Which is the best 50mm?

<p>Hi!</p>

<p>So I am looking to add a lens to my collection that I can do indoor portraits with and I am strongly considering the 50mm's at the 24-70mm isn't in my budget right now. <br>

However, there seem to be 3 50mm lenses: a 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8. What difference does the small change in aperture make, and which one might best fit my needs? </p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, there seem to be 3 50mm lenses: a 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't forget the discontinued f/1.0 and the f/2.5 macro. And Sigma and Zeiss make highly-regarded 50mm primes, too. The apertures are different, but so are build quality, features, handling, weight and obviously cost.</p>

<p>If you cannot afford the zoom, I guess the 1.2L is out of your price range, too. Funds permitting, this would be my first choice, and the Canon and Sigma f/1.4 lenses second. If I hadn't already the Canon I would probably prefer the newer Sigma. The f/1.8 version is also very decent, but lacks full-time manual (FTM) which I want -- so the macro and the manual focus Zeiss are not for me, either.</p>

<p>50/1.8 is optically decent but same can't be said about the build quality and focus motor, it's downright horrible. It's very cheap, of course, and small and light.<br>

Canon and Sigma 50/1.4 are both good. Canon is older design, average size, takes 58mm filter, very sharp at f2.5, extremely sharp at f4-5.6 even in corners.<br>

Sigma is large and heavy and optimized towards f1.4-2, but lacks in the corner sharpness at middle apertures. (If you shoot with aps-c (crop) sensor camera it's not a problem really.)</p>

<p>If you mostly shoot at large apertures I'd strongly consider Sigma.</p>

 

<p>Hi Rebecca</p>

<p>In my case I went with the Contax Planar 50mm F1.7 because I was able to get a new one and at the time I was looking for a durable option because I kept on hearing issues with the Cnon 50mm F1.8 and F1.4 focus motors failing.<br>

<br /> I have had 1.5 year to compare it against my brother Canon 50mm F1.4. The main benefit of the Canon F1.4 lens is it is very accurate at getting a fast sharp focus. If you are shooting people in motion then this is a benefit the F1.4 will have over the F1.8. IMO looking at all Canon 50mm lens you will notice that the quality of photo above F4 is the same. There are some slight bokeh differences but at F2.8 you will see the same quality you see in the Canon EF 24-70.</p>

<p>If you use manual focus to make adjustments on a regular bases then as Bueh mentioned the best option is the F1.4. Keep in mind also that what ever Canon lens you go for you should include getting the lens hood. It is my understanding that the lens hood is good for protecting the lens front from getting bumped. Specifically it is the lens getting bumped which may cause premature failure of the focus motor.</p>

<p>Hopefully this info is helpful.</p>

Rebecca, also do a search on this forum. There have been many many posts on this topic and some very useful information to be gleaned. I think you need to answer the question "How much are you willing to spend?"

<p>I have the Canon f1.4 and am very pleased with it. I know several people with the Canon f1.8 is not horrible as Kari suggests! It feel cheap, but it takes great photos and for $100, it's a great value. You should check out reviews; there are many sites online. </p>

<p>I agree, the Canon 50mm 1.8 aka "nifty fifty" is very good - less than $100!</p>

<p> </p>

The 50 f/1.8 is my standard portrait lens on my 5D2.

<blockquote>

<p>the 24-70mm isn't in my budget right now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Suppose you already have the 24-70 for free. Would you still need to get a 50mm? If the 24-70 can replace the need of 50mm, then the 50mm 1.8 must be good enough and there is no need for the 1.4 or 1.2</p>

 

<p>Mark summed it up well: how much are you willing to spend? I'm very much wanting a 50mm prime as well, and I've concluded that Zeiss has the best one for my needs (and wishes) in the f/2 makro-planar ZE. There's no single 50mm lens that seems to make everyone, or even most people, happy, and there is a great deal of controversy regarding those offered by Canon and Sigma: some people swear by them, others swear at them.</p>

 

 

<p>There simply isn't a better 50mm lens IMO than Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar. Tack sharp at every aperture with superb contrast and color rendition. But it is a manual focus lens so it's not for everybody. If you want to learn more about how "good" Canon 50mm f/1.4 is <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/947102">click here</a>. It's a clear "winner".</p>

<p>Keep it simple: Canon 50/1.4. The 1.8 is very sharp, but the 1.4 slightly outperforms it and gives you nearly an extra stop, and it's built much better. The 1.2 is quite specialized for wide-open operation, which is great if that's how you want to use it. However, if you want to stop down a bit, the f/1.4 is actually just as good. And the Zeiss lenses? Yeah, what's not to like. However, the Canon 1.4 is a fine lens. Any of these lenses will likely outresolve your sensor anyway.</p>

<p>I am very happy with my Chinon 55mm F1.4 that I bought for $5. I strongly believe that I could bargain to lower that price to $4 or $3 but I didn't because I paid more than that for the cap. It's in mint condition and also works very well on my Spotmatic</p>

<p>All 3 choices have pros/cons:</p>

<p>The 1.8 is really cheap, and has best center sharpness. It's cheapness however, brings lots of plastic and dubiously longevity.</p>

<p>The 1.4 is a step-up in build, marginally improved build, less plastic, and slightly softer. Plus a bit faster. Downside: that step-up in build is marginal. I've got one, it's ok, get's it done. But I'm not impressed with the feel of the lens; it feels a little loose and coarse.</p>

<p>The 1.2 is L quality, with all that infers, and again slightly faster. Still, it's the softest of the 3, bulky/heavy, very pricey for a normal focal length prime.</p>

<p>If I were to make a request of Canon, it would be to produce an L version of the 1.4, ie: maintain f1.4 and the size and weight (or at least keep it close), but improve the durability, focus mechanism, fit and finish.</p>

<p>Rebecca, I heartily endorse the EF 50/1.4. Once stopped down a bit, you'd be hard pressed to find a sharper 50mm non-macro prime. And my copy isn't too bad wide open, either.</p>

<p>I have several of the L primes, but not the 50/1.2. From what I have read about it, it's optically inferior to the 50/1.4, and costs almost four times as much. As for the 50/1.8, since the FD days Canon's 50/1.4's have been considered to be optically superior to their 50/1.8's. I know that's been the case with any I've used. </p>

On my rebel I prefer the 1.8. On my 50D the 1.4. On my 5Dii I like neither...

 

Color me funny.

 

Matthijs.

<p>I can't say enough good things about my Canon 50mm f1.4. It focuses perfectly, it is very sharp, it weighs nothing, takes no space in the bag, is fully system compatible (and always will be), it has auto focus, etc etc.</p>

<p>If you wanted a sharp manual focus 50 faster than an f2 then just about every manufacturer ever, made a lens that can come very close to the Zeiss for about $400 less including EOS adapter. If you don't want speed but do want AF then the Canon 50mm f2.5 macro is sharper than most and again $200 odd cheaper than the Zeiss.</p>

<p>Best value for money Canon 50mm f1.8. You get much more than you pay for, but you pay so little.<br>

Best all round choice Canon 50mm f1.4. Superb little lens, very polarising as many hate it, I wouldn't be without one and I have the 24-70 and could buy an f1.2 if I felt the need, I shoot with my f1.4 a lot.<br>

Best specialist lens, ultra narrow DOF only, Canon f1.2. Never needed 1/3 of an f stop enough to carry it.<br>

Best value for money Canon macro, Canon 50mm f2.5 macro. Cheap, very high image quality but only 1:2 so not a true macro. If you don't have FF cameras the EF-S 60mm macro is an absolutely beautiful performer.<br>

Strangest recommendation and least functional whilst costing too much, Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar. Some users love them, to me, and most people that own auto focus cameras, they make no sense. Image quality across the range is variable (even the Zeissophille Ilya sent back both his Canon and Zeiss 50 f1.4's), they are overpriced, you can't switch AF on! Whilst AF is not the be all and end all of cameras, to own an AF camera and then pay a premium for lenses that can't use that functionality seems strange.</p>

<p>All the others, Sigma make a 50 f1.4, again many love it and many hate it, don't know who else makes 50 primes but I have stayed with Canon lenses.</p>

<p>Lots of choice in this segment. Work out your priorities and narrow it down from there. AF, or not, maximum aperture, close focus ability etc etc.</p>

<p>With the budget in mind, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 would be the best choice. It is only 1/3 stop slower than the 50mm f/1.2L. The 1.2L gets soft in the corners and vignettes a little when shot wide open. Some people prefer this look but if you are shooting with a crop sensor, then this probably isn't an issue. The 1.2 gets really sharp from f/2.0 and up. The build quality is much better but it is also much heavier. Since the 50mm 1.2L costs more than the 24-70mm, the 1.2 is probably out of the question.</p>

<p>Anyways, here's a shot taken with a 50mm 1.2L shot wide open using only the candle lights. You should be able to capture shots like this with the 1.4 as well.<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1312/5105354576_28c6be14da_o.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="640" /></p>

<p>The Canon and Sigma 1.4 are both great lenses optically, and there are many around, especially the Canon. As always, the Sigma is perhaps not as mechanically robust (i.e. easily knocked around) as the Canon, so a used Canon 1.4 is also perhaps a good choice. <br /><br />I have used the 1.8 and it would just be a steppingstone to one of the others, so not even a good investment for you, IMHO.<br /><br />You did not mention what body are using, and whether you are using a full frame. Many of us like a 50mm as a portrait lens either way, so again it is a win-win situation, even if you have a form factor now and will be moving up to a full frame body later.</p>

<p>I hear they also give out the 50 1.8 free as cracker jacks toys. :) Still they are sharp.</p>

Rebecca, I went with the  Sigma  50mm f1.4 EX DG. It is built well and at around $480 is as close to a Canon L glass as

you can get for less than a quarter the price. The lens is big, let's in lots of light and can give you very sharp images and

some of the nicest bokeh I have seen. I have taken images that the subject is so detailed and the background bokeh is

incredible the subject just pops out of the photo. I am extremely pleased with the lens.

 

Now my question is will you be using this on a crop sensor camera or full frame? The reason I ask is if a crop sensor

camera this lens will be more like an 80mm lens and you may find walk around portrait shooting, you will be tending to

back up a lot to get your subjects centered and well framed and takes some getting used to. You may want to consider

something around 35mm. Don't get me wrong, an awesome lens but takes a little getting used to with a crop sensor

camera.

 

If you are using it with a full frame sensor camera 50mm is really going to be perfect.

 

I went through the 50mm research about a year and a half ago. I am using crop sensor and I like this lens a lot. No

regrets but it does take some getting used to on the crop sensor if all you have used is zoom lenses.

 

The Sigma glass is great! You will be pleased if that is what you choose.

It comes with a lens hood. I really like Sigma's design on the lens cap. Front pinch makes it easy to put on and off with

the lens hood on. I don't know why Canon has not done that? It also comes with a nice lens case to keep the lens

protected when not in use.

 

When you see this lens on your camera it really looks and feels like a well built Pro lens and the photos you will get will

be awesome. As I said, no regrets here.

<p>The funny thing about the Sigma is that it really is optimised for full frame use. It generally does not test as sharp in the center as the Canon 50 f1.4 but is always sharper on the edges and corners on FF. Logically the Canon should be better on a crop camera and the Sigma should be better on a FF. However I use the Canon on a FF, I wouldn't swap it for any other lens.</p>

<p>if you are shooting indoor portraits, then autofocus is not required, in fact it'd be a hinderance. if you can spring for the Ziess, then you will be buying a great lens with superior build quality. IQ of all these lenses would be adequate.</p>

<p>Ty,</p>

<p>Why do you say that? AF works just fine for indoor portraits, why is it a hindrance?</p>

<p>A vote for the Sigma. I haven't owned it long, but it has already impressed me. It's sharp wide open and has amazing bokeh. My only complaint is that it is heavy.</p>