Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Canon 50mm 1.4 USM Lens Query


Recommended Posts

Hi, I have a Canon EOS 600D DSLR camera with the stock 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II lens and amongst other uses have used it on a tripod to take photos of constellations. I have been considering whether a Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM lens would be a useful addition, helping to reduce the exposure time needed for a shot and reduce star trailing. Has anyone else used this combination for taking photos of constellations or have guidance/advice? Thanks in advance, Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 50mm has a good write up on various websites for photography revews.

I am using the Canon 40mm F2.8 and it is good. Cheap too.

The star trailing issue also depends on which direction you are shooting. If it is East or West then the exposure times are more limited as those points are moving effectivley faster than at the polar areas. As a balance use a higher ISO setting, say 1600 rather than 800.

I also have the 18-55 lens and use it at 18 to get wide field, there is some vignetting and you need to crop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe worth looking at the 50mm lens tests in Amateur Photographer (20th July) if you can find one.

They were particularly keen on the Sigma f1.4 EX DG HSM for Canon, although both the Canon f1.4 and the Sigma f1.4 lenses rated well - you would have to stop both lenses down two stops though to get the best sharpness. The f1.8 Canon lens was significantly poorer (resolution) than the f1.4 lens, except at image centre (two stops down).

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

if you're on a static tripod, you're looking at 25-30 seconds at 18mm, or 8-10 seconds at 50mm, and you'll have to stop the 50mm down to f/4, where as you can probably (I did) get away with using the 18-55 at f/3.5. So combined with a wider aperture and longer exposures, for now, I'd stick with the 18mm. If you can get tracking, then the 50mm is a corker for constellations, but you want to get longer exposures.

Looking at the 50mm's, there's nothing wrong with the f/1.8 and it's a lot cheaper... It all depends on what you're planning on using it for. I upgraded the f/1.8 to the f/1.4 as I shoot a lot of low light (AmDram) and was finding the f/1.8 focus speed and accuracy was just not what I needed it to be. I think you can get away with slightly less stopping down on the f/1.4 than the f/1.8, but I'm not convinced the small benefit would be worth it, unless you have a separate reason to go for the more expensive one ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depending on where you are shooting and your tolerance to trailing, you may only get 10 or so seconds exposure with a 50mm static. The 18mm setting could give around 30 seconds. May be worth bearing in mind.

On a driven mount the 50mm f1.4 should give outstanding images after many minutes of exposure.

Dave.

Edit

Note to self, " Don't write your answers while someone else is writing theirs quicker !! )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've taken lots of pics with teh 50mm 1.4. However, it have to be stopped down to at least 2.2, preferably 2.8 to get nice stars.

Still a very nice lens for wide-field astro even if it's completly useless at 1.4. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some of the pics i've taken with the 50mm 1.4.

Note that all of these exept the M51 pic is taken on a normal tripod. As in no tracking of any kind. Usually a bunch of short exposures around 3-6 sec stacked and processed.

They are not all great, but i'm happy with them anyway. :) (m42 example is overcooked, but was only focusing on the horsehead when i processed that one, lol).

post-9520-0-65289000-1375281438_thumb.pn

post-9520-0-03510800-1375281459_thumb.jp

post-9520-0-67010300-1375281459_thumb.jp

post-9520-0-35563500-1375281460_thumb.jp

post-9520-0-99488800-1375281460_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Here are some of the pics i've taken with the 50mm 1.4.

Note that all of these exept the M51 pic is taken on a normal tripod. As in no tracking of any kind. Usually a bunch of short exposures around 3-6 sec stacked and processed.

They are not all great, but i'm happy with them anyway. :) (m42 example is overcooked, but was only focusing on the horsehead when i processed that one, lol).

Which tripod are you using?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1.4 50mm is an awesome lens for its price. I use it all the time and not just for astro. I wouldnt even begin to compare it to a plastic kit variable focal length lens. It is like comparing apples to oranges when comparing prime glass to variable length rubbish.

Once you go prime lenses, you will never want anything else.

Best thing I did with my kit EF-S lens, put the cap ends on it and never use it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

if you're on a static tripod, you're looking at 25-30 seconds at 18mm, or 8-10 seconds at 50mm, and you'll have to stop the 50mm down to f/4, where as you can probably (I did) get away with using the 18-55 at f/3.5. So combined with a wider aperture and longer exposures, for now, I'd stick with the 18mm. If you can get tracking, then the 50mm is a corker for constellations, but you want to get longer exposures.

Looking at the 50mm's, there's nothing wrong with the f/1.8 and it's a lot cheaper... It all depends on what you're planning on using it for. I upgraded the f/1.8 to the f/1.4 as I shoot a lot of low light (AmDram) and was finding the f/1.8 focus speed and accuracy was just not what I needed it to be. I think you can get away with slightly less stopping down on the f/1.4 than the f/1.8, but I'm not convinced the small benefit would be worth it, unless you have a separate reason to go for the more expensive one ?

If for nighttime only then I agree the 1.8 is ok, but if you also wish to use the 50mm seriously daytime, the nifty fifty 1.8 version is complete rubbish as you will be using filters during daytime most likely and the focus ring on the 1.8 version is right at the thread, there is also no FTM focusing on the 1.8 version. But for astro then yes, as long as that is all you plan to use it for then go for the 1.8 and save money, I however use my lenses daytime too so I prefer to get a better lens version that is more practical and better quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 1.4 50mm is an awesome lens for its price. I use it all the time and not just for astro. I wouldnt even begin to compare it to a plastic kit variable focal length lens. It is like comparing apples to oranges when comparing prime glass to variable length rubbish.

Once you go prime lenses, you will never want anything else.

Best thing I did with my kit EF-S lens, put the cap ends on it and never use it again.

'> http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00009XVCZ

Is this the one you are on about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.amazon.co...aw/d/B00009XVCZ

Is this the one you are on about?

Yes. It is very sharp, given that it is a fast prime. I was going to get the 1.8 cheaper version but I was unhappy with the placement of the focus ring and hearing of it breaking off on people and that is where the filters go onto also so I stretched and got that 1.4 USM version. Glad I did.

For Astro the 1.8 cheaper could be good enough and at its cheap price but since I use mine daytime also it was not an option for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been using the 1.8 at f/4.0 lately and love the results I'm getting with a tracking mount.

It has lead me to consider the 1.4 but in the end I wonder if at the price it is I would be better served with a different lens instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been using the 1.8 at f/4.0 lately and love the results I'm getting with a tracking mount.

It has lead me to consider the 1.4 but in the end I wonder if at the price it is I would be better served with a different lens instead.

If it is just for astro then probably not worth the money if you already have the 1.8 version, for daytime, it could be worth the upgrade if you do other kinds of shots, that is why I chose the 1.4 version, I don't just do outter space, I also do inner space, macro and so on.

If I where you I would look at a super wide field fast prime or a telephoto prime, depends what you wish to do.

I am considering a Canon 200L (not weather proofed unfortunately) prime as well as my 50mm 1.4, and also a super wide field 14mm ish prime. Notice I only use primes :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would mainly be for astro purposes, fair enough I might use it for daytime shots but I'm not out to shoot at a pro level. But yeah I think I'll stick with the 1.8 for astro stuff for now and look at a longer lens for the money of the 1.4.

I do have a Samyang 8mm that I have never used due to it arriving out of whack, from what I've seen it's easy enough to fix but I haven't got around to it yet.

Anyway it seems my question is answered, I'll stick with the 1.8 for now.

Thanks all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.