50mm f1.4 on a 5D

[pedrofp]

How bad does the 50mm f1.4 perform on a 5D? I used to have this lens before buying the 5D, but now I

miss that lens. As it is quite well know the 5D's depence on L glass, I wonder if it's worth going for the

50mm f1.4. If not, what are your suggestions? Thanks!

[alvin_hear]

dependance on L glass? What the heck does that mean?

[pedrofp]

Sorry, I mean: the 5D requires L glass

[rainer_t]

-- "the 5D requires L glass"

 

Where exactly in the manual is that written?

[aleskoubik]

Great combo. It is as sharp or sharper as my 24-70L.

[shambrick007]

"the 5D requires L glass" <p>

Jeeze! I don't mean to pile on but damn these "web doctrines"! I use lenses on my 5D from $50 to $1700 and they all work fine w/in their parameters.

[fourfa]

well I'll give an honest review if no one else will. Hazy, low contrast, and moderate resolution wide open, much better at f2, shocking sharpness and high contrast at f2.8. Colors are a little pale compared to the better L glass. Focus tends to hunt in poor light despite the wide aperture. Bokeh is neutral to just slightly poor, like every other plain jane SLR double gauss 50mm out there. And the fragility of the focus mechanism on this particular lens is well-documented. Distortion close-up is very high (I would go so far as "objectionable") compared to other brands of 50mm 1.4. Subjectively, the images don't "jump" at me, I prefer using my 24-105L at 50mm.

 

Outstanding results within its limits, but slightly poor value compared to a lens like the 85/1.8 that delivers better build and more consistent results at a similar price. This lens should be priced at $250, not $310.

[Brad_]

How about L memory cards?

[JosvanEekelen]

Don't forget L batteries. And have you considered an "L" USB cable. Each of these improves your pictures, but the right combination of the two...awesome.

 

BTW, somehow I have the feeling that this post belongs in the audio forum.

[gdanmitchell]

It is a great lens on my 5D. Very sharp at apertures smaller than f/2.8 and quite good at

f/2.0. As has been well documented, this lens is soft at f/1.4 - but if you need f/1.4 it works

there as well.

 

Just cause it's fun, I'll join the chorus pointing out the silliness of a "L lens only" doctrine for

the 5D. :-)

 

Dan

[zackojones]

Don't forget the L monitor. It makes all pictures look great :)

[stephen sullivan]

Who needs Amp's that go to 11. Especially when all that's necessary is the "L" camera strap.

 

My EF 50 f/1.4 USM pairs great with my 20D ;)

[bdp]

I have an LG Monitor, does that count?

 

Pedro... it appears most people don't think L is a requirement, I'm sure if I gave someone that truly knew how to make a camera sing (not me) the 20D with the Canon 28-135 IS lens, and medicore photog (me) gets a 1DsMII and 24-70L glass, that I might get a few "really good" shots, while say, Monte, Bambi, etc get 90+% "really good" shots.

 

Some of it is the glass, MOST of it, is the photographer.

[francois_gauthier]

You should mention what other lenses you already have and on what body you had your 50mm. If it was on a 'APS' sensor, it was covering like a 75mm . In that case, the 85 F1.8 should be your pick and it is a much better lens anyway.

 

If it was on film, those 'normal' 50 are often the only afordable, fast and better than average glass. An obvious value play but comparing to other brands, those have never been Canon's strenght. Still, if you love the focal and don't want a big lens, it will be fine on a 5D (F2.8 to F8).

 

There are many nice lenses in that system. Take a look at 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F4 L is , 24-105 F4 L is, 35 F1.4 L and 85 F1.8 (not L but as good). I find the F2.8 zoom models too big and heavy.

[pedrofp]

Many thanks to those who replied (with fairness).

[robin_sibson1]

Well, we've all had our bit of fun, and I'll just add that I hope you are using an L4 or L5 strap!

 

Seriously, my own experience with the f/1.4 (on film and on 1.6-factor digital) exactly agrees with what Andy says about it, and I've plenty of other L and non-L lenses to compare it with. Pedro, I'm sure if you had said simply that the 5D was very demanding in terms of lens quality, no-one would have had any cause to jump on you. Canon make some optically very fine non-L primes - the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8USM come particularly to mind, as well as that old favourite the 50/2.5 - but it probably is true that (apart from the EF-S 10~22 and 17~55IS for 1.6-factor) you are best off opically (and worst off financially) sticking to L-series lenses among the zooms.

[pedrofp]

Oh, well... I didn't think people would take it literally, otherwise I wouldn't have posted a question about a non-L lens.

[beauh44]

I use my 50 f/1.4 on my FF 1Ds II and it works fine and does well. As others have pointed out, one doesn't "need" L glass for a 5D or any other camera, FF or not. I will say that if we're talking "Non-L" glass for portraits, I prefer the 85mm f/1.8. As for 50mm "non-L" glass, despite it being an older model lens, not quite as fast and a clunky AF, for many things I prefer the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. It's excruciatingly sharp with near zero distortion, even wide open. It lets you get quite a bit closer to your subject too, when necessary. Just a thought... Good luck!

[alec_myers]

It's terribly terribly slow to focus compared to, for instance, the 24-70 or the 700-200

[beauh44]

Yeah, there's no doubt it's way long in the tooth in the AF department. If you're shooting a wedding or something the 50mm f/1.4's a much better choice. But I've used the 50mm CM in a studio, shooting portraits on a 1.6 crop body and it worked fine with excellent results sharpness-wise. It (sort of) has a "lens-hood" built-in because the lens is recessed so far back in the barrel you really don't need one. (A hood is extra $$ for the 50mm f/1.4) and it'll stop down to f/32 - not that many people need it but it's there if ya' do. But no doubt, compared to modern USM, the 50mm CM's AF kind of sucks but it's still adequate. Nobody had autofocus at all, not too long ago and plenty of good pictures were taken. ;-)

[ymages]

I find the 50mm 1.4 wonderfull with 5D

[emre]

That's coz old cameras had decent viewfinders. Then there are rangefinders.

[photographicsafaris]

Pedro, I have to confess that I find that the 5D has shown poorer results with lower quality

lenses, and I tend to agree with you clasification that it benefits from top quality optics,

because it emphasises weaknesses in optics.

 

On the 28-135 is the quality was great on my 10D but when on the 5D I could see reduced

sharpness and softness, to the extent that I did not consider it acceptable, and sold the

lens.

 

Really The 50 1.4 is a cracking lens and has produced some of my sharpest images: Yes it

is better stoped down, but then name ONE lens that doesnt perform better when stopped

down. As someone mentioned the 85 1.8 is another great lens.

 

G

[C R Utra]

Pedro, I have used a 5D with a 50 1.4 exclusively for almost an year. I have the same feelings as Andy Radin and Robin Sibson described above. The 50 1.4 is not that sharp at short distances, and until 2.8. Colors are much poorer than the 17-40L I recently bought. So, I traded the 50 1.4 for a 50 2.5 short macro, which I would recomend, if you want a 50 mm. It is razor sharp and colors are OK.

[fourfa]

surprisingly, the 50/2.5 CM has amazing bokeh. diffuse, smooth gradients, and colorful. one of these days I'll get around to trading my 50/1.4 for one