50mm f1.4 - Why ?

[sonny_jet]

Hi,

 

Photography is a hobby of mine and I like to shoot all sorts of

pictures. I use to use the old FD 50mm f1.8 for many years on my

manual AE1 but only ever used it outside and never really used it

below f5.6

 

Call me naive but I have a question about the EF 50mm f1.4 lens.

 

I read in so many forums people leaving comments such as

 

"every photographer should have a 50mm f1.4 in their camera bag"

 

Yet, I also see comments such as the following about this lens:

 

"not really usable at f1.4 , beyond f2.8 it is fantastic"

 

It just doesn't make sense. Is it because SOMETIMES the f1.4 can come

in handy in emergencies? (say once every few hundred shots when

conditions are very dark?"

 

I was thinking of getting a EF 50mm f1.4 for my 20D. Of course it

would operate as a 80mm f1.4. This leads onto my second question:

Will the 50mm f1.4 on my 20D be a good portrait lens? I already have

the 100mm f2.8 macro (160mm f2.8 on 20D) for close ups but would the

EF 50mm f1.4 make a bigger improvement for portraits? (I have a

friend selling her MINT 50mm lens for ?130 [about $260]) Should I get

it?

 

Thank you.

[sonny_jet]

Hi,

 

Maybe I should elaborate a little more on the above question. A lot of people talk about the superb sharpness, contrast etc. of this lens and some even compare it to their L series lenses. I always thought it was the glass, the aperture and the shutter speed that decided on the overall IMAGE quality. Am I missing something? - because if you don't use the f1.4 on the 50mm then wouldn't it be better getting a 50mm f1.8? Can I assume the 50mm 1.8 when used at f5.6 + shutter speed of say 1/200th produces almost the EXACT same image quality as a 50mm f1.4 at the same settings?

[Greg M]

Do you think you'd use it enought to justify the price? If so, then yes I'd get it. My main lens is a 17-40 and I use it with an 85mm f1.8, so the 50 makes no sense for me, so I don't own it. A long time ago I got the 50/1.8, but to be honest I cannot remember the last time it left a bag that sits in my closet.

[andrew_carlson]

I'm going to taint the waters in a different direction. I don't have or own a prime lens and have no intentions of buying one. I've looked through the 50mm f/1.8 at the store many many times and I think - yeah ok no big deal. It looks 'normal' and I don't want normal.

 

I'm a huge fan of zoom lenses and while I'm probably more naive than everyone here, I prefer the flexibility of the zoom lens to say the stability or consistency of a prime. A preferred example of mine is what everyone says - put a prime lens on and take 2 steps. I hear this all the time and I understand the logic of it but I find myself in situations where I can't get closer. I'm stuck behind a fence or behind glass. So the flexibility of a zoom gets me where I need to be vs. having pictures of tiny tots a long way away and really nothing to crop.

 

I guess that the prime reason (pun intended) that the 50mm is so highly recommended is the consistency, quality, and inexpensive cost of the lens. Its probably an excellent learning tool for beginners especially. By eliminating the focal length guesswork out you're left with ISO, Aperture, and shutterspeed and you don't need to focus on focal length so much. (another pun intended) It'd probably make it easier for say students to learn what focal length is and how it impacts your photos by example. If I have a bunch of shots with my 50mm then I can relate what happens when I drop to a 35mm or increase to an 85mm. My latest outing at the race track would have sucked with a 50mm. Sure the f/1.4 or f/1.8 would have come in VERY handy but the fence and distances involved would have limited me. Someday yeah I'll own a prime, most likely the 300, 400, or 500mm version but most likely not a 50mm.

 

So call me strange...I do...not all of us lean in the 50mm prime direction. March to the beat of a different drummer or better yet, become you're own drummer.

[sonny_jet]

Hi,

 

Me again. Thought I'd use this space to ask another question rather than ask it from the main forum page. Does anyone know how to use the depth of field button? When I press it at a small aperture, say f22, the viewfinder on my 20D goes goes v. dark (because it has stopped down to f22 I understand) but how do I 'SEE' the depth of field when its so dark? And again at all the other apertures - how do I 'see' the area that will be in focus? PLEASE HELP. The viewfinder on the 20D doesn'y help much either. Can I change the screen without too much difficulty? Anyone know of a site where I can actually see the different screens?

 

THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE REPLIED SO FAR AND TO THOSE WHO WILL DO.

[PuppyDigs]

There are other reasons besides a faster aperture to buy the EF 50 1.4 USM over the

EF 50 1.8 II. First and foremost is better construction and handling. The 50 1.4 has a

metal mount, a stronger barrel, silent AF (USM), a real MF ring, full time manual focus

override (FTM), a distance scale and DOF scale. Of minor issue is the slightly brighter

viewfinder it renders. However an available light buff will find F1.4 will only do in dim

light. The EF 50 1.8 is a great optic for the price but lacks all of the aforementioned.

[KenPapai]

It's been one of those weeks here...

Sometimes I think I've read it all...

I wonder how people who work helpdesk calls have ANY patience ever leftover.

[conraderb]

sonny - the 20D has a relatively dark viewfinder compared to the pro (1D) series. I had a hard time focusing when I swtiched over from my film OM-1, which has a viewfinder so bright and so big that it is the stuff of legends....

 

I hear that the aftermarket screens are a good accessory to look into - search for katz eye and haoda and you will find some good stuff.

[eric merrill]

Ditto what Puppy Face said.

 

If you have to ask why, buy the 50/1.8 and save money. If you need 1.4 or FTM or the other features the 1.8 lacks, you'll know why and won't need to ask.

 

I use the 50/1.4 at 1.4 routinely.

 

 

Eric

[peza]

I got rid of it for more reach and superb portrait lens - EF 85/1.8, which doesn't suffer from barrel distorsion and softness at f1,4-f2,5

[aaron_lam]

This thread hurts my heart. The 50mm f1.4 is one of my favorite lens. Small, light, fast, great contrast, great bokeh... I should ask... WHY WOULDN'T YOU GET ONE. Especially on a 20D... it is a great portrait lens. Even on my 1DmkII, it is just great. I had a f1.8 model before and I loved the pictures but hated the ergonomics. The f1.4 is a joy to use (only wished it didn't extend when focusing).

 

I always thought I loved super-wides and telephoto's too but I spent a weekend trip with a 50mm and you can really get some great shots. Normal is not just normal... but a little further back you get wide, a little closer you get telephoto. It is a great all purpose lens. That's my rant.

 

 

aaron<div></div>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I think a normal lens is a good learning tool, and as normal lenses tend to be among the least expensive lenses for a given f-number (a 100mm f/2 or 28mm f/2, for instance, would typically cost more than a 50mm f/2), they're also an inexpensive way to get a fast lens into your kit.</p>

 

<p>I find the 50/1.4 unusably soft at f/1.4. From f/2.8-f/8 it's great (and probably pretty good beyond that, but if I'm going to be shooting with the lens stopped down that far, I'll just leave a normal zoom on the body and use it instead). There's a fair gap between 1.4 and 2.8, though, and while it's better at f/2.8 than at f/2, it's still good enough at f/2 that I will use it without hesitation. I'd only go wider than that if I really needed the extra speed. I haven't used the 50/1.8 but I suspect you'll find something similar: soft wide open, sharper stopped down 1 stop, very sharp stopped down 2-5 stops (or thereabouts). The 1.4 wins the equal-aperture competition if for no other reason than that it's stopped down more; at f/2, for instance, the 1.4 is already stopped down a full stop, while the 1.8 is barely stopped down at all.</p>

 

<p>Some other reasons to prefer the 1.4 over the 1.8, in no particular order, and comparing the 50/1.4 to the current 50/1.8 II rather than the discontinued original 50/1.8:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Better AF motor, complete with FT-M (albeit using a mechanism which has earned a reputation for lack of robustness)

<li>Much better manual focus ring

<li>Has a distance scale (and a DOF scale, but the latter is essentially useless)

<li>Better build quality

<li><a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/">Better bokeh</a>

<li>If you already have 58mm filters in your kit, you're all set

<li>The hood doesn't require a cheesy attachment ring

</ul>

 

<p>Some reasons to prefer the 1.8 over the 1.4, again in no particular order:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Much cheaper; the 50/1.8 is the best value in Canon's lens lineup

<li>Smaller and lighter, not that the 50/1.4 is exactly a brick

<li>If you already have 52mm filters in your collection, you're all set for this lens

</ul>

 

<p>The 50/1.4 on a 20D is an excellent portrait lens, if its 80mm-equivalent field of view is suitable for your uses. 80mm is around the standard traditional focal length for head-and-shoulder portraits and/or work in a smallish studio setting. I've taken a few portraits with this combination at f/2.8-f/4 and it does a lovely job; the subject is tack sharp within DOF, and the background blur is smooth.</p>

 

<p>That said, I don't do a lot of portraits, and since I moved from a film body to the 20D, my 50/1.4 hasn't seen a lot of use. With the 1.6 crop factor, it's just not as useful a focal length for my uses, and I expect I'll sell it in the next year or so to help fund the purchase of the 70-200/2.8L IS USM.</p>

[bens]

Try researching the site and you will find a TON on the lens compared to others. In the end, it depends on what you shoot, how often, and how much money you have.

 

I have used:

Canon

50/1.4

50/1.8

24/2.8

35/2

85/1.8

28-135

 

Tamron

20-40

28-75

 

Of these lenses, the Canon 50/1.4 is my favorite lens BY FAR. This is because:

 

-- colors are excellent, vibrant and warm but not over the top. i always can tell a picture from this lens and smile almost immediately. (virtually all the flower pics in my portfolio are with the 50/1.4 and the 500d macro as example). Much better than the 50/1.8 I had. Could be the copies, but that's my reality.

 

-- better bokeh and construction than the 1.8, which broke the first time i dropped it.

 

-- lifesaver all-around use lens. whenever i have a problem in lowlight, this lens is there to save me. yes, its normal size, and in a pinch its the most versatile of all the lenses for any event I attend. it can do portraits or small groups, can show enough of a scene to create a sense of the environment. its almost always with me, even when I am plannign on using another lens.

 

-- the 1.4 is very shallow, what do you expect? its a little soft perhaps, but I have found it very usable and helpful at times -- particularly for things like group shots, or pictures of actors on a stage from a distance, that sort of thing. the 1.4 allows me to stay at 400 iso without a flash in rooms that would require 1600 at 2.8.

 

-- for informal portrait lens on a dslr, if you are planning on indoor shots, get the the 50/1.4 or 35/2. otherwise, in my experience you run out of room in a hurry.

[stacy]

I love the 50mm 1.4 too. I love to use at 1.4- you get such shallow DOF- it's beautiful.<div></div>

[jcolwell]

Why not ? I have one, and I use it often. Prime vs. zoom ? see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/primes.html

[jws]

I bought this lens based on comments on this site. I love it and use it on my 300D regularly. My experience is that you don't know you need this lens until you have it. For low light and portraits there is no substitute. In fact I would like to have a wider fast lens as well...

[john20]

I have had this lens for about 4 years. First with my film camera, and now it stays mounted on one of my 20Ds all the time. Funny, Ben said he can tell pictures with this lens instantly. Me too. I can be looking down through a wedding folder, and know immediately which ones were taken with this lens. I also have a 17-40 and a 70-200 2.8. Both very fine lenses, but the pictures that I get from my 50 are just a little bit better, all the time. As for the softness? I find mine to be extremely sharp. At 1.4, you find it difficult to judge softness, because of the very shallow DOF. In my opinion, if your shooting at 1.4, sharpness is not to be expacted anyway. In the low lighting of some churches, I find this lens to be a lifesaver. The 17-40 f4 gives me pictures that are flash lit, with black backgrounds. But the 50 1.4, gives good ambient light when shooting at 2.0 to 2.8. The lack of ring focus does limit the focus speed. My other lenses focus much faster. I actually, thought about selling this lens and putting the funds toward a 24-70 2.8. But every time I have to shoot something at 1.8 or 2.0, I think WOW is this thing is great, how could I ever live without it! Hope that helps!

 

John

[bellavance]

Me too. I'm thinking of getting the Sigma 30/1.4 for my 20D.

 

Pierre

[athinkle]

Using DOF preview with such a small aperture (22 or so, even wider in lower light) will make it difficult or impossible to see. This is true, in varying degrees, for any camera body. The tiny DSLR viewfinder on the 20D doesn't help matters. Your only choices are to 1. Use a wider aperture 2. Fetch some more light 3. Guess. The supplementary 3rd party screens will help you in focusing manually but that's not much use if there's not enough light to see. Also, keep in mind that at f22 you're getting deep into diffraction country with most lenses (even macros.) I try not to go tighter than f16 whenever possible.

[kevin_krumwiede2]

This has probably all been said, but I've owned both, and the 50/1.4 was a joy to use. It focuses quickly and quietly, it's very sharp, and the bokeh is definitely smoother than the 1.8. The photos I've taken with my 1.8 are sharp, but they lack a certain something.

[derek_c.]

I just ordered 24-70 L.<br>

Next stop 50/1.4<br>

Don't ask me why.. I just want it.

[henrik.ploug]

I recently used my 50mm f1,4 at a wedding, which took place in a large tent at night. All of my pictures were taken at f1,4 at ISO 1600 without flash. For this picture the shutter speed was 1/125 sec. If I had used a zoom with a maximum aparture of f2,8, the shutter speed would have been 1/30 sec., and the image would have been blurred. So I could have used a flash, but then the picture wouldn't have come out like this. That is why I like fast primes.

 

50mm is perfect for shots like this. But sometimes I find the focal lenght a bit to narrow for indoor shooting. That is why I have now bought the Sigma 30mm f1,4, which is also an excellent lens for low light shooting.<div></div>

[bellavance]

Henrik,

 

I'm thinking of the Sigma 30/1.4 for my 20D. Two questions:

 

1- What camera do you use?

 

2- How does the Sigma 30/1.4 compare with the Canon 50/1.4 lens, in terms of image quality?

 

Thanks

 

Pierre

[feli]

The 50 (x1.0 magnification) may be one of the hardest focal lenghts to truly master, but once you do, there is little you can't cover with it, unless you need a specialized lens like a 300mm or macro.

 

If you want to see what a true master can do with just a 50, take a look at Henri Cartier Bresson (www.magnumphotos.com). He shot the 50 (a collapsible Leica 2/50 Summicron), almost exclusively for his entire career.

 

feli

[henrik.ploug]

1. I use a 350D.

2. I haven't done any comparative tests, but so far I have been very pleased with the image quality. If you look at my portfolio the last six pictures (in the portrait section) was taken with the Sigma.