DPReview tests the Canon 50mm f/1.4

[zafar1]

Dpreview was classifying the lens performance at f/1.4, f/2, f/5.6, f/8; so they said soft, better, perfect, OMG! I think it was a fair classification. If they were unfair, they would not give such good marks to the lens at smaller aperture.

 

If they had said, "sharp, sharper, sharpest", that would have been unfair and biased towards this particular lens.

[anson_ko]

it's fair to set expectation on the price of a lens. For example, what do you expect from a sub $300 50mm lens. If money is no object, get the german made Leica 50mm lenses. The question is, are you ready to pay a few thousands dollars for a 50mm 1.4 ? you get what you paid for.

[PuppyDigs]

"Unless you enjoy the effect, have you considered sending the lens to Canon for repair? It is obviously broken.... (My

apologies for being king of the obvious.)"

 

I owned 2 EF 50 1.8 (MK I) and a 50 1.4 USM. All had God-awful AF and were soft wide open. Why waste my time? I sold

them--heck even made a profit--and bought an EF 50 2.5 CM and the EF 50 1.2L. The 50 2.5 is the best 50mm lens I have

owned, and I've owned over a dozen. The 50 1.2L isn't as sharp and whips both the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 silly at the same

apertures.

[chrisjb]

Doubt L anything to do with an accurate describtion of this lens, the 50 1.2 L is listed Soft wide open, 50 1.4 long overdue for a modification, If sigma is better for wide open work then folks will just buy it instead. My 1.8 focusses quicker than 1.4 in low light. Now using a OM 50 1.4, can focus quicker.I think folks will pay for a newer one if improved on :)

[saskphotog]

["The fact that a lens is or is not an L is utterly irrelevant to a test of how it performs and the conclusions that can be drawn. Just the facts, Ma'm. Just give me the facts."

 

That comment, Larry, would panic the Canon R&D "L" lab, if their engineers felt the majority of Canon lens owners believed what you said. I think one of the advantages of an expensive L lens, as well-marketed by Canon, is the ability to shoot sharper images, especially in the corners, with the aperture wide open. ]

 

Steve, I hope a careful read of my comment will reveal that I meant whether or not the lens has a red ring on it is irrelevant to test results. A proper test will reveal what it reveals no matter what color the lens is or how much it costs. All you should do is look at the facts.

 

The test shows the lens is soft wide open. That is a legitimate reason to be critical, whether or not the lens is an L or "consumer" or any other marketing jargon label. It's soft wide open. Period.

 

I certainly hope you don't think that just because a lens has a red ring or white paint that it is automatically better than anything else available.

[tore_myrstad]

I love the 50mm 1,4. It's one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. I currently use the 24-70 2,8 L, but I still miss my 50mm. It was sharp and it could take pictures in extremly bad lighting. And being soft at apperture 1,4, what do you expect. It is not an expensive lens.

 

The 50mm 1,8 however I would not buy, I have heard of too often and seen too often it's destruction. The worst time was when, while a friend of mine was taking a portraite in a dark room and lens popped out of the shell in sort of speaking. It attacked the modell and flung itself 20-30 cm forward. And what was left of the lens was still attached to the body. It was hillarios as I was watching as it happend.

 

The 50mm 1,8 may be sharp, good autofocus and cheap, but the build quality is the worst I have ever encountered.

And the 50mm 1,2 is more expensive than my normal zoom lens, and I could barely afford that.

 

My experience with the 50mm 1,4 is that it becomes the favorite lens of the owner.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>To characterize this lens, or any lens (other than a true L Canon lens) as soft at f/1.4, is absurd. What

does the reviewer expect for a non-L lens?</cite>

 

<p>According to Canon's own MTF graphs and their own description of how to interpret them (from which I took the

following two quotes), both found in a 1998 L lens brochure, the 50/1.0L wide open doesn't come anywhere near

"superior" and only barely qualifies as "adequate for good image quality" - and that's only in the central 10mm

or so; by the time you get to the corners of the 35mm frame, its MTF at 10 lines/mm drops to under 0.2, and at 30

lines/mm it's not even 0.1. So the magical letter L and red ring doesn't guarantee excellent performance even

wide-open, either; many are at least very good wide open, but not all are.</p>

 

<p>My 50/1.4 is so soft wide open that I consider it unusable at that aperture. I'll use it at f/1.8 if

necessary, at f/2 with an expectation of good sharpness, and anywhere from f/2.8 to f/8 with an expectation of

excellent optics. I rarely if ever use it beyond f/8; if I'm going to stop down that much, I might as well just

leave the zoom (formerly the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, now the 24-105/4L IS USM) on the camera.</p>

[awindsor]

I use my 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 wide open all the time. I would use the 50/1.4 wide open too if it had reliable focus in low light. It doesn't so I stuck with the 50/1.8. The Sigma 50/1.4 is high on my list of lenses to try. The lenses are soft but from my perspective not unusably so.

 

I have no problem with the DPReview review. It is not negative. The lens is soft at f1.4 and this is noted. It is a con. This is not unexpected nor does the review go so far as to suggest that the lens is unusable at f1.4.

[david_amberson1]

Exactley what I experience with my 50. Dont know why its absurd. Its soft wide open and I dont like it. I wish it were

sharper wide open but its not. Ive looked at lens tests from the 50 1.2,1.4,1.8 and it would be a cold day in hell

before I pay 1500 for the 1.2L because it doesnt appear to be that much sharper than the others wide open. I hope

they redesign it to be optimal wide open. After all, we do buy fast lenses so we can use them wide open. But lets

say they do come out with a new 1.4 thats as sharp at 1.4 as the 300 f2.8L. Still only gonna have about 1.5-3" of

razor sharp in focus because the DOF is so shallow. LOL SO how usefull would it be anyway. But a soft

photo is better than a blurry photo from too low a shutter speed.

 

Its not so bad that its unusable. In fact, not looking at the 100% crops and its quite usable. Unless you are going to

print at 100% size, it doesnt matter. These photos out of a 1DsMark3 at 100% would cover an entire wall. Back off a

little and even those would look sharp. Yes the brick wall 100% shots are soft, but look at it as a photo at viewing

size and it really looks very useable. The 100% button really causes over analyzation. I try not to use the 100%

button unless I'm going to print real big and it needs to be really sharp. Other than this, I use the 50% view.

Represents much closer look to a 8x10 or so. Most look real good at 50%.

 

Look at it this way for example:

 

Light is gone. You have a 24-70f2.8L or a 50f1.4. You need 1/125 to freeze your shot. Say at f2.8 ISO 400 you've got

1/40th. Gotta crank the ISO to 1600 to get shutter speed on the 24-70 or just open the 50 and use ISO 400.

 

Which looks better. Soft ISO 400 or noisy 1600 f2.8. And remember, thats the zoom wide open which will also be

soft, on top of the ISO1600 noise. At least with the 50 the noise wont be there.

 

A real wish list. A new lens design. A lens that had a DOF mechanism that didnt limit light entering the lens. The

lens let in 1.4 light and you control the DOF with another mechanism to desired effect and still keep shutter speed.

No trade off of shutterspeed vs DOF. I know its almost impossible, but we put people on the moon. My wife had the

lens cut out of her eye and replaced! Surley someone can do it. Now that lens would be worth some $$$$