to the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM, and for portraiture WO and near it blows the EF 50/1.4 out of the water. I shoot FF, so I see it's edge performance (which is not great, but not really substantially worse than the EF 50/1.4)... On the crop though, it is a helluva lens. <br>

The other advantage to the f1.4 lenses is their ability to FTM focus. IME this is very very important (and the sole practical reason I kept replacing failed 50/1.4s with new ones instead of 50/1.8s), but of course you may never once need that functionality. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Jim, I've had the 40mm 2.8 STM a few months now and I really love it. The price was a nice draw, but the greatest features for me are the sharpness and clarity. It is very sharp wide open too (yeah - not really THAT wide, I know, but still). Add to that the super compact size and price and it's a clear winner. I've had the 50 1.4 for something like 15 years and used it shooting weddings most of that time. I found it to be very good quality all around, although it is not as fast focusing as the 100 f2 or 200 2.8. The 40 has pretty much replaced it for me though, as I don't need the wide aperture anymore - I shoot mostly night landscapes. Also, the newer ISO performance lately has assumed some of the low-light duty. Regarding MF, it is worth noting the 40 STM does not have FTM. In fact, even in MF mode, the MF ring initiates an electronic function in the lens to move the elements, versus a purely mechanical setup. It works fine for me, but if you are a FTM fan, this could go in the 'minus' column. I have not seen anything on the 24 STM. But I am dissappointed that it is an EF-S lens, otherwise I'd likely get one. If it's close to the quality of the 40, it's worth packing.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If weight is your concern then I'd get the 24mm STM. This is an APS-C only lens, so it won't work on full frame (unlike the 40mm STM). The 24 IS is very good and has IS, which is a plus. I doubt there is much to pick between them performance wise in the center (where it matters for APS-C). Not sure why you need another 24 as you have it with your 24-105 and the 10-22 (-2 mm). What is the benefit?</p>

<p>Contrary to what some others say the 50/1.4 is a good lens and actually useable at f1.4, but it is outclassed by the new and much bigger and heavier Sigma ART and Zeiss Otus. In your situation, I doubt it is necessarily better for you than the old 50/1.8. If you don't mind the f2.8 on the 40mm, and compactness is a goal, then I'd definitely consider the 40mm STM over the 50/1.8.</p>

Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What a piece of junque that "plastic fantastic" is. Only 20 years of service from a $50 or so lens. What kind of durability is that? ;)</p>

<p>Myself, whatever else I got, I'd replace the 50mm f/1.8.<br>

The 50mm f/1.4 is another classic, but it is arguably less rugged than the fantastic. Comparisons to much more pricey lenses don't make a lot of sense, in my mind. I have the nFD mount version of the lens, which is pretty much the same, and love it. <br>

I think the basic 50 f/1.4 goes back at least to 1965. Maybe the RF 50mm f/1.4 lens back to the 50s is the same, even. Whatever, it's a classic.<br>

The little 'pancake', does look interesting though, but as an addition, not a replacement for the old lens.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm confused by your post, if you /need/ to replace your 50mm lens, then you need to replace it. Your more affordable choices are:</p>

<p>Canon 50mm f/1.8, Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/2.5 Macro. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is $950.</p>

<p>If you're not using your existing 24mm f/2.8 (non-IS) I'm not sure what the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM or the 24mm f/2.8 IS will get you other than a lighter wallet.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for the responses.</p>

<p>The Sigma Art 50/1.4 is too rich for my blood (for a prime). I am not hearing great endorsements for the 50/1.4; so I will replace my broken 50/1.8 with a shinney new . . . . . . . . . .50/1.8. - - - Hopefully, it will last 20 years like my first one :)</p>

<p>The main reason my 24/2.8 fell into disuse is because I didn't see much optical benefit over my 24-105/4L. The image quality seemed similar . . . . . and being only one stop faster wasn't enough of a draw to put it in my bag like I was with the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. I was wondering if the new 24/2.8-IS or 24 STM was significantly better optically. . . . I guess I am not hearing ringing endorsements on this; so I will spend money elsewhere!</p>

<p>And thanks for the recommendation on the 40/2.8. . .. . but given that I will buy a 50/1.8 -> the 40/2.8 does not hold any appeal for me. Maybe if it was a 40/1.2. . . .</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I am not hearing great endorsements for the 50/1.4...</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> The EF 50/1.4 is a great lens optically, though some claim that it's a little soft wide open. This perception is largely due to it's reduced contrast at f/1.4. But by f/2, only a fool would claim it's not sharp. And every report I've ever read says it outperforms the 50/1.8 by a considerable margin.</p>

<p>It's also claimed that there are durability issues with the 50/1.4. I think this is a result of there being a lot of them out there, compounded by the fact that the owners of those relatively few that fail tend to complain loudly online, while the owners of the many more that don't fail are out happily shooting with them.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've got the old film era 50 f1.8 and I understand that<br>

despite my having hoarded 1/2 dozen of them there's<br>

still plenty more of them out there to buy. I couldn't<br>

bring myself to buy the current version ... I'd find the<br>

sheckels somehow for one of the alternatives I'm sure. <br>

<br>

I've been using the STM 40 as my go-to for about a<br>

year now. It's as if my 5D2 has become a fixed lens<br>

[noninterchangablelens] machine. Sooooo much is<br>

Just Right about this lens that I refuse to be bugged<br>

by its modest maximum aperture :-) OTOH, you use<br>

a crop sensor so the 26 would be the equivalent. I<br>

can't speak for the optical testing results for either<br>

of these lenses. It's not that I don't care about that<br>

stuff, but I just don't care about that stuff. I'll prolly<br>

get the STM 26 for my SL1 just based on how happy<br>

I am with the STM 40 on the 5D2. It's really not any<br>

headbanging decision given the low price. <br>

</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very recently bought the 24 IS lens. Excellent quality although I have not used it much except to tryout the IS. I bought it primarily to use on a full frame body which I have yet to purchase. I've used the old 24 EF 2.8 on a crop body which I really like and that is a nice choice (for me) as a standard lens on my 40D when I want something more compact than my 17-40.

 

I chose the IS lens to use as a landscape lens on full frame and I do like the DOF scales and focus distance markings on the lens. Under certain circumstance the IS lens would be a better choice, but probably for 95% on shooting, the STM would be as good, more compact to carry around which may not as the IS lens is not that big. The STM is an awesome value, cheap and excellent quality and I doubt would would go wrong with either lens.

 

I purchased the 40 pancake lens for my son a couple of years ago and that compliments his 10-22 very well. He loves the 10-22 and does not like to carry a lot of gear and bulk. That has worked very well for him.

 

In short, I don't think you will go wrong with any of these lenses. That are all excellent.

 

When I had an EOS 3 film body I did by a 50 compact macro. It is ancient, slow focus, but I use it occasionally for macro and even landscape. Not sure I would recommend that as a standard lens becasue of the slow and loud focus, but on the other hand if I had a so-called 50 nifty I would probably throw it to chase stray cats at the bird feeder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For the record:<br>

I found the autofocus on the EOS-3 to be exemplary, and it was plenty fast too, especially with an f/2 or faster prime. In some ways, it is more sophisticated than most of Canon's digital consumer cameras, IMHO.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I had the 50 1.8 and thought I lost it, bought the 50 1.4 and very happy I did. Found and sold the 50 1.8. The 50 1.4 does not get much respect but it is much better than the 1.8.<br>

1.8 - Cheap toy build quality, hunting & coffee grinder focus, the pentagon shaped bokeh is hideous.<br>

1.4 - Good build quality, quick and quite focus, nice bokeh with 8 diaphragm blades. <br>

Buy the 50 1.4 it's worth the upgrade if you use a 50mm much.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Gotta agree and would looove to switch to the 50:1.4,<br>

I mean *IF* anybody wants to swap one for 3 or 4 of<br>

my "vintage" 50:1.8 film era gems :-) Aftroll, one can<br>

only shoot thru one optic at a time .... <br>

<br>

Been dreaming about a 35:2.0 IS as my new normal<br>

for BOTH full frame and crop frame ... *deep sigh". <br>

</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...