07-18-2012, 02:58 PM
Hello,
I have recently purchased a 50mm 1.4 and 24 mm 2.8 (both Canon) for my Canon 5D Mark II. I have not been blown away with the results. I get better results from my 24-105. I thought by purchasing prime lenses, that I would have sharper images. I find the results on either lens wide open to be mediocre at best. I have now started shooting the 24 at f4 and the 50 at 3.5. This seems to help.
I recently spoke to someone who said that these two lenses are older designs and not suitable for a full frame sensor because of the angle of the light coming to the CCD. He said that more current designs refracted the light so it hit the sensor more perpendicularly. This person was a salesman, so I'm not sure how to take his comments.
Does anyone have experience with these lenses on a full frame sensor? Is this refracted light story a load of BS or is it true? I can see that it may be true for the APS sized sensors, but I'm not sure if it makes any sense otherwise.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Mike
I have recently purchased a 50mm 1.4 and 24 mm 2.8 (both Canon) for my Canon 5D Mark II. I have not been blown away with the results. I get better results from my 24-105. I thought by purchasing prime lenses, that I would have sharper images. I find the results on either lens wide open to be mediocre at best. I have now started shooting the 24 at f4 and the 50 at 3.5. This seems to help.
I recently spoke to someone who said that these two lenses are older designs and not suitable for a full frame sensor because of the angle of the light coming to the CCD. He said that more current designs refracted the light so it hit the sensor more perpendicularly. This person was a salesman, so I'm not sure how to take his comments.
Does anyone have experience with these lenses on a full frame sensor? Is this refracted light story a load of BS or is it true? I can see that it may be true for the APS sized sensors, but I'm not sure if it makes any sense otherwise.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Mike