50mm f/1.4 USM

<p>I am thinking of purchasing the 50mm 1.4, the price is around 300. i dont think i can argue with that. Especially since the "L" series is over a grand. does anyone have any experience with this lens? any and all input would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>A lot of people have used this lens and a lot love it. Some not so much.<br>

It's not the nice ring USM -- but some older variety of USM Canon engineered into it.</p>

<p>Do you know if the reason they don't like it is because of the USM? Or does it lack sharpness or something of that sort?</p>

<p>It's sharp enough: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=978598">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=978598</a> at F/1.4 the DoF can be slim and some mistake that for not sharp. When I bought the 50/1.4, the F/1.2L, was not released. I am not in a rush to purchase it now, as I have other priorities - though from the results I have seen, it is a very nice lens</p>

<p>I bought the F/1.4 (rather than the EF50/1.8MkII because):<br />> it is F/1.4 and I use F/1.4 and F/1.6<br />> it has MTMF (full time manual focusing)<br />> It has eight aperture blades, (not 5)<br />> Eight aperture blades is an even number and I shoot into lights at night<br />> It is heavier and larger than the F/1.8 lens, so better balanced in my hand.</p>

<p>As far as I can ascertain, most of the distaste for the 50/1.4 has to do with a small cam which can malfunction or break. Touch wood, my 50/1.4 works fine. In some cases of malfunction the operator has admitted the lens has sustained a blow, typically head on. It seems to me the cam does not "wear out" but malfunction is a result of damage - but I don't know for sure. The cam can be fixed. </p>

<p>The 50/1.8MkII is a less expensive option and should also be considered.</p>

<p>There are many old threads, discussing these three lenses: do a search.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>...and take a look here (the DxO people)<br>

<a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-Which-50mm-lens-for-my-camera">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-publications/DxOMark-reviews/DxOMark-review-Which-50mm-lens-for-my-camera</a></p>

 

It's a wonderful lens. At f/1.4, contrast is a little low, but by f/2 it is very snappy and still DoF is shallow enough, especially on full

frame cameras. From f/2.8-f/4, image quality is superb. I have several L lens primes, and hanker for more, but have never felt

compelled to upgrade this one.

I never really liked mine. AF was always a little wonky, though optically it was fine. About a year ago it

started sticking on one end of focus and needed a manual assist to get by that. I put it on my cam a

month ago and it seems AF doesn't work at all now.

 

Night and day difference on AF compared to my 35 f/1.4...

<p>Andy, get the lens. It's a fine optic. You'll be happy...and you'll be safe in the knowledge that you can spend the rest of your life trying to scratch the surface of the potential of this excellent lens. </p>

<p>It's on my list since I got and shot with its FD predecessor, which is a super lens. However, I am satisfied in the meantime with my good old plastic fantastic. ;)</p>

<p>Unfortunately, Photozone.de does not have a test of this on the 35mm sensor, only on the APS-C. I always trust their reviews and like the technical specificity there. On the APS-C the review said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If I had to list a few negative points it would be vignetting and low contrast at f/1.4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Presumably the first would be worse on 35mm image size, and the latter much the same. They still really liked the lens, however.</p>

<p>Yes Andy, I would get this lens, I love it from f/2 on, and I shoot with F/F and APS-C the Bokeh is just beautiful for only $300, you can't go to wrong.  <a href="http://www.digitalrev.com/en/battle-of-the-fast-50mms-canon-f1-dot-8-vs-f1-dot-4-vs-f1-dot-2-7230-article.html">http://www.digitalrev.com/en/battle-of-the-fast-50mms-canon-f1-dot-8-vs-f1-dot-4-vs-f1-dot-2-7230-article.html</a></p>

<p>I was not a big fan of the EF 50 1.4 USM: very soft from F1.4 to 2.8; poor focus in low light and terrible barrel distortion at 5 or 6 feet. My cheap zooms focused better in low light.</p>

<p>My copy is very good. Good enough that when I had the 50 1.2L and compared the two I decided that the price difference wasn't worth keeping the L series version. I sold the 50L and still have my 50 f/1.4. It's not perfect, a little low contrast wide open with decent sharpness, but overall a great lens.</p>

<p>I have had a 50 1.4 for a few years and it has always given me sharp photos. :) I have no personal experience with it but the f/1.8 version is said to be almost as sharp and is a lot cheaper. I went for the 1.4 due to the better build quality though.</p>

<p>It is a good buy unless you want to shoot at F1.4. Mine is soft at F1.4 and lacks contrast but is excellent by F2. For the price it is a good buy (although not as good as the 85 F1.8) and i suggest you buy the lens hood as well.</p>

<p>It is rather soft ("glowy"/"dreamy") below f/2 with noticeable vignetting. Build quality is okay, but the focus ring should always be carefully handled. Image quality is good, but I feel like other 50mm f/1.4 lenses (Pentax, Nikon...) I had were better. If I would be in the market today, I'd probably check out the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 lens which is a lot sturdier, but also larger and heavier (and more expensive).</p>

<p>That said, it is <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>the one lens</strong></a> I use the most and it has served for many tens of thousand pictures. I need the FTM (and occasionally the f/1.4) so the slower 50mm lenses are not an option for me. I always use the lens hood.</p>

<p>The price of the f/1.2L is indeed a joke, at the very least Canon should have added IS for that amount of money.</p>

<p>When I first got an EOS body, I had the "Nifty Fifty f/1.8," but the build quality drove me nuts coming from many years of Canons FD lineup!<br>

I replaced the EF 50 f/1.8 with a used EF 50 f/1.4 in a short time. Mine produces sharp images but I usually shoot at f/2 or just above. The image differences between the two are noticible, but it's not a "night & day" difference.<br>

I went for the f/1.4 primarily for the better build quality, and the Full Time Manual Focus.</p>

<p>I too would suggest you buy and use the lens hood as well! You can buy the Canon ES-71 II for under $30. or a "knock off" for about half the cost.</p>

<p>Andy, you've had broadly consistent responses on the 50/1.4, and as a long-time owner of this lens, having used it on film, on 1.6-factor digital, and on FF digital, my views on it are pretty much in line with the consensus. I have been through the need to have mine repaired because the AF mechanism failed. Although the design of the AF mechanism, which is unique to this lens, is feeble, when it is working properly it is fast, quiet, and accurate in my experience, and I susupect that some of those who have criticised AF performance may have lenses that are in the early stages of failing. One consequence of the AF design is that this lens does not report focused distance back to the camera, so if you want to get best results from the aberration correction capabilities of DPP. you may need to adjust the distance slider manually (don't overdo it; until you are pretty close it needs very little movement from the default infinity position). If you set distortion correctio to 100% and move the distance slider, you can see noticeable change in the image geometry, confirming the comment made by Puppy Face about distortion in close up. This is <strong>not</strong> a copying lens!</p>

<p>Be very careful with the ES-71 hood, which is of the generation of Canon hoods that very easily seize up on the bayonet mount. Take the hood on and off without squeezing it at the front, and <strong>very</strong> carefully lubricate the bayonet from time to time with dry PTFE lubricant (that's <strong>dry</strong> PTFE lubricant available from all good cycle shops – it shakes up to a gooey liquid that you paint on in minute quantities, and the liquid evaporates quickly to leave a thin layer of PTFE on the surface).</p>

<p>thanks for everyones responses. it was much help.</p>

<p>I'm late to the thread, but...</p>

<p>I highly recommend the Sigma 50 f/1.4. It is heavy, but it's sharp from wide open, has incredible bokeh, and offers much better build quality. It can be a bit touchy in terms of AF, but many people say the same about the Canon version. I think it just takes a little more effort to nail focus with such thin DoF. I tend to use spot AF on my 7D when the Sigma is mounted.</p>

<p>I use the lens and like it quite a bit. Here are some points to consider - and keep in mind that all lenses have strengths and weaknesses, and that any honest evaluation will reflect both, and that you need to consider them in the light of alternatives and your own intended use:</p>

<ul>

<li>In the vast majority of situations it is an excellent performer in optical terms. Stopped down to f/2 or so and at smaller apertures it is plenty "sharp" for any use. In fact, at the smaller apertures it is very, very sharp.</li>

<li>At f/1.4 it is soft. Virtually any lens of this focal length will be somewhat softer at f/1.4, but the softness is a bit greater on this lens. It takes the form of halation and gives a lower contrast image. This issue diminishes quickly as you stop down. The general consensus seems to be that it isn't an issue by f/2, though some report that it isn't by f/1.8 and some thing you need to stop down another 1/3 stop. (I'm in the former camp.)</li>

<li>Despite the softness at f/1.4, the lens is certainly usable wide open in those situations where you need to shoot at f/1.4, and the contrast issue can be dealt with in post if necessary.</li>

<li>Very few, if any, lenses produce geometrically perfect images. This lens shows a bit of barrel distortion, especially at close focus distances. As is the case with most lenses, you'll probably not even notice it in photographs, but in certain images with lines parallel to the frame edges you might. Correction in post is quick and easy, and some software will take care of it automatically.</li>

<li>Some claim that it does not AF very well. My experience is different, and I don't have any AF problems that I can attribute to the lens. (I have a bag full of lenses, and most often AF problems are operator error...)</li>

<li>Many, including me, acknowledge that it does not have "L lens build quality." Well, of course. That is sort of the point. But I don't find build quality to be an issue and I shoot my lenses in relatively demanding circumstances. You will read some stories by people whose lenses have developed AF system problems and so forth, so I'll leave it to you to parse this out. (By the way, "L quality," as wonderful as it is - and I own L lenses, too - is not the only level of quality that is acceptable. There are a number of non-L Canon primes that are quite fine lenses.)</li>

</ul>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I have the 1.4 and 1.2. I planned to sell the 1.4 when I got the L but the 1.4 is a great little lens and mine is sharp wide open, every bit as sharp as my 1.2 wide open but the 1.2 beats it to death with focus accuracy in dim light. Still for a $350 lens its hard to beat, stopped down a bit its macro sharp.</p>

<p>It is a fantastic lens and one of my top favorite. </p>

<p>On a crop sensor, this lens as well as most 35mm lenses, will have diminshed resolution and contrast compared to a full frame over a normal range of apertures. See Dxo test. But nothing to shy away from.</p>

<p>The biggest draw back from this lens is a small percentage of miss focused images (it is far better than the 1.8II).</p>

<p>In the test below I used the best of three shots on the Canon lenses for each aperture and a single shot for the manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>Here<br>

<a href="../film-and-processing-forum/00UIER">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00UIER</a></p>

<p>It a good lens but not a delight to handle. Be careful manually focussing with the AF on is all I can suggest. Personally, I don't "full time manually focus" with it. I switch the AF off if I want to manually focus. It is excellent optically - not so good at f1.4 - but not many 50 f1.4 are that great wide open - you need a Leica Summilux ASPH for that.</p>

<p>i bought this lens a couple of months ago for low light photography and i love it.. it allowed me to make so many shots that i would never even consider attempting before.. a couple of times the autofocus was not accurate.. all in all, i love this lens so much that since i purchased it i almost have to force myself to use another one on my 450 d..</p>