linden_l Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I have an EF 50mm f1.4 recently I bought second hand, I like it very much since it allows to take pictures under low light situations without flash, although the build quality is less than what I expected for its price. I just realized a problem in the past couple of days. When I take pictures with strong light source in the back, at certain angles, it tends to have a pretty bad flare problem (see sample image, aperture wide open at f1.4 with Canon 10D). Other pictures I took at similar positions didn't yield such flares. Is this pretty well known for this lens and therefore expected? I did have a rubber lens hood mounted, but it didn't help under those conditions, since the light source was directly behind. Is there anyway to avoid this? Also as I have mentioned above, the feel of this lens is really something of a much cheaper one. The focusing ring is not smooth like other EF lense I have, be it ultrasonic or not. ALthough the AF works pretty well, it is not as quiet as other USM lenses I have. It is a little soft at f1.4 and f2, but at f2.8, it is pretty sharp. I would like to hear from owners of this lens and your comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincent_j_m Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 Remember, the 50/1.4 does NOT use a true ultrasonic motor, rather it uses the "micro-USM" motor like the one used in the 75-300 IS lens. The micro-USM motor is slower, noisier and less responsive than real USM motors. I had no trouble with sharpness or flare with my 50/1.4 (I used a lens hood) but I dumped it because of the unacceptable distortion specially when focusing close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_katz1 Posted December 31, 2003 Share Posted December 31, 2003 I don't see any evidence of lens flare in the sample photo you attached, but from the reflections in the lower left corner of the image you are obviously shooting through a window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linden_l Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 This is exactly what I was talking about. I don't know what makes you think it's through the window, but no, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 You can see flare on the lower left, and in the face of the person on the left too. 1. Take off your protective filter, if you're using one. 2. Maybe try the correct CANON lens hood - maybe even modified by using some black tape to create a rectangular mask (black darkroom tape works great for this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_barnett2 Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 To me it doesn't look like lens flare at all, but as Charles says, flare from a protective filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_barnett2 Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Sorry, I should have said 'reflections', not flare, from a protective filter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I am really, really interested in following where this post goes; 1.8 with the super bad build quality vs 1.4 with the bad build quality, and the painful price difference... The best of the non-L lenses barely qualify as "built good" if you have experienced the pre-autofocus era of the Canon-Nikon-Minolta trio... You owe it to yourself to see the build quality of manual focus lenses of the70s and 80s. Not that you will all of a sudden give up auto-focus; but, please, do compare. You will no more be impressed by the ring-USM lenses you own. Oh, you will still use them, just like I do, but perhaps you will also decide to build a full system from fisheye to 400mm at a fraction of the auto-focus prices... I need both. What about you? Embrace auto-focus and pay for it; you will fail without it at times. Try manual-focus and decide; you will succeed big times once in a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_ferguson1 Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 There's only one auto focus camera that I've used that retains the quality feel of 70's and 80's cameras when focusing manualy, and that's a Contax 645. It even has a split-image/microprism that doesn't interfere with auto focus. The downside? Well, auto focusing isn't exactly rapid compared to an EOS. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_katz1 Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 If the photo was not taken through a window, then you were using a really cheap, uncoated filter in front of the lens. What you see in the photo are reflections of the lights on the right side of the scene. There isn't any evidence of lens flare anywhere in the image, but since you seem to have already made up your mind that the lens is no good, maybe you should just get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linden_l Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 I did have a B&W protective filter on the lens at the time. Maybe that explains it (maybe that's why the other reader said that I was shooting through a window). Thanks all for your input. For all the EF lenses I have, this 50mm f1.4 is the first one that gives the doubt about Canon's built quality considering its price range. Just doesn't have that solid feeling in your hand. I was trying to get a 50mm f1.8 metal mount, but couldn't find a reasonably price one and thought this f1.4 would be an upgrade with a larger aperture. But I still like it despite it's shortfalls. As for trying the old time cameras, I do have the urge to purchase a manual system at times, since they are so cheap now, but the problem is that I just don't want to go through the trouble of shooting films, since digital is so convenient. If I did, I will not likely use it. Now my Canon 1N is in storage, but I like the camera and I may use it when I need to. But I really feel liberated once I have the digital, as it allows to experiment all kinds of things without worrying about the developing cost. Sure, digital has limitations, but I think it is the perfect learning tool for improving my photographic skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Swap your standard (double coated)B+W protective filter for a B+W "MRC" Multi Resistant Coating UV, they produce zero reflections or ghosts, they're much better even than other multicoateds. That said, I use a $50 Pentax Super Multicoated Takumar 50/1.4 with a $20 adaptor on my Canon bodies. It's sharper and flares less than the Canon 50/1.4, the lack of diaphragm coupling is not a problem because I almost always shoot it wide open and if I need to stop down it's just the push of a lever. The manual focus is very precise, unlike any AF lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike sisk Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I've seen this before. It seems four conditions need to be met to produce these reflections: 1. A digital SLR, 2. Shooting wide (or nearly wide) open, 3. A bright light point source in the scene, and 4. A filter on the lens. My theory is that this is a reflection between the backside of the filter and the imaging chip. The surface of the imaging chip is quite shinny and the flat surface of the filter is exactly parallel to the chip and can mirror the reflection of a bright light back onto the chip during exposure. The quality of the filter or lens seems to have little effect -- I can reproduce this on my 10D with a 16-35mm with a Heliopan multicoat filter attached. The problem came up here several years ago during the first Christmas after the release of the D30. With all the christmas lights folks are taking pictures of this time of year it's prime time for folks to see this problem. Solution? Take the filter off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles barcellona www.bl Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 What Jay said, re: the MRC filter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louis1 Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 When checking the focusing on my 10D I soon learnt that the 1.4 wide open is very soft the performance improves dramatically when you stop down to 1/2 to 1 stop. I don't know if this is typical! Louis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_strutz Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 It's very typical. It's a good lens, but quite soft wide open. At f/1.8 it's just barely sharper than the 50mm f/1.8, which isn't very sharp wide open either. This is one of the reasons I prefer Canon's 35mm f/2 for most situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linden_l Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 Well, it's a B&W F-PRO filter. I don't know if B&W makes any 'cheap' filter. But certainly I will remember to take it off next time under similar shooting conditions. Thanks you all for your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 The F-PRO is B+W's new designation for their redesigned mount. It's available in double-coated (one coat per side) and MRC Multi Resistant Coated. If it doesn't say MRC or Multi Resistant on the mount, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perry_a. Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 i shoot with an a2 camera using no filter and the canon dedicated hood and i still get bad lens flair with the 50mm 1.4 when shooting at night with a light anywhere near the frame. i wish i could figure this out as i like the lens otherwise. i usually shoot in program mode. i tried stoping it down to f4 in av mode but the flair problem still exist. on one recent night shoot, fully 2/3 of my pictures showed flair. and pretty bad flair at that. i considered selling it and getting the 28m 1.8, but as i said, i like the lens and do wish i could figure out how to stop it from flairing so badly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now