Canon 2515A003 Reviews, Compare, Prices
 |
Canon 2515A003 Reviews, Compare, Prices.
Product: Canon 2515A003 Amazon Price: Too low to display Availability: In Stock |
Compare Prices on Canon 2515A003
With the 50mm f1.8 lens available for less than a hundred dollars, why utilize so worthy more to obtain the f1.4? The acknowledge is, you may not need to. It all depends on your seriousness, budget, and how long you need your lens to last.
If you want a "starter lens" for shooting at 50mm (or with prime lenses in general), the f1.8 would be a enormous recall. 50mm is a very useful and intuitive focal length to exercise some time with, because it sees the world at the same distance as your naked discover (regardless of your camera's lop factor) . So you could steal the f1.8 cheaply, regard it as a "play with it" lens, and salvage a nice introduction to "prime lens quality." The f1.8 will seem like a huge step up from kit lenses and most consumer-priced zooms, and improbable bang for few bucks.
So if the f1.8 is such a sizable bargain, why would the f1.4 be among Canon's most all-time celebrated lenses? It's that the f1.8 can retract the colossal shot within obvious conditions, but the f1.4 delivers within a remarkable wider range of conditions. In other words, "You pick up what you pay for," and we'll effect the best for last.
Affordable-but-Solid Contruction: The f1.4 will likely have a powerful longer life than the cheaper plastic do of the f1.8, and keep more resale value. It's an investment, rather than a commodity. And it'll be more clear on your camera and in your hand. (My first one finally needed some calibration, after 80,000 shots and low wear-and-tear from frequent swapping with my other primes.) Users sometimes characterize the front glass falling out of their f1.8s. For the f1.4, the main issues revolve around the Micro USM focus motor, which is not as sturdy as moral USM.
Focus Versatility: The f1.4 lets your camera autofocus, and then lets you tweak further by hand without flipping a switch - that's called "Full-Time Manual Focus." The f1.8 requires switching aid and forth between auto and manual focus. The f1.8 is famously noisy/buzzy during autofocus, has a bare-minimum focus ring, and no distance scale. The f1.4 will autofocus more reliably, especially in shaded light, though it will fail occasionally when starved.
Resistance to Abberation: Chromatic abberation (fringe colors) and barrel distortion are evident-but-low for both lenses at wide apertures - that's "prime lens quality." But in comparison tests, the f1.8 is more susceptible to vignetting (shadows around the corners), halation (beautiful around the highlights), and lens flare. For instance, lens flare within the f1.4 tends to be more tightly controlled - "in focus" - whereas a radiant light source is more like to blow out the whole shot in the f1.8. All these factors improve when stopped down, but bolt about a end leisurely the f1.4.
Color: However, if the f1.8 catches up at f/8 to the f1.4 by many standards, it rarely catches up to the f1.4's saturation. The f1.4 has "proper-to-strong" color richness at all but the widest apertures, while the f1.8's shots are remarkable more likely to require postwork. (I do, however, derive better saturation from my 24mm f2.8 and 100mm Macro f2.8. The 50 f1.4's saturation seems good-not-great by comparison.)
"Headroom": The engineering of both lenses lets you decide the tradeoff between "most possible light" or "most possible clarity." It's by earn that you can decide "more light for less crisp," or close down for sharpness. *Samples vary*, but the average 50mm f1.4 should consistently "acquire down to moving" more expeditiously, "inspiring enough" by f/2.0, "very very spicy" by f/2.8 (often exceeding the professional 24-70mm f2.8 L when wide start), and delivering "unreal captivating" by f/4. (I saw insane "specks of mascara sharpness" at f/3.5 from my first f1.4.) Again, the f1.8 will probably slither about a conclude slow that curve.
My second 50mm f1.4 performed even better than my first, apt out of the box, "marginally keen" at f/1.4 and increasingly beyond reproach by f/1.8-2. (At f/1.4-1.6, it suffers only from halation and some light fall-off in darker areas.) So if grievous sharpness is notable for you, shop with a strategy that will let you return your lens or win it calibrated if not up to your needs. My guess is that my first one was more typical out of the box, but it approached the performance of the second after calibration.
(It's also worth noting that the premium-priced 50mm f1.2L is drastically more enthralling (and better performing generally) at wide apertures, but *less* inviting at f/2.8 through f/8. The f1.4 is a better "walkaround" performer than the f1.2L lens that costs four times as great.)
Regarding light return specifically, my beget experience in lens-swapping baffled me, until I read other reports that the f1.4 exposes a third of a halt brighter than most other Canon lenses. It's brighter in the viewfinder generally, and really IS a whole finish "faster" than the f1.8 at maximum apertures (i.e., the same salvage exposure at half the shutter race) . If you're willing to sacrifice some clarity, that extra discontinuance can gain a mountainous contrast when you're challenged by consuming targets in gross light.
(For instance, shooting "wide start" for performers in unlit venues. Faster shutter for less motion blur. More light for better color. And the edges may be soft at 100% magnification, but *relatively* obvious compared to the out-of-focus background. That "illusion of clarity" isn't as likely to print very well, but resizes very lickety-split for the web.)
So the f1.8 can certainly compose some attractive images, particularly in general daylight photography OR tightly-controlled conditions OR stopped down, but is less adaptable to gripping circumstances that the f1.4.
"The Best for Last...":
Now, with both these lenses, you collect the advantage of marvelously wide aperture, which can be former for a tight focal plane that lets the background (or foreground distractions) plunge speedy out of focus. This is of course a cornerstone of creative photography, and both lenses give you plenty to eye. (In practice, even f/2.8 delivers a ravishing shallow depth of field in close-up shots, so these wider lenses give you even more room to play.)
However, there is such a thing as "blur quality," called "bokeh," based on the number of aperture blades within the lens. The f1.8 has five, and the f1.4 has eight. The f1.8 will report out-of-focus lights more pentagonally, the f1.4 more roundly. (In focus, those same lights will be eight-pointed stars with the f1.4, ten-pointed with the f1.8 - unfamiliar numbers of blades double the number of points.) But most importantly, the blur from the f1.8 can be rather "choppy," especially at wide apertures, while the f1.4's is consistently more "buttery still."
In other words, there's more to quality than sharpness - there's also quality where your shot is LESS than curious. And this is where the f1.4 becomes "a popular lens" for some people, even at over three times the brand of its diminuitive counterpart.
Make no mistake, the f1.8 would produce an pleasurable "starter" lens. But the f1.4 is an exceptionally *serious* lens. Are you unexcited learning to savor photography? Then $80 is a resplendent brand to pay for a lens you might outgrow. Or do you already savor photography? Then $300 is a advantageous mark for a upright investment that will reliably pay off. So they're both bargains, unprejudiced pick what's best for you.
(Addendum - Canon also sells a 50mm f2.5 Macro lens around $250. If you NEED macro, it's reportedly radiant top-notch, and for general purpose as well. But it's a) not even as swiftly as the f1.8, b) more difficult to manually focus than the f1.4, and c) not as creamy in the bokeh, with six aperture blades instead of eight. And Canon's 100mm version is drastically more practical for macro work, and better performing generally. But the 50mm Macro does become a contender, at a "middle notice," if what you really need is one decent lens to do as many different things as possible, though none of them as well.)
I bought this lens to select indoor portraits of my nine-month-old daughter using available light. I was tired of the harsh photos produced by the built-in flash on the Canon 20D or Digital Rebel. A bounce flash improves matters substantial deal, but I wanted to peer what could be done with a posthaste lens.
The Canon 50mm 1.4 gobbles light. It opens up a world of indoor photography that is not possible with a 4.0 lens. The 50mm focal length combined with available light produces natural-looking results. It is exactly what your view sees. Shadows and highlights are intact. It is a revelation if you're aged to the harsh topple shadows and evenly-lit faces produced by flashes. This is a jarring step up in quality from snapshot to "wow"
As famed, focus is soft at /1.4 and begins to sharpen at /2.0 to /2.8. Not a dreadful thing, though. Some of my accepted pictures have been produced with the aperture wide begin. The depth of field is so narrow at this point, that the subject's face is in focus, but the shoulders commence to blur.
I expend this lens with a 20D. The balance is perfect, the combination feels very professional and responsive. Operation is very simple. Proceed the camera into aperture priority mode (Av), watch though the belief finder and adjust the aperture until you study the shutter bustle is faster than 1/30th a second (30) .
I agonized over the 1.4 vs. the 1.8 versions of this lens. The additional terminate does provide more shooting options. Often I'm shooting at the edge of acceptable shutter hurry, and juggling both aperture and ISO. Many reviews comparing the two talk about acquire quality, focus motor speed/noise, etc, but the bottom line for me was the extra discontinuance was totally worth it. If you want to shoot indoors without a flash, rep the 1.4. If you simply want a nice spirited lens at this focal length, the 1.8 is for you.
As a father, my only regret is I wish I had this lens earlier. From one parent to another, I'll sing you the effect of the lens is irrelevant, as the pictures it produces are priceless.
Now, go acquire a backup of your photo library.
This 50mm is extraordinary. I truly worship it. I debated a long time between the 1.8 and the 1.4. In the ruin, I figured I'd never replace it again so find the 1.4. I savor it - the images it makes are staggering. Calm - it's pricy compared to the 1.8 - but not to L series lenses. I assume it's worth it. I read online it had barrel distortion wide launch - and it does if you really look the image - but that's perfectly OK with me for the 1.4 shallow depth of field. Normal people will never glimpse that at all. One drawback you may not assume of is that dazzling wide inaugurate 1.4 aperture is not available to you if there is considerable light. It's so quickly it's easy to overexpose - even with 1/4000th of a second shutter. It takes awesome portraits - awesome landscapes. This is a must have lens in every EOS owner's bag. Don't acquire the 1.8 and wish you got this one. Gain this one and initiate taking sizable photos.
