50 mm prime lens

<p>i am looking for a 50mm prime lens for my canon 5d mark II. the reviews of the canon lenses are less than stellar. any other brands recommended?</p>

<p>The Canon 50 1.4 is a very good lens and is not going to be your limiting factor. If you want exotic, high end, and inexpensive the Contax C/Y 50 1.7 is amazing, but requires an adapter and is manual focus and stop-down metered.</p>

<p>No, not unless you want to use manual focus. Then you have a wide choice from old Nikons to overpriced Zeiss.</p>

<p>In actual use, there's nothing much wrong with the Canon lenses. Maybe they don't bench test as well as some others might , but actually having AF and full compatibility more than makes up for any technical shortcomings (most of which most users will never actually notice).</p>

<p><br />The 50/1.4 is actually very good. It's only weak point is a focusing mechanism that's less robust than it could be. Otherwise it's an excellent lens.</p>

<p>Howard,</p>

<p>I use the Canon 50mm f1.4. It is a very, very good, even excellent lens. The auto focus is a little bit more delicate than other Canon lenses so one shouldn't put any pressure on the front of the lens barrel.</p>

<p>I think you only have really one choice of an Auto-Focus non-Canon lens and it's more expensive (Sigma f1.4). There's also the Ziess 50mm manual focus lens for Canon and it's really expensive.</p>

<p>My Canon 50mm lens is my most used lens :)</p>

<p>Howard, I have used the 50 1.2 for nearly 4 years. It was a tough learning curve with the shallow DOF but it's my most used lens. I was a zoom guy up unitil I got the 50 but the shots I have got from this lens have been truly amazing.<br>

The back-focusing issues have been the cause of much discussion and you will miss the odd shot in a specific distance-to-subject and F stop mode but I personally don't find it a problem.<br>

The build, fast AF, bokeh and colours are amazing. It's very usable at 1.2 and very sharp at F2 and up. I am sure the 1.4 will do the job too but I would never part with this lens, unless they did a MkII with IS.......</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the reviews of the canon lenses are less than stellar.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 is a classic lens, and one that deserves consideration. Even the old EF 50mm f/1.8 is decent, even on a 5D, although better on the smaller sensor.<br>

However, the EF 50mm F/1.2, like all of its extreme aperture relatives made anywhere by anybody, is a lens designed to be used fully open in dark places. That said, it performs rather surprisingly well when stopped down to smaller apertures. It's like the talking dog; no one asks if it is a good orator.</p>

<p>Rather than go for one of the overpriced manual lenses now on the market, I'd strongly recommend the Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f/2 (see how it compares even to current lenses at http://keppler.popphoto.com/blog/2007/04/inside_straight.html ).The Soviet copies of this lens, the various Helios-44 58mm f/2 versions, combine the design with more modern coatings, and are easily available in pre-set versions on later, less automatic Zenit cameras. Do not make the mistake of pooh-poohing these lenses -- when Soviet engineering needed and wanted to make something good, they could.</p>

<p>There are many other classic ~50mm lenses that can be adapted for stop-down, MF, shooting on almost any Canon EOS (or FD, for that matter) with inexpensive adapters. I regularly use my Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 and, in more light, my other old Nikkor classics on my Canon bodies.</p>

<p>The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a great lens. Some of the criticisms it gets come from people who just don't understand how to focus at extremely wide apertures. Depth of field at f/1.4 is extremely shallow; you can't afford to "focus and recompose" because turning the camera even a little bit will shift the plane of focus away from the thing you just focused on.</p>

<p>The ultra-cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 is quite decent optically, capable of very sharp pictures from f/2.8 on. Unofortunately it has problems with obtaining accurate focus in low light, and its non-USM focus motor makes an audible buzzing noise that bothers some people. It also turns out of focus highlights into distracting pentagons due to its five-bladed aperture. The f/1.4 lens has eight blades, which makes for more pleasant out of focus backgrounds.</p>

<p>Probably one of the most discussed topics on lenses. Which 50mm is best? I always say it's the one you have on your camera and for me that just happens to be the Sigma 50 f1.4. For others it might be a manual focus Zeiss or nikon ai (which I have both the 55 f3.5 macro and 50 f1.8 but manual focusing is a pain wide open) and for others its a Canon Nifty 50, 50 1.4 or the 50 L 1.2. I've even seen a 50 L F1.0 recently but the performance was less than desirable for the price $3900. <br>

Just grab one of the above and if you don't like it sell it and get another. Keep going until you are either broke or happy or both.</p>

<p>Do not forget the Canon 50 mm f2.8 macro. It is small, light, less expensive than all but the EF 50 mm f1.8, and is optically excellent. It does not have ultrasonic focusing, so the focusing is a little bit noisy, but not terrible. The focus mechanism might actually be more reliable than that of the f1.4 model. The focus speed and accuracy on the f2.8 is very good on my 5D mark I. The lens does not have the fastest aperture, but it does offer macro capability. I also agree that the EF 50 mm f1.4 is a very good lens. However, even though the EF lens has a similar design to the older FD 50 mm f.14 lens, I have found that the FD version for some reason results in more pleasing photos. I think that it is a little more sharp and has a better color balance and contrast. I once shot some film on my Canon FD 50 mm f1.4 and compared it to film shot of the same subjects with a Contax and the Zeiss 50 mm f1.7 with T* coating. My observation was that the Canon FD was every bit as good as the Zeiss. It's too bad that the Canon FD can't work well on the EOS mount cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Keep going until you are either broke or happy or both.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think for most people, that means broke. :)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do not forget the Canon 50 mm f2.8 macro.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 (not 2.8) Compact Macro. I know some people who really, really like that lens. I haven't used it, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Canon 50 1.4 is a very good lens and is not going to be your limiting factor</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I use the Canon 50mm f1.4. It is a very, very good, even excellent lens</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a great lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Geesh, what a lovefest.</p>

<p>I've got a Canon 50mm f1.4. It's the lesser of 3 evils, imho. Clunky focus, rough feel when turning the barrel. Overpriced for what you get.</p>

<p>Get's it done, that's about it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Get's it done, that's about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That isn't enough? Are you trying to optimize the photographs or the photo-taking experience? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the correction, Craig. The aperture of the EF 50 mm macro is f2.5, one-third faster than f2.8. My bad.<br /> Another consideration is that the newer version of the EF 50 mm macro lens has one more diaphragm blade (6 blades) than the earlier version (5 blades). According to Ken Rockwell, who has a review of the lens, the newer version is a better choice than the earlier version, which dates back to 1987. I understand that Ken Rockwell is a somewhat controversial personality, but the review is worth reading if someone is shopping for the lens.</p>

<p>I use a 50 1.0 on my 1DS MK II, and think its just wonderful, fast focus, lots of contrast.</p>

<p>I don't know what non stellar reviews the OP refers to, but in reviews with side by side images (like The-Digital-Picture) the 50mm f1.4 is superior to most everything at apertures above 2.8: better than Zeiss, better than Nikon, better than its own Canon siblings. Below 2.8, it is, like most classic fast fifties, not so great. To do better you have to have an aspherical lens, like the Sigma 50mm f1.4 or Canon's own f1.2L mentioned above; and even they cannot outmatch the f1.4 at f4 and above.<br>

The only lens I know which really equals the 50mm f1.4 is the 50mm f2.5 Compact Macro mentioned by Robert. It has a rather klutzy micromotor, but gives more photo goodness than any lens I own. Go from a half life size portrait of a bug, to a people picture, to a landscape with one aptly named compact lens, and get great IQ in every shot.</p>

<p>Also the EF <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50mm</strong></a> f/1.4 is my most used lens, I've never been 100% satisfied with it. In my personal opinion the f/1.4 primes from other manufacturers like Pentax, Nikon are a little bit better. The FTM/USM of Canon is nice, but optically the lens is often disappointing below f/2. The f/1.2L is probably better in this regard, but what from what I heard, the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is too, at a much lower price. I will probably switch to the Sigma in the near future and see how it compares. So if I were you, I would check out both lenses and see which one you like best.</p>

<p>50/1.4 is awesome for the price. Just get it.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/5028055</p>

<p>I have owned both canon 1.4, 1.8 mk1 & mk2 and currently the sigma 1.4. I would say that the canon 1.4 and sigma are so different that they really can't be compared - the latter being optimized for wide open, while the canon 1.4 is close to unusable wide open. BUT the canon is STELLAR at small apertures - especially around 8, the contrast and color saturation is better than any other lens i have been using (the picture example is shot with velvia, but still...). So is there one 50mm to cover all needs? Not really, my solution was to use the sigma for wide open shots and bought the canon 35mm 1.4 for stopped down landscape/street photography.</p>

<p>Hi Howard,</p>

<p>I guess it depends on the use you are going to make of the lens and your budget as the faster lenses are significantly more expensive (although the f1.4 is not very expensive in absolute terms). If you plan on using it stopped down the differences are not so great (at least according the reviews I saw), so maybe a 50 1.8 will suffice. On the other hand if you <em>need</em> f1.4 or f1.2 go for the faster lenses. Some people report inaccurate focusing at f1.4 (the tiny DOF means a slight error is easy to see) so make sure the lens +body you have are ok together. For my uses I find the 50 1.8 more than adequate in terms of shutter speed attainable at f1.8. I'll be developing my first rolls with this lens this evening, I'll post some samples for you if I can tonight.</p>

<p>Fred</p>

<p>Howard, can you get your hands on the contenders (Canon 50/1.4, 50/2.5 macro, 50/1.8 even? 50L, Sigma 50/1.4) and test them for yourself? I don't necessarily mean you run endless hours of bench tests, but use them in your intended real-life shooting environments.</p>

<p>Reviews are good, but nothing really beats hands-on experience. It may end up giving you a more subjective verdict which isn't a bad thing. After all, it is <em>you </em>who knows best how <em>you </em>like your photos :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another consideration is that the newer version of the EF 50 mm macro lens has one more diaphragm blade (6 blades) than the earlier version (5 blades). According to Ken Rockwell, who has a review of the lens, the newer version is a better choice than the earlier version, which dates back to 1987.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If there ever was such a change, it must have been made long ago, because my 50/2.5, date code UE0101 (January 1990) has six diaphragm blades.</p>

<p>The limitations of the 50/2.5 as a general-purpose 50mm lens are slow noisy AF, lack of range limiter (so it readily racks over the whole focus range, which takes for ever), and that it is treated as a slower-than-f/2.8 lens by the AF system and so does not activate high-precision AF on the majority of bodies, the exceptions being 1D-series bodies and the -1V and -3 film bodies, and then only at the central AF point. It is clearly designed to be used stopped down, and produces an excellent performance from f/5.6 to the relevant diffraction limit, with very low aberrations. In particular, and unlike Canon's conventional 50mm lenses, it has negligible distortion, and so makes an excellent copying lens.</p>

<p>When I want a 50mm prime lens for general use I reach (carefully) for my 50/1.4, which is a decent lens from f/2.8. I suspect that a lot of the complaints about AF performance with this lens relate to lenses that are in the very early stages of AF failure; since mine has been repaired for that fault, AF has been fast and accurate.</p>

I'll bite (and answer the original question) and give my opinion.

 

I have a 50/1.8 and a 50/1.4, both Canon.

 

I use them on an older rebel, a recent x0D and a recent 5D.

 

I like them both but love neither. I tend to shoot the 1.8 mostly on the rebel.

The 1.4 has been fixed once (it always got stuck using AF near the MFD) performs as it should but I'm always afraid that I'll break it and I'm never wowed by the results. [my other lenses do impress me every now and then]

 

If I had unlimited funds I'd probably get both a 1.2L and a Zeiss 50/2 Macro Planar. The 1.2 to shoot wide open and

the Zeiss for general purpose artsy pictures. From what I've seen the Zeiss is the best 50. However, it's heavy, "only"

f2, manual focus and pretty costly.

 

Having never used that Zeiss (though I liked shooting a Zeiss 21/2.8) however I'm unsure whether it will really end my

search for a great 50.

 

Until then the 50's I have will have to do and they do fine.

 

Matthijs.

<p>I bought a Sigma 50mm F1.4 last week for my 5D Mkii (and Mki). Spent a few hours micro-adjusting the focus and ended up with a setting of +4. Wide open it is amazing and so much better than my other 50mm, the Canon F1.8.<br>

I need to take it out and give it a thorough working over when I get a chance, but based on indoor test shots I am extremely satisfied.</p>

 

>>> I've got a Canon 50mm f1.4. It's the lesser of 3 evils, imho. Clunky focus, rough feel when turning

the barrel.

 

Yeah, same experience here. Except mine is permanently broken now, rather than not working once in

awhile - usually when I need it the most.

 

Debating whether I dislike the lens enough to not get it fixed, rather than deal with the poor AF again.

Every other lens I have runs circles around that with respect to AF.

 

Optically it's fine, meets expectations.

<p>The love/hate and frustration photographers feel for the 50mm f1.4 is remarkable. I think this is because of the two-faced performance of this lens and all the other modified Planar designs: great at f5.6, not-great at wide apertures. I bought an FL 50mm f1.4 II in 1968. To judge by the block diagrams, the optical design remained essentially unchanged through the FD era, and in the present EF lens. In my experience, so did the optical performance. The same Planar design is also used by everybody else for their 50/1.4's (with the exception of the aspherical Sigma.) You cannot really expect to overcome the limitations of the design by changing the label on the outside. And in fact reviews that show numerical values for resolution or comparison images almost always show the Canon as slightly superior.</p>

<p>Unless you have a bad sample, you can't really beat a planar with another planar. You have to go aspherical, for better center performance at wide apertures, or get a macro. The Zeiss Makro Planar seems like a heck of a lens, perhaps the only one with a clear advantage over the Canon and other OEM lens/camera makers.</p>