5D MKII AF with 50 f/1.4 USM

<p>Hello,<br /> I recently purchased a 50 f/1.4 to do some landscape and architecture work with 5DMKII. Having shot about a thousand frames with this lens I have found many times that the AF fails to lock correctly in very simple and obvious scenarios (good light, plenty of contrast, no back light etc). Especially the peripheral points refuse to focus correctly and the image is very soft. I can post some examples later but here is one case, in the photo below I was using the right AF point to focus on the tower and just found out that photo was OOF. I tried defocusing the lens and moving the focus point around and took about 25 shots, most of which or totally soft. I finally gave up and used manual focus and got everything sharp as you can see here:</p>

<p><img src="http://ari1982.smugmug.com/Architecture/Wideangle/hoover/734902618_emNXP-M.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

<p>I had similar results in different situations today as well. In the past I had used MKII with 70-200 f/4 IS and 24-70 L and I did not notice this issue but I hadn't extensively used the peripheral points either. I have done the AF test with close 45 degree target and there is no systematic front or back focus that would require MA.</p>

<p>Any thoughts would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Can you post one of the out-of-focus shots? What aperture were you using?</p>

<p>I will later tonight, Apertures used where f/8 in most cases and occasional f/5.6 and f/2.8. The above series were all f/8. </p>

<p>Did you check the micro adjustment. Try setting back at zero for default, retest and adjust as necessary. If that does not work then on to canon service center it goes.</p>

<p>I owned the EF 50 1.4 USM for 5 or 6 years and used it on my Elan 7E, A2, 10D, 20D and 5D cameras. It didn't focus dependably on any of them, and was especially poor in low light, the very situation I bought it for. It worked best with the center AF point but even that was a crapshoot at twilight and in building interiors. My slow zooms--e.g., EF 24-85 USM--could AF circles around the 50 1.4 in both poor and good light. I didn't use the 50 1.4 on my 5DII but I assume it's nearly as crappy since the AF system is only slightly better than the 5D.</p>

<p>Adjusting microfocus won't help for random AF misses. Canon Service was never able to improve AF on my copy. Crappy AF is a feature of the EF 50 1.4 USM design and not a defect. Nevertheless I got the best results by sticking to the center AF point and being careful to lock on points of contrast. And I always took several shots and refocused to make sure I'd get at least one good image.</p>

<p>I've been using an EF 50 1.2L USM on my 5DII as a walk-around and AF is significantly better: faster, more surefooted and more dependable. Still it is not as good as my ring-USM zooms (17-40 L, 24-105 L & 70-200 L) but I can depend on it most of the time, even in low light. In fact I've had good results using the off-center AF points in all but the dimmest situations. I suspect the ultra defocused image circle of these large aperture optics are much more demanding of AF than slower and wider optics (increased DOF easier to AF due to more contrast?).</p>

<p>Canon should redesign the EF 50 1.4 USM with better wide open performance and beefy ring-type USM AF.</p>

<p>Thanks Puppy, <br>

I also never had any luck with Canon actually improving or fixing the AF of my bodies or lenses. I should mention that my primary subject is birds in flight and I shoot with a variety of super telephoto lenses (you can see my gallery <a href="http://ari1982.smugmug.com/Animals/raptor/Avian/10191557_hsE3k/1/701901128_TEKkR">here</a>) so the fact that I was having trouble with stationary subjects and in good light had me worried that there is a problem with the new camera body, I am just surprised how poor the AF performance is with this lens in some conditions, what you say makes sense.<br>

I actually thought about getting the 50 f/1.2L but most of the online reviews complain about its softness relative the cheaper 50s. Are you happy with your copy's optical performance? Another option is to give up 50mm and just use 70mm or even 100mm when possible. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>My 50 1.2L is much better at F5.6 and faster than either my 50 1.4 USM and the two 50 1.8 I've owned. However my EF 50 2.5 CM is better than all of them all in terms of across the frame sharpness from F2.5 onwards. However I bought the 50 1.2L for low light and creamy bokeh so I mainly use it from F1.2 to 2.8. I didn't buy it to stop down to F16 for landscapes. There are better lenses for that. But it does whip the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 silly at F1.4 and 1.8 respectively.</p>

<p>I haven't noticed any problems with the focus shift at F2.8/1 meter many posters love to complain about. Perhaps my 5D and 5DII misfocus just enough to make up for the shift, or the shift is so small it doesn't matter.</p>

<p>My 50 1.2L review:</p>

<p>http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef50_1.2usm.htm</p>

<p>My 5D has poor AF performance in some conditions even with the 24-105 f4L when using off-center focus points.<br>

Last week at the beach I was shooting in bright light and trying focus on ripples on the sand and water, which seemd contrasty enough for me, but getting focus lock was a crapshoot. In the end I had to switch to MF.</p>

 

<p>Here are the samples</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Another one</p><div></div>

<p>After two dozen OOF shots the subjects left the bench so I decided to see if I could get the empty bench!</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>No luck with this one either</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>In each of the above cases I have taken at least 6 or 7 photos and they are all soft... I am going to try the 50 on my 7D and a few more lenses on MKII. </p>

<p>Here is the tower example</p>

<div></div>

<p>My 30D with its simpler focusing system does this often with varying focal lengths. I happily manual focus for critical compositions most of the time anyway. Makes you wonder about all that "new technology". A pro friend of mine used a 5DMKII for about a week and sold it due to focus problems...said he preferred the 5D instead.</p>

<p>Peter wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I owned the EF 50 1.4 USM for 5 or 6 years and used it on my Elan 7E, A2, 10D, 20D and 5D cameras. It didn't focus dependably on any of them, and was especially poor in low light, the very situation I bought it for.</p>

<p>Adjusting microfocus won't help for random AF misses. Canon Service was never able to improve AF on my copy. Crappy AF is a feature of the EF 50 1.4 USM design and not a defect.</p>

<p>Nevertheless I got the best results by <strong>sticking to the center AF point </strong> and being careful to <strong>lock on points of contrast. </strong> And I always<strong> took several shots and refocused to make sure I'd get at least one good image.</strong></p>

<p>Canon should redesign the EF 50 1.4 USM with better wide open performance and beefy ring-type USM AF.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ALL of these statements mirror exactly my own experience with the EF 50 1.4. I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't try.</p>

<p>Arash wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I actually thought about getting the 50 f/1.2L but most of the online reviews complain about its softness relative the cheaper 50s. Are you happy with your copy's optical performance? Another option is to give up 50mm and just use 70mm or even 100mm when possible.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't afford the 50 1.2 that Peter bought, but I recently bought the Sigma 50 1.4 (from Amazon, so I could easily return or exchange it if it was one of those notorious "bad copies") and found it to be excellent in every respect (well, it's big but I can deal with that if it performs well, which it does).</p>

<p>The Sigma 50 1.4 is my only non-Canon SLR lens, out of perhaps 25 lenses total (numerous L's).</p>

<p>My Canon 50 1.4 is now permanently in a drawer. The only way I could in good conscience sell it to another photographer would be to list it as a manual lens that works fine when manually focused using zoomed Live View.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a 50 f1.4 but not a 5D MkII so it might not be relevant. My experience with my copy is perfect though, I recently did tests of it at 1.4 and it has no focus shifting or errors or inconsistencies, it does this with all the focus points I tested it on including the outer ones. I never noticed it as being bad on my older bodies either. Whilst I have wanted to upgrade to the 50 f1.2, mainly because I had an older FD one, from the performance of my 1.4 I just can't justify it.</p>

<p>Whilst it might have struggled for contrast in Arash's first posted picture it would definitely have nailed all the others, the bench in particular (with or without people) would have been easy.</p>

<p>I did have some focus inconsistencies with a couple of my lenses until I spent a few hours doing AF Microadjustment, please note they were not consistent front or back focusing errors just intermittent misses, after going through this method of adjustment http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html my already good AF has become superb. It is free so worth a try, it is also the most accurate way that I have found to dial in very small adjustments and to see the changes tiny focus movements have.</p>

<p>I would say give it a go before getting too down on the performance of the 5D MkII and 50 f1.4 AF combination.</p>

 

<p>Mine works fine, but I rarely, if ever, use anything other than the central AF point. Once you get off center then it is less reliable. Focus and recompose is the rule for me. It is a non-issue for me, but it might be for some people.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would say give [microadjustment] a go before getting too down on the performance of the 5D MkII and 50 f1.4 AF combination.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That can't hurt, but as Peter and I suggested from our frustrations with this lens on numerous different bodies, the problem is likely with the lens itself, not with the 5D2 (which Arash said focuses fine with his other lenses).</p>

<p>My EF 50/1.4 does not focus well on my 1Ds2 or on my 5D2.</p>

<p>I have AF problems with mine as well - on a 40D and an EOS3. It not only misses focus...it hunts where it ought not to do so.</p>

<p>There really isn't much choice in 50/1.4 AF lenses for EOS...</p>

<p>It is a "standard" lens with a decades-old design...you would think Canon would have overcome the quirks by now.</p>

<p>I considered selling mine and buying the Sigma...but...there are reports of inconsistent AF on that lens as well:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

<p>If I could afford the 1.2 (or if I was a working photog that needed that capability) I might give it a try...</p>

<p>Honestly, as far as AF goes, I prefer my EF 35/2. It is, an even older, micro motor...but it has very good and consistent AF. Maybe Canon should have binned the idea of that flakey micro motor/USM idea.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>Yep, the EF 35 2.0 does have much better AF. It's a keeper. Actually the EF 35 2.0 does not use a micro motor. It is an even older AFD design of mid-1980s vintage. Oddly AF in the EF 50 1.8 (MK I) is about as flakey as the EF 50 1.4 USM, and yet it has a similar AF design to the EF 35 2.0. Probably the increased DOF of the 35 2.0 gives the AF system more contrast to lock onto.</p>

<p>My mistake (about the AFD)...</p>

<p>I bought a 50/1.8 MkII new for my son...the out of focus background highlights are Harsh...and...it "spontaneously disassembled" during autofocus. This lens had Very Little use before it failed.</p>

<p>Upon careful inspection, I discovered that a small plastic "tab" on the inside of the lens, which is, apparently, responsible for keeping the lens assy in the barrel, had broken. So, turns out the EF 50/1.8 wasn't such a bargain afterall. In spite of all the positive reviews for this lens, in my opinion it is Definitely Not an option for someone who needs a fast 50...and probably not a bargain a the $100 price point.</p>

<p>As I mentioned earlier, there are not a lot of sub-$ 1000, "fast 50", AF lens options for Canon EF mount.</p>

<p>I can honestly say that if these two 50mm lenses (the 1.4 & 1.8) had been my first two Canon lens purchases, I would have fled to another brand. Thankfully, I have had much better luck with all my other Canon gear.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

<p>I know this is juvenile so please don't shoot me but are you focusing multiple times or just once? I have found that by moving AF off the shutter on onto the AF button and focusing multiple times that I get far better results. Typically it takes three presses to get consistent focus. I always use just the centre AF point. My technique is to place the focus point over the area I wish to focus on and then press the AF button once. Typically the AF point flashes red and the AF beep goes off the first time to confirm focus. But then I press the AF button again while the AF point is still over the area I wish to focus on. I can typically feel (and sometimes hear and see) if the lens moves again, if it does I press it a third time. I get AF confirmation each time but I find that the number of keepers is much much higher with multiple AF attempts. It sounds worse than it is because you can press the AF button quite quickly in succession (quarter to half a second or less between presses). Then for followup shots at similar distance I don't do any refocusing so it stays where it was. Of course this only really works for landscape shots where the subject isn't moving around.</p>

<p>Thanks guys for the comments, looks like this is a common issue with this lens, I have also performed AF test, at close range all AF points seem to work fine on a contrasty targets so I can't find and dial a micro-adjust value.<br>

I will go to the store today and try the Sigma. If not I will just get a 100 macro or use my 70-200 for these conditions.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't have the 50 f1.4 but I have had trouble getting accurate focus with the 5D2's peripheral focus points using almost any lens. I've had problems with the 24-105, 50 f1.8 and also the 200 f2.8. I am more inclined to think this is a camera issue rather than a lens problem.</p>

<p>Having said that, my previous camera was the 350D and it was no better when using it's peripheral focus points. I'm sticking to the central point only from now on.</p>