DPReview tests the Canon 50mm f/1.4

As part of their series of test of competing primes with similar specification:

 

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/

I found the review to be rather poor and critical of a great lens, probably my favorite lens in my camera bag. To characterize this lens, or any lens (other than a true L Canon lens) as soft at f/1.4, is absurd. What does the reviewer expect for a non-L lens? I think the reviewer spends too much time testing a lens in a controlled lab environment, and not inthe field.

Why is it absurd to "characterize" the lens as soft at 1.4? It is. How else could he characterize it.

 

The review doesn't seem overly critical of the lens. It is a fairly accurate description of the lens. It misses two salient points about the lens:

 

Its hybrid focus mechanism seems poorly designed and often fails - leaving the lens unable to be manually focused.

 

The lens struggles to focus in low light. The slower 50/1.8 achieves focus lock much more reliably - possibly due to the slower autofocus. As someone who shoots in low light all the time this was a deal breaker.

I use this lens quite a bit, formerly on cropped sensor and currently on full-frame, and I feel that the review is quite accurate

- and in the end positive. This lens is most certainly soft at f/1.4 (though certainly usable there), much better from f/2 on,

and extremely sharp at smaller apertures.

 

It is an excellent lens for may purposes, but it isn't a perfect lens. Haven't met _that_ lens yet... ;-)

Steve,

 

You must have an amazing copy of the Canon EF 50mm F1.4

 

I have tried no less then 6 of the lenses and they all were exactly like the lens fromt the test. Very soft, chromatic abberations, poor contrast and otehr weakness from F1.4 to at least F2 or 2.2 The lens is great beyond F2 or F2.2

The flaws from F1.4 to F2.2 make the Canon 50mm F1.4 of little use to me.

 

The DPreview review is accurate for the Canon 50mm F1.4 lenses I have seen. I gave mine to a friend a bought a Sigma 50mm F1.4. It is fastastic from F1.4 on.

 

Maybe Canon will re-design the 50mm F1.4 someday, since the Sigma is so much better.

Note: My testing of the Canon 50mm F1.4 was on full frame with a 5D.

By the way,Paul G, I do have an amazing copy of the 50mm f/1.4. It is soft wide open at f/1.4, like any other non-L

lens, as most people and camera manufacturers expect them to perform.

 

When I said the dpreview.com writeup is absurd to criticize the softness of this lens at f/1.4, I am referring to the

reviewer's expectation that the lens should ideally sharper at f/1.4. Again, this is not the L version, so what does the

reviewer expect to find at f/1.4? Ever heard the adage "F/8 and be there"? A wide open lens is not going to give you

the best sharpness any more than cranking the aperture down to f/22 or beyond, when the tendencies inherent

with "circles of confusion" emerge. It is somewhere in the mid-point of the aperture range that generally produces

the best image quality. Therefore, I stand by my comment that the dpreview.com summary of this particular Canon

lens unfairly criticizes the sharpness when shot wide open.

I have the 50mm f1.8. I didn't know it was such a great lens until one day I took it to a Museum and that's about one of the only lenses I had that would not raise eyebrows. My only gripe is that the focusing ring is barely visible and the plasticky build does not encourage rough handling. The 1.4 would be a great replacement. It's allway good to have a very fast lens such as a 1.4 in your bag, beleive me.

It's' only an "unfair criticism" if the lens is NOT soft when shot wide open. It is soft, and the criticism is perfectly legitimate.

 

The fact that a lens is or is not an L is utterly irrelevant to a test of how it performs and the conclusions that can be drawn. Just the facts, Ma'm. Just give me the facts.

Mine takes purty pictures; I don't need it to take any tests.

DPReview's opinion is clearly influenced by having tested the new Sigma, which being a modern design, complete with ring HSM clearly does outperform the Canon at wider apertures in many ways, including being much sharper. Sigma's launch statements made clear they optimised for wide open performance, paying a lot of attention to minimising coma and vignetting. The Canon f/1.4 is excellent when stopped down (better than any of the Canon zooms that include 50mm perhaps with the exception of flare performance in my view). I'm already seeing people with room for both these lenses for their differing strengths - although the Sigma provides a wake-up call to Canon that more modern top notch primes may appear.

Don't foget that the Sigma is $500, while the Canon is $325. Given that no Sigma lens is more expessive than the equivalent Canon lens, that would probably point to a revised Canon 50/1.4 with ring USM having a price in the $650 region. That's getting a bit expensive and may be the reason Canon haven't yet updated the 50/1.4. Perhaps they think they can sell more twice as many lenses at $325 as they could if it was updated and cost $650.

 

Describing a lens as "soft" wide open has different meanings to different people. To the sharpness crazed it means the lens is useless. The those concerned with the image, it may not that big a deal. I shoot my 50/1.8 wide open all the time, especially for portrait work. The image quality is excellent. On a resolution test chart I suppose you might call it soft (certainly a touch softer than f5.6), but for my use of the lens, it's not a bad thing and doesn't worry me one bit.

 

There's also "soft" and looking good (as in a "soft focus lens" or a lens with some residual sperical aberration) and "soft" and looking awful (as in a lens that's slightly out of focus" or a lens with severe coma, chromatic aberration and astigmatism). They are not at all the same thing.

"Why is it absurd to "characterize" the lens as soft at 1.4? It is. How else could he characterize it."

 

True, mine was terrible until F2.8. F1.4 images looked like they were taken through the end of a coke bottle.

this lens, like almost all short canons (though released in the 90's), is based on a design that goes

back to the 70's. it probably has much in common with the 50mm lenses used in the 50's or 60's. it

shows. the color is so old-world. i only use it from 1.4 to 2.5. if i shoot at 2.8 on, i use a fast zoom or

another prime like the ef-s 60 -- the images that i get have more punch, are far sharper, and have a

modern color palette.

 

i've gotten shots with the 50 1.4 that i could not have thought of trying to get with another lens. however,

this lens is a specialty optic that only comes out with the light is gone.

 

will be getting sigma short primes and hoping canon revamps its lenses

<i>True, mine was terrible until F2.8. F1.4 images looked like they were taken through the end of a coke bottle.</i><br><br>Unless you enjoy the effect, have you considered sending the lens to Canon for repair? It is obviously broken.... (My apologies for being king of the obvious.)

I noticed they already use 50D for the test.

It is useless to talk about a single lens. As long as there is no better alternative you have to live with what you get. The much more interesting question would be if there is a better alternative.

 

Therefore, I would like to see some comparisons with e.g. the new sigma lens or some other 50mm lenses.

Oops I overlooked that the comparison starts on the next page ....

But even there are no comparison shots of the other lenses ... :-(

They have reviewed the Sigma as well. Here are all the lens tested complete with test shots.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/

I've never shot a 50mm F1.4 on a Canon (have shot the f/1.8 though). Don't remember hearing any complaints about it being soft back in the 90's. I wonder if the lack of sharpness only shows above 6MP (most film).

There is a great review of the different 50mm primes on www.imaging-resource.com that puts most of the available 50's through their paces.

 

I've owned the Canon 50/1.8, the Canon 50/1.4, an old Nikon 50/1.4, and now the Nikon 50/1.8 plastic fantastic. I for some reason am still partial to the color rendition and images that came out of the Canon 50/1.8. I did not resort to any test charts, but they really looked great to me with such accurate saturation and tonality compared to the others I've used.

 

My new Nikon is the second best by a bit and truthfully is probably tied with my old, old Nikon 50/1.4 from well before I was born (I'm 30).

 

I agree with the review of the Canon 50/1.4 but still think it is a great lens, as they all are. Really for most of us we should focus on making great photographs...an amazing image with the Canon 50/1.4 will still be great, even if it is a bit soft wide open.

 

Happy shooting,

 

Jay

"The fact that a lens is or is not an L is utterly irrelevant to a test of how it performs and the conclusions that can be drawn. Just the facts, Ma'm. Just give me the facts."

 

That comment, Larry, would panic the Canon R&D "L" lab, if their engineers felt the majority of Canon lens owners believed what you said. I think one of the advantages of an expensive L lens, as well-marketed by Canon, is the ability to shoot sharper images, especially in the corners, with the aperture wide open.

 

So I'll say it again. Most any consumer priced prime or zoom lens, at its widest aperture setting, is going to be softer than when used at f/8. Even a Leica M or R 50mm will not perform at its optimal capability unless the aperture is set closer to f/8. So how can dpreview.com criticize the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 prime lens for being soft at f/1.4? What did the reviewer expect to find at f/1.4? By their logic, the lens deserves to be praised if it is sharp at f/8. Duh?

You can compare directly the EF 50/1.4 to any lens at any f/stop (sometimes even get to choose the camera used for crops) here<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx<br>Look for the <b>ISO12233 crops</b>

"So how can dpreview.com criticize the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 prime lens for being soft at f/1.4? What did the reviewer expect to find at f/1.4?"

 

Perhaps they expected its performance at f/1.4 to match that of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. That seems to be a reasonable expectation.