Canon 50mms - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/12/2008 08:36:44 AM · #1

I own the cheepo Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II.
I can't afford the Canon EF 50mm f1.2L (no, precious, we mustn't!).
I just gave up my Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM because it was longer than what I wanted (though it produced lovely photos).
I don't need anything shorter than 50mm.
I am considering the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.

Assuming that
(1) I am not going to buy anything more expensive (like the new Sigma 50), and
(2) I don't care how cheep my f/1.8 II looks or feels
Do you think that the 50mm 1.4 is a good purchase?

All I care about here is image quality. Will the 1.4 produce images of higher quality than the cheapo 1.8 II? It seems to get mixed reviews.

Talk amongst yourselves and let me listen...

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

08/12/2008 08:49:02 AM · #2

I was less then impressed with my 50f1.4 (I know, going against the stream). I am looking to swap to the Sigma 30f1.4 but they also put out a 50f1.4 recently that is getting great reviews. My big issue with the 30 is that it's not a FF lens (not sure about that new 50). On the other hand, I love my 85f1.8, so we might just have different tastes.

Yo_Spiff

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 12-100mm f/4.0 M.Zuiko ED IS PRO

08/12/2008 08:59:22 AM · #3

I just bought the 50mm 1.8. It seems to be a versatile lens. Wide open for low light and blurry background, stopped down it gets a nice sharp picture. I know there is always something better and more expensive, but I'm pleased with it so far. Others have said the 1.4 is sharper, but it's also a lot more $$. For myself, the 1.8 is a step up and a useful addition to my bag.

Message edited by author 2008-08-12 09:01:44.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

08/12/2008 09:09:51 AM · #4

I did a comparison of the Canon 50mm F1.4, the Canon 50mm F1.8 and an older Super Takumar 50mm F1.4 (M42 mount converted to Canon mount with adapter and manually focused) awhile back (all shot wide open off a tripod).

This image shows 100% crops from the lower left corner, center and upper right corner from all three lens. Note, this only compares sharpness.

bobonacus

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/12/2008 09:19:38 AM · #5

I have been so impressed with the awesome sharpness of the canon f/1.4, in fact I go out of my way to use that rather than the 17-85 if possible .... I'd rather shoot at 50mm and crop than @ 85mm as the 50mm will always be sharper

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

08/12/2008 09:25:48 AM · #6

Originally posted by Bernard_Marx:

I just gave up my Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM because it was longer than what I wanted (though it produced lovely photos).

85mm was too long so you traded it for 100mm?

08/12/2008 09:56:44 AM · #7

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

Originally posted by Bernard_Marx:
I just gave up my Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM because it was longer than what I wanted (though it produced lovely photos).

85mm was too long so you traded it for 100mm?

NstiG8tr: Yes. You are obviously assuming that I intended the 100mm to fit the same purposes for which I intended the 85mm and 50mm lenses. That's simply an invalid assumption.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

08/12/2008 10:27:21 AM · #8

just so you have all the information:

The 50mm 1.4 is known for having a design flaw in that a mild-ish bump to the front of the lens has rendered the autofocus dead on many lenses.

You can read about it here

ps ... mine works great :)

08/12/2008 12:10:21 PM · #9

Looks to me like the 50mm 1.4 isn't all that hot of a deal (image-quality-wise). Maybe the Sigma 50mm will come down in price and prove to be a better lens. For now, though, it is untested and selling for about $450-$500.

strangeghost

Canon EOS-7D

08/12/2008 12:14:51 PM · #10

I own the Canon 50 1.8 and a few months ago purchased a 50 1.4. I was initially confused that the 1.4 seemed very soft even at apertures in the range of f/3.2. I did a comprehensive test and ended up returning the lens as a lemon. Here are the test shots:

1.4 vs 1.8 test shots

I'm still interested in acquiring the 1.4 but my experience definitely shows that you've got to be careful!

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

08/12/2008 12:16:12 PM · #11

Flickr reports that knocking your lens may break it. News at 11.

50 1.4 is a great lens for the money. Want a better lens, spend more money (sigma, 50 1.2L, etc) same as any lens.

Patrick_R

Canon EOS-60D

08/12/2008 12:32:38 PM · #12

Originally posted by hopper:

okay lol so I had a kid literally slam into my lense head on! (she hit my lens front so hard my nose was bruised for a week) and low and behold I took this shot a day later

Doesn't look out of focus to me! Also I read to buy the canon lense hood and it protects the front focusing tube area as it attaches further back.

Message edited by author 2008-08-12 13:47:32.

08/12/2008 12:59:30 PM · #13

Originally posted by violinist123:

50 1.4 is a great lens for the money. Want a better lens, spend more money (sigma, 50 1.2L, etc) same as any lens.

But not everything that makes a lens good value is directly related to image quality. I purposely stipulated that I didn't care about build quality, balance etc. because I wanted to factor those variables out.

08/12/2008 01:00:51 PM · #14

I appreciate all of these comments. And I do love the side-by-side test shots.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

08/12/2008 01:07:30 PM · #15

Originally posted by Bernard_Marx:

Originally posted by violinist123:

50 1.4 is a great lens for the money. Want a better lens, spend more money (sigma, 50 1.2L, etc) same as any lens.

But not everything that makes a lens good value is directly related to image quality. I purposely stipulated that I didn't care about build quality, balance etc. because I wanted to factor those variables out.

What's your point? You want to factor out all other variables except image quality, but 'not everything that makes a lens a good value is directly related to image quality'.

pineapple

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

08/12/2008 01:42:54 PM · #16

I sold my 50mm f/1.8 and bought a 50mm f/1.4. I find the 50mm f/1.4 to be durable, sharp, and a pleasure to use. I don't regret making the switch. I too read endless reviews about bad build quality and etc etc etc. But I guess it is only the bad stories that get reported.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

08/12/2008 02:55:14 PM · #17

The biggest differences in image quality between the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are:

- Sharpness near wide open. The 1.4 maintains sharpness over the central field, and is visibly better at f/2.0, where you're likely to shoot a lot with either of these lenses. The 1.4 *does* have a slight "glow" to edges but retains detail, though at slightly reduced contrast. It's reminiscent of older lenses that used under-corrected spherical aberration to advantage for portraits.
- Bokeh. The 1.4 beats the 1.8 all to hell in the pleasantness of background bokeh. Much smoother.

I've owned the 1.4 for about 5 years, and it has traveled the world with me. The build has not been an issue. It is not the fastest or most silent focusing lens, but it is adequate in that department.
I was waiting with bated breath for the Canon 50/1.2, thinking this would be a killer optic. For my money, it is in no way worth the horrendous price, given the moderate gain in image quality over the 1.4.

08/12/2008 03:12:30 PM · #18

Violinist123:

You asked What's your point?

1. You earlier said The 50 1.4 is a great lens for the money. Want a better lens, spend more money.
2. To which I replied But not everything that makes a lens good value is directly related to image quality. I purposely stipulated that I didn't care about build quality, balance etc. because I wanted to factor those variables out.
3. The point of which was to suggest that While the 50 1.4 might indeed be a great lens for the money, part of what makes it a great lens for the money is the superior build quality, weight, and balance as compared to the cheaper 1.8. So... a large part of its value is derived from things I care little about in this instance.

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

08/12/2008 03:18:06 PM · #19

Bokeh. The 1.4 beats the 1.8 all to hell in the pleasantness of background bokeh. Much smoother.

That's a very strong point in my opinion. In studio it would count for nothing. But as I no longer have the 85mm (which worked wonderfully well outside), I could use the better bokeh rendering.

Patrick_R

Canon EOS-60D

08/12/2008 03:22:08 PM · #20

Originally posted by Bernard_Marx:

It is very smooth. I have a friend who has the 1.8 and the first thing you notice is the bokeh. the 1.8 only has 5 blades if I remember correctly and it makes every light into a pentagon. The six blade 1.4 rounds those edges to buttery goodness!

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

08/12/2008 03:53:41 PM · #21

I'm all about buttery goodness!

Spork99

OM System OM-1

08/12/2008 04:48:14 PM · #22

Originally posted by Bernard_Marx:

I'm all about buttery goodness!

Buttery goodness??

Where's my popcorn?

08/12/2008 04:51:57 PM · #23

Originally posted by Bernard_Marx:

What makes it a great lens for the money is that it is F1.4 for 800 dollars less than any other 1.4 prime in the canon lineup. You also get USM which is a jump up over the 1.8 version. If you don't care about image quality, build, balance, weight, and bokeh (depending on which sentence I read) then I have no idea what else would help you make a buy decision. Good luck.

08/12/2008 04:55:46 PM · #24

Originally posted by violinist123:

If you don't care about image quality, build, balance, weight, and bokeh (depending on which sentence I read) then I have no idea what else would help you make a buy decision. Good luck.

When did I ever say I didn't care about image quality. I said I only care about image quality (in this lens-choice case). I also said I did care about bokeh (which I consider a property of image quality). Re-read all of my posts.

Originally posted by violinist123:

What makes it a great lens for the money is that it is F1.4 for 800 dollars less than any other 1.4 prime in the canon lineup.

That isn't a very wise analysis in my estimation. Sorry. I am not trying to be snarky here.

Message edited by author 2008-08-12 17:02:46.