What Do You Think About The EF 50mm f1.4 USM for the 5D ?

[jon_kobeck1]

I have a 5D, with a 24-70 2.8L that I use on the streets. Its a monster. So I want to try some primes. I just

ordered the Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM. I really wanted L glass but the price of this 1.4 was only 370 so I

couldnt resist. The reviews also seemed good with alot of pros surprisingly using this lens or having it as a

back-up. So what do you thnk, did I do the right thing?

Also, a 50mm on a full frame I assume will be on the wide side?

[peter_daalder]

<i>Also, a 50mm on a full frame I assume will be on the wide side?</i><p>

A 50mm lens on a full frame body will give you the view of a 'standard lens'; the equivalent of the unaided human eye.<br> It certainly will not be on the wide side (unless you deliberately want to compare it to the view you get at 70mm, with your current lens).<br>Your 24-70 2.8L can, of course, demonstrate what you've just ordered, by moving it to the 50mm setting.<p>You will not regret buying the 50mm f1.4. Just my opinon, of course...

[mendel_leisk]

When I bough my 5D it was the first new lens I purchased, at the same time. I already had the 24-70 and others, but I was really looking forward to this combination. 50mm on full frame is the classic combination, supposedly "normal" perspective: what a lot of photographers used excusively for a lot of years. It's the traditional "kit lens".

 

I wouldn't call it on the wide side. It actually feels a little *long* to me, having been spoiled with normal zooms like the 24-70. After things settled down I would say I don't use the 50 that much, I prefer the 24-70 for it's zoom range, coupled with good sharpness and decent speed. Still, it is very heavy and bulky, and the 50mm f1.4 is a light, compact and fast alternative.

 

In my recent experience with it on the 5D I often found the 50mm too long. Guess I'm spoiled by normal zooms. I also have a Canon 35mm f2.0: an even cheaper/lighter lens. I won't enumerate it's negatives, but all-in-all it is a worthwhile purchase if you want moderate wide-angle.

 

Also, the build of the 50mm f1.4 is "decent", no more. Turning the focus barrel feels a lot "coarser" than the 24-70, and not as smooth as something like the Canon 10-22, if you've handled that. The lens length changes as the camera focusses.

[PuppyDigs]

I used an EF 50 1.4 USM on my 5D for a month or so. It was great on my Elan 7E but the 5D

was a little too revealing of its flaws. Below F2.8 it was so poor as to be unusable. F5.6 was

decent and F8 was darn sharp. My EF 24-105 L and EF 35 2.0 were both much better than the

50 1.4 at F4 and the same focal lengths. Plus it has great difficulty locking focus in low light.

Even my slowest zoom were better in this respect.

[bueh]

You spent thousands of dollar on gear and do not know what a 50mm lens is? And now, after the fact, you ask US whether or not purchasing this prime was a good idea? And you picked this lens because the "reviews also seemed good with alot of pros surprisingly using this lens or having it as a back-up"?

 

I wish I had your money to burn. Generally I get the lenses I need (and want), because they will offer opportunities where my current lenses are at their limits. Sure, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a fine lens (yes, I have it, too), but for trying out fixed-focal length lenses you could have just picked up the f/1.8 version.

 

For street photography obvious high-end choices are the EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM and the EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM -- that is, if you want a wide angle...

[PuppyDigs]

I forgot to mention, I switched to the EF 50 2.5 CM and that little sucker is tack sharp at any F

stop and has zero barrel distortion to boot. The 50 1.4 was really "curvy" below 6 or 7 feet.

50 2.5 AF is more reliable in low light as well.

[KenPapai]

"Also, a 50mm on a full frame I assume will be on the wide side?"

 

That's a new one! Strange question. You have a 24-70 already so the answer is self evident.

 

In any case, I have never once recommended these two 50's to anyone ever for any reason: the 1.4 and the 1.8. Both are too flawwed in my mind's reviews, after having read so many reviews of those two lenses.

[fotograf]

Puppy Face, you said the lens was "poor and unusable" below 2.8, but at 5.6 it was decent and at f/8 was sharp- I think almost ALL lenses are best stopped down. Even the high priced lenses that Canon makes are at their best stopped down, rather than open at larges aperture(i.e. 135mm f/2 L, 85mm f/1.2 L II).

[jake_holt]

I can't understand the people who bash this lens - maybe they got a bad copy - or maybe

me and 4 other photographers that I work with on a regular basis got really lucky and have

excellent copies? It is particularly excellent on the 5D - it s my 2nd favorite combo after

the 5D + 24 1.4L, and that is only because I prefer the 24mm focal length for many

things. I have owned many L zooms and primes, and the 50 1.4 is the sharpest lens I have

ever owned. The only weaknesses I see are a lack of sharpness and CA at 1.4 - it gets

razor sharp by 1.8.

<p>

Check out this sample, shot at 1.8 with focus on the eyes - are you telling me that's a soft

image?

 

(for a larger view go here: )<div></div>

[m_barbu1]

I think it's a bit silly making a purchase, and then asking our advice.

[fotograf]

I can't understand them either, Jake. Maybe they aren't true photographers, but complainers- in general. This lens has had rave reviews for years and a tremendous value for high quality.

[jon_kobeck1]

WOW its amazing how you get so many different reviews on here. I mean, one group say the

lens is pure garbage and soft and the others say its tack sharp and is second best lens ever!

Holy moly.

Well, the image above looks pretty decent to me.

[andre_stull]

I have this combo and love it. I never use flash. Just use your feet for zoom and put a hood on it..

[beauh44]

A 50mm on a FF camera isn't really considered "wide" but just "normal" (whatever that is). I have a 1Ds2 (FF) camera and use the 50mm f/1.4 often. While it's not a speed-demon in the focusing dept. I have no complaints at all and it's a great low-light lens for the money. Sure it'll be softer at f/1.4 than at f/5.6.

 

I must agree with Puppy Face about the 50mm Compact Macro, which I think is one of Canon's "gems". I know... it's long in the tooth and doesn't have USM but optically it's just killer. Since the lens is recessed back in the barrel you really don't need a lens hood with it and for all intents and purposes, it's pretty much distortion free.

 

For street photography though, I'd probably lean to the f/1.4 so I don't think you screwed up, but I'd also give a long look at the 24-105mm f/4L IS. Sure, the f/4 is kind of slow but optically it's excellent, has image stabilization and covers a really useful range. It does a very good job, wide-open too.

[Ian Taylor]

I like it around f2.2. Use it almost every day.

<p>

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/85/259382022_6c409643f6.jpg?v=0">

<p>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2303/2303569862_95592ef64b.jpg?v=0">

[William Michael]

Everything that Mendel Leisk wrote, except I had the 50mm and then got the 5D and I was treasuring the first time to use that combination.

 

It is my standard `street` and `walking` combination at the moment, whilst I retrain my eye to rediscover a normal FoV for my amateur work.

 

The next passionate `street` step for me, (for my 5D) is the 35F1.4L, though for other reasons, I most likely will get the 24F1.4L first, which I anticipate will also be awesome on the 5D, but a bit more difficult to master.

 

WW

[tdigi]

I like the 50 1.4 as well but it took a while to get used to shooting that wide open. at 1.4 or

1.8 I think people say its soft not because of the quality but the short dof. Its very easy to

focus poorly and get a soft shot.<div></div>

[sheldonnalos]

I shoot with a 5D and my 50mm f/1.4 is my only non-L lens. I see no reason to upgrade. It's plenty sharp and focuses accurately for me, slightly lower contrast up until about f/2.0 (but still good resolution) and pretty much faultless above f/2.8. It's a great value.

[david_hill8]

This lens rocks, and it's an extreme value compared to the problematic 50/1.2L... To all the

people who say you must stop this lens down to f/8 or f/11: What secret sauce are you

adding to your crack pipe? This lens is perfectly acceptable even at f/2.5. I don't hesitate to

shoot it even at f/2.0 when the situation calls for it. I will admit that I avoid 1.4 on this lens,

but who cares? 1.4 is still better for focusing even if you don't use it. The sharpness and

resolution are already near peak by f/4.0, too. BTW, I'm one of the 4 whom Jake reference. As

a policy I don't post on photo.net, but Jake told me about this thread. Justice had to be done.

[david_hill8]

Oh - and to "too flawed": Have you used the lens yet? It only costs $300. Quit being cheap

and just buy it before you decry such an inexpensive object based on reviews... If you're

giong to trash something based on reviews alone, at least it should be something you can't

afford... And what reviews are you reading? Obviously not William Castleman, who can prove

it outperforms the 1.2L in most of the usable aperture range....

[alanrusso]

I have a 5D, and if I'm shooting indoors it's the only lens I'll use unless I'm also packing my 580EXII and/or a tripod. Indoors this lens really rocks without having to resort to high ISO's. Even my 16-35mm f/2.8 L struggles with a proper exposure indoors unless I'm willing to shoot over ISO400 or with a tripod. "Serious" amateur or not... sometimes it's just not practical to lug around every weapon in the photography arsenal. You have to take care with DOF for sure - but sharpness with this lens is never an issue.

<p></p>

<p></p>

<p></p>

[._._z]

"Also, a 50mm on a full frame I assume will be on the wide side?"

 

You own a 5D, a 24-70, you've asked about getting an MFA and about lucrative photography careers ... and you ask THIS question?

 

Jeez, I wish I had as much disposable income at the start of my photo hobby....

[KenPapai]

Ignorantly speaking: "I can't understand them either, Jake. Maybe they aren't true photographers, but complainers- in general."

 

Dumber words never been written perhaps?

 

Canon can do SO MUCH BETTER than its overprioed and overhyped (here) 50 1.4 (in fact they prove it with their 50 macro that they can produce a real EF lens of top quality). Not going to repeat myself all the flaws of the 1.4 again, life's too short, and watch what you say cincotta.

[KenPapai]

And I've also said this before -- Canon make a wonderfully superb EF 85 1.8 -- sharp all they way through and ring USM of course; why can't they do the same with their 50 1.4 or 1.8? Not being cheap, but that is the deal breaker on those 50's to me. It's the year 2008, I don't want a poorly designed 1.4 on my EOS cameras; I don't know how you can go from a fast L and then shoot with a crippled 1.4. Or from a fast, resposnsive 85mm to a dull 50mm. As cincotta might say, not "true" photogs that would put up with that? LOL and tongue-in-cheek... :)

[fotograf]

Ken- why are you comparing a 85mm than a 50mm? The topic is specifically about the 50mm f/1.4

 

If this lens has "flaws" as you so eloquently put, why do so many thousands of professional photographers use this lens?