Which Lens As Good As 50mm f/1.4, But 300mm or Longer

[geoffs1]

I don't own a 50mm f/1.4, but I do regularly use the 300mm f/2.8L (don't own that one either, but I can dream...). If there's a better 300mm lens out there, I don't know of it.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

[marknagel]

300mm f/2.8L IS

400mm f/2.8L IS

500mm f/2.8L IS

Maybe 300mm f/4 IS

 

I have the 50/1.4 and have used the above. All as sharp or better, with better AF, but cost a bit more. If you want something under $1000, you probably won't find anything.

 

m

[bobatkins]

Any and all of the prime "L" series lenses of 300mm or longer focal length.

[awindsor]

Mark,

 

As far as I know Canon has not made a 500/2.8L. I think they offered a 500/4.5L and now the newer 500/4 IS L. For 500/2.8 there is always the Sigma zoom ;)

 

Eddie,

 

The telephoto primes are sharper wide open than the 50/1.4 is wide open. This may seem an unfair comparison but it isn't if that is where you shoot with them. Stopped down to f2.8 the 50/1.4 is incredibly sharp. None of the primes exhibit noticeable distortion while the 50/1.4 exhibits pronounced barrel distortion when focused closely. The 50/1.4 exhibits much higher vignetting (as is to be expected given the field of view)

 

I have shot with the 50/1.4 but I do not own it. I still shoot with a 50/1.8. A number of people have told me the 50/1.8 focuses more reliably in low light than the 50/1.4 (possibly because the 50/1.8 focuses much slower) and that is very important for me. I shoot the 50/1.8 wide open most of the time. Do you shoot with the 50/1.4 wide open most of the time?

 

Focus or, more properly, lack of focus is clearly visible in the final image. Focus is even more critical with long lenses and I would not discount the importance of it.

 

The 300/4 IS L was a big improvement over the 300/4L in terms of close focusing distance. This meant you could photograph small mammals without resorting to the use of an extension tube. The same change made it less useful for birds in flight since initial focus lock is not quite as quick. To me at least these are the sort of considerations that you make when comparing these L telephotos. For all of these big white lenses image quality is excellent.

[eddie g]

I have the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM. Which fixed focal length lens is as good as

that 50mm USM or better but at least 300mm focal length. I'm only interested

in final image quality attributes such as ( Sharpness, color, contrast,

resolution, etcetera) in other words (for the purpose of this post) I'm not

interested in hearing about focus speed or quality of build, or weather proof

or anything else that isn't seen in the final image. If you haven't used the

50mm f/1.4 USM a lot then please state so in your answer. The 50mm f/1.4 is

remarkable and produces better images than the L zooms in my opinion. That's

what I want in the 300mm or longer focal length.

[john falkenstine]

Why bother with a measly 300mm.

[aaron_lam]

If you think the 50mm f/1.4 is the best thing since sliced bread... you should pick up at 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2 or 135 f/2.

 

You can get the 300mm f/4 IS for under $1000 commonly on the used market. That will be your best bet... unless you can afford one of the big boys.

 

Best regards,

 

 

aaron

[marknagel]

Alistar, yes, 500mm f/4L IS

 

m

[andrew robertson]

Go for the 1200 f/5.6 L.

[marrio]

The question should be based on the new 50/1.2 for relative image quality, not the old

50/1.4. It's the new standard against which to compare. <p>Oh, and don't put so many

conditions on people's answers - you're trying to tie their hands as they type! People are

going to write what they want anyway. So just read what you want instead and skip over

what you don't want to hear. The info might be helpful to others.<p>Case in point: Did I

mention that the new 50/1.2 is weather sealed and has greater build quality, plus focuses

faster that the old 50/1.4?<p>Back to the question, at 300mm or longer the choices are the

Canon 100-400 zoom, 300/4, and 400/5.6. They're all in the same price range.

[lukejt]

"Did I mention that the new 50/1.2 is weather sealed and has greater build quality, plus focuses faster that the old 50/1.4?"

 

Yes, but you forgot to add that it costs 5 times more. :)

[marrio]

True, but the questioner didn't put any limit on price. Hehe.

[j_smith6]

"<i>I'm not interested in hearing about <b>focus speed or quality of build, or weather proof</b> or anything else that isn't seen in the final image.</i>"

<br><br>

Then why aren't you using plastic EF 50mm f/1.8?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I have the 50/1.4 and used to have the 300/4L IS USM. I agree with one of the responses which said that the L telephoto primes are sharper wide open than the 50/1.4 is; I won't use the 50 wide open but rarely stopped the 300/4 down (other than when using it with a teleconverter). And from what I understand, the other L tele primes are in the same boat: they're all very good or excellent wide open and you don't gain all that much by stopping them down.</p>

[jim_larson1]

As far as a "standard" against which to compare the rest. . .I am still not convinced that basis should not be the 50/1.8.

 

If you are worried about breaking it. . .buy three. That's still cheaper than the 50/1.4.

 

While I have seen that the 50/1.4 has better image quality than the 50/1.8 in certain circumstances. . .I remain less convinced regarding the 50/1.2

[andrew robertson]

"The question should be based on the new 50/1.2 for relative image quality, not the old

50/1.4. It's the new standard against which to compare."

 

From what I've seen image quality is fairly similar.

[John Crowe]

The 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 will absolutely destroy the 50/1.4 as would a 200/1.8 if you can find one. The 85/1.2, 135/2, 200/2.8, and 300/4 should do quite well also. The 70-200/4 L may also stand up well against it too. Not sure how much better the 50/1.2 and 35/1.4 would be. Good luck.