Canon 50mm F1.4 great lens for the money

For the money I think this one of Canon's greatest lenses. I took this lens to

a Museum recently where they discourage the use of Flash. I wanted to

photograph some paintings, so even if I used the pop-up flash the light would

bounce of the painting and everything outside of dead center would come out

blurred.

 

With a maximum aperture of F1.4, I was able to use an ISO of 200 which gave me

a shutter speed of around 1/50 - 1/60th of a second, plenty of room for hand

held shots. I got to admit I had to increase the ISO to 400 on some dimmer

shots since I didn't want to go below 1/50th of a second.

 

Nearly all the pictures I took that day were perfectly focused with excellent

contrast. The lens is so small that when outfited to the Canon 30D it looked

like I was using a point-and-shoot. I always complained that the 30D was not

hefty enough, but for situations like these where you want to remain

unobtrusive it worked out fine.

I find it annoyingly slow to focus.

I plan on getting rid of it eventually.

<p>I quite like mine. Sharp, sharp, sharp, as long as it's not used wide open.</p>

 

<p>I find it slow to focus compared to my other lenses, but it's not really a fair comparison. The 50/1.4 uses only a micro USM, and this baby motor has to push <em>all</em> of the glass around. All my other lenses use more powerful ring USM and focus by moving only some elements. If you think this one is slow, try the 50/1.0 or the original 85/1.2; they're glacial. I tend not to shoot action, and if I do it's not with this lens, so I'm not concerned about the AF speed; if it takes half a second and another of my lenses takes a quarter of a second (I'm just pulling those times out of thin air; they may or may not be accurate), the difference is of no practical concern to me.</p>

talking about AF speed. Some lenses are not built for fast AF. like the 50 1.0, it's for low light shooting. Canon is the only f1.0 AF lens available. Leica has a f0.95 lens but it's manual focus. It would be fair if canon publish the end point to end point (closest to infinity)AF speed so buyers can set expectation. I have a sigma 8mm fisheye and it's slow AF. It takes 2 seconds end point to end point. That's the slowest AF speed among my other 17 canon lenses.

"Leica has a f0.95"<p> Leica has a 1.0. Canon had a 0.95 rangefinder lens.

Slowish AF, and the MF has a tendency to break on people. (Check it out in the archives.)

I'm glad they are cheap as the auto focus is weak and tends to break when you most need it. I like the cheaper f1.8 as it has yet to malfunction on me. I have had two f1.4 50mms fail to auto focus on three different bodies. They are very good if they are working, Bill

It is a great lens indeed in spite of its compromised mechanics. However I wouldn't personally mind if Canon discontinue it. I'd much rather see that they give us a 50/1.8 USM with build and AF similar to 28/1.8, 85/1.8 and 100/2. The current 50/1.8 could then be exchanged for an ever smaller 50/2. I think this would introduce some healthy differentiation. Canon's 50mm lineup is too crowded now, so much so that it's probably unrealistic to expect any mechanical (or other) upgrade of the 1.4 model since that would shrink the market for the 1.2L even further except for those few who really need f/1.2 and sealing.

It's a great lens indeed and focuses well. I never noticed the slow focus as some have mentioned. In fact, mine locks focus fast and precisely, even in low light.

 

The color, contrast and bokeh are excellent as well.

 

Well worth the money for sure.

I do like mine. Perfect "standard" lens on the 5D, compact and discreet, bright viewfinder. I think best suited for interiors, people shots. For walk-about, I'm sometimes kicking myself for not having brought a standard zoom, it's a bit limiting: I often want wider. All in all, one of my favourites.

I like mine too. This is a very sharp lens. I don't find the AF to be slow at all. I did many weddings at low light with excellent results.

 

A.

I'd pay $400 for a Canon 50mm f/1.4-/1.6 with true ring USM. I can't believe I'm alone in this regard. I think this would be a real money maker for Canon, but what do I know? Instead, they produce a $1600 f/1.2L, so apparently I don't know much ...

I agree with the OP - it's a fine lens and mine is always nearby.

I recently purchased a 50/1.4 and I, too, like it a lot. Size and weight are nice, AF certainly seems quick enough, and while use at f/1.4 can be challenging due to thin depth of field, I have produced sharp images even wide open. I recently used it for an indoor event where flash was prohibited and the participants liked the results. --tom

Jon Austin, Apr 02, 2007; 04:46 p.m.

 

I'd pay $400 for a Canon 50mm f/1.4-/1.6 with true ring USM

 

Canon will not sell you one at this price ;-) R&D, marketing, manufacturing cost could be way more than that. I wish I pay $1000 for my new 5D too. keep dreaming.

Fast prime lenses almost always deliver. I cannot understand the fascination for slowish and expensive zoom lenses when lightweight, faster and not-so-expensive (if bought used) alternatives are available. Unless when one is a professional who shoots really fast changing scenes and needs many different focal length settings, I tend to recommend primes.

Personally I'd like a super sharp 50 f2 to compete with the Leicas and Zeiss lenses. Give it nice bokeh as well. But I dont ever expect to see a lens like this.

I'm happy with my 50 1.4 also. Mine is quite sharp wide open and razor sharp by 2.8. Even if I could afford a 35 1.4L, I'd still keep the 50.

Scott Pickering "25 ASA" , Apr 02, 2007; 11:45 p.m.

 

Personally I'd like a super sharp 50 f2 to compete with the Leicas and Zeiss lenses. Give it nice bokeh as well. But I dont ever expect to see a lens like this.

 

Are you ready to pay $4000 for this 50 f1.4 USM AF lens? Leica lenses are manual focus and it already cost almost $3k. Maybe the number of customers will buy this lens is not enough so they don't manufacture this lens.

"It would be fair if canon publish the end point to end point (closest to infinity)AF speed so

buyers can set expectation."

 

In low light the end to end AF speed is considerably slower than it is in bright light.

"Canon will not sell you one [50mm f/1.4-1.6 w/true ring USM] at this price [$400];-) R&D, marketing, manufacturing cost could be way more than that. I wish I pay $1000 for my new 5D too. keep dreaming."

 

The current EF 50mm f/1.4 is available new at B&H for $310 (US warranty). Canon's 24-85mm zoom -- which features ring USM -- goes for exactly the same price. The excellent EF 85/1.8 -- another ring USM lens -- is only $340. Do you really think Canon couldn't produce a 50/1.4-1.6 with true ring USM and make a profit selling it for $400?

 

With all due respect, your desire to buy a 5D for $1000 has no bearing on my post whatsoever. GAL.

Jon Austin, Apr 03, 2007; 02:53 p.m.

 

Response to Anson Ko

"Canon will not sell you one [50mm f/1.4-1.6 w/true ring USM] at this price [$400];-) R&D, marketing, manufacturing cost could be way more than that. I wish I pay $1000 for my new 5D too. keep dreaming."

 

The current EF 50mm f/1.4 is available new at B&H for $310 (US warranty). Canon's 24-85mm zoom -- which features ring USM -- goes for exactly the same price. The excellent EF 85/1.8 -- another ring USM lens -- is only $340. Do you really think Canon couldn't produce a 50/1.4-1.6 with true ring USM and make a profit selling it for $400?

 

If your statement is true, Canon would have been selling 50 1.4 with true ring USM. My take is, they designed this lens years ago and possibly ring USM is too expensive at that time. The cost to redesign this lens is too much and they cannot sell at $310 anymore. Also, canon has the 50 1.2, ring USM. Is there enough sales for the 50 1.4 ring USM? The price will be significant higher than $310 for sure and both 1.2 and 1.4 is competing with each other? too many doubts here.

You must have been one of the same guys who kept telling me that Canon would "never" produce a mid-range f/4L zoom or a 70-200/4L IS.

Jon Austin, Apr 04, 2007; 10:30 a.m.

 

Response to Anson Ko

You must have been one of the same guys who kept telling me that Canon would "never" produce a mid-range f/4L zoom or a 70-200/4L IS.

 

 

Not really.