Another Canon 50mm f/1.4 Question

[kenneth_mackins1]

<p>I hear two things about this lens: 1) It is too soft all around and 2) It is one of the best lenses I own.<br>

What I wish to use this lens for it shooting indoor basketball games from the baseline (85/1.8 is slightly too long to get all of the action at the net) and maybe some portraits here and there. <br>

I want to hear from people who use this lens on an everyday basis (not pixel peepers). Is the lens sharp enough? Do you get what you paid for or more than what you paid for or does it just suck? I will be using it on a 30D.<br>

Thanks in advance, Kenneth!</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Its a great lens. I have 2 L lenses and I use the 50 1.4 most of the time. Yes its sharp, I think most people who don't like it complain its not sharp but I would bet most times it user error. At 1.4 the DOF is very shallow so its easy to make mistakes and miss what you intended to be in focus. I think at 1.4 it is a bit soft but at 1.8 its amazing.</p>

<p> </p>

[lmwalker]

<p>My personal opinion is that my copy is very sharp. At 1.4 it is a tad softer than at 1.8, but very usable at 1.4 if the DOF at 1.4 works for a particular shot. And as Tommy says above, it is very easy to make focusing mistakes with very shallow DOF. I don't think this is a reflection on the AF of this particular lens so much as it is just the nature of shooting with very shallow DOF.</p>

<p>This is absolutely one of my favorite lenses and I use it alot. Very useful all around on my 5D and a great portrait lens on my 30D.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/canon_ef_50_hires">http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/canon_ef_50_hires</a></p>

 

[mendel_leisk]

<p>This is one my favourite compact primes on my 5D: nice compact alternative to bulky zooms, bright corners, decent sharp. The only negative: it's build feels clunky, focus travel a little rough and loose, compared to a comparable Pentax 50mm f1.4 I have. Considering the build, a little overpriced.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The "soft" part of the story is based on the following: at f/1.4 the image is soft and contrast is low. It is certainly usable at this aperture in many cases, but it is not razor sharp there.</p>

<p>The "best" part of the story is based on the following: Starting at roughly f/2 as you stop down the wide open softness and low contrast issues go away. At smaller apertures this is an extremely sharp lens.</p>

<p>On a full frame DSLR (or a 35mm film SLR) this 50mm focal length provides the so called "normal" angle of view coverage. On a cropped sensor body like your 30D it functions as a short telephoto, or "portrait" lens whose angle-of-view coverage is equivalent to that of a 80mm lens on full frame or 35mm.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Maybe you can rent or borrow it to shoot a game?</p>

<p>(By the way, I'm very happy with mine. I use it on a 400D after using a 50/1.8 and wanting more speed and USM. I use it next to an awful Sigma 18-200 non-OS and a perfect Canon 70-200/4L IS.)</p>

[sbp]

<p>This is the only non L lens I use, on 1D3 and 1Ds3, and it produces great results. G Dan's first two paragraphs say it all. </p>

[davidmoore]

<p>I use the 50mm/f1.4 on my 5D and 30D. Stopped down a bit, it rivals my 135/f2L and easily outperforms my 24-70/f2.8L for sharpness, although it is a bit soft at widest aperture.</p>

<p>It stays on my 30D most of the time where corner falloff isn't an issue, and makes a gorgeous portrait lens. Focusing speed and accuracy are adequate for my uses, but you might want to rent one first to test whether it is up to the task for indoor sports.</p>

[alan_myers]

<p>I own and use a mix of thirteen L and non-L Canon lenses, three zooms, the rest primes.</p>

<p>This includes an EF 50/1.4 that I bought used seven years ago (to help dispel another common rumor... that the lens is only good for about 18 months lifespan). It's not on my camera all the time by any means. But it gets a lot of use when it's the right lens for the job at hand.</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 is fine. It's not really optimized for use wide open, the way some other lenses are. So, yes it gets a bit soft at f1.4. Sometimes with portraits this is a good thing, actually. At f2 and beyond it keeps getting sharper, with no trace of softness at f2.8 and smaller apertures. Howevber I have to add that I very seldom use it past f8 or f11, so I can't really say much about performance at it's smallest apertures. I would expect some diffraction, like most lenses do at really small apertures, but can't really say based upon my own experiences.</p>

<p>I wouldn't bother renting, frankly. You could buy a nice new one, use it for a couple months and then, if you don't like it, sell it for probably 85 or 90% of what you paid for it. At most you'd be out $50-65 I would imagine... And I don't think you could rent any lens made for two months for that amount.</p>

<p>Go ahead and get it, along with the lens hood that helps protect it when stored with it reversed, or so I've been told. I'm betting you will learn to like it and keep using it, anyway.</p>

<p>Every lens made has it's compromises. We all have to work around the weaknesses and emphasize their strengths, to get the most we can out of them. That's just part of doing photography.</p>

 

[jim r]

<p>Yes, it's very sharp, and not as sharp as the 85 1.8.<br>

The 1.4 view finder brightness is worth the cost delta over the 50 1.8.</p>

[er1]

<p>I use the 50/1.4 often with sharp & pleasing results. Go to <a href="http://www.ejr.smugmug.com">www.ejr.smugmug.com</a> into the event folder and then to V's model search: Most of those images were shot with the 50/1.4 at 5.6/8</p>

[richie_boone]

<p>if you can afford it get the 50mm 1.2. you'll never look back!<br>

it's in a different league!</p>

[richie_boone]

<p>if you can afford it get the 50mm 1.2. you'll never look back!<br>

it's in a different league!</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"I want to hear from people who use this lens on an everyday basis" </strong></em><br /><br />All from a 20D: All are JPEGs straight out of the box. All images are Available Light (i.e. no Flash).<br /><br /><em>Yes I </em>know they are compressed and small to look at, but trust me, all are "saleable sharp" for 10 x 8 prints. Though the really low light ones are grainy, they are still sharp.<br /><br />Note the F2.8, into the light . . . I think the 50 F/1.4 handles that quite well.<br /><br />Bloody nice value lens on a 5D too, IMO.<br /><br />WW</p><div></div>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"if you can afford it get the 50mm 1.2. you'll never look back!<br /> it's in a different league!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just because it has a larger maximum aperture, is really expensive, and generally looks way badder than the little f/1.4 lens...<br>

... it isn't a better lens for most photographers.<br>

The f/1.2 is a very specialized lens. For those who need the special features it provides (obviously including a partial stop of extra light wide open, better performance at the very largest apertures, and ridiculously thin DOF) it could be worth it despite its downsides (very expensive, slower to focus, very difficult to get good focus with millimeters thin DOF, etc.).<br>

A worthwhile investment for a few perhaps, but the vast majority of those needing a good 50mm prime would be better served by a different one.<br>

Dan</p>

<p> </p>

[myrjola]

<p>I've had that lens for about four years by now, and haven't had much reason to complain about it. Sure, the image quality takes a noticeable hit when the lens is used wide open, but as long as the focus itself is correct, it's still usable (and IMO the lowered contrast/sharpness is still less offending than unintentional motion blur from too long handheld exposure). Combined with very good image quality when stopped down even a bit, I think this is generally a very good lens as long as the focal length is one that you need or want to use every now and then.</p>

[aslavihervuori]

<p>Yes, I like it. Bought it second (or third-)hand 2004. No problems with AF. Remember narrow dof in wide apertures. I guess next photo was taken at f2.0 eos 350D. Shutter was either 1/4 or 1/10 seconds. Hope link works...<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4534804">http://www.photo.net/photo/4534804</a></p>