is the 50mm f/1.4 grossly overrated

[james_leung]

<p>This particular lens is widely praised for being sharp when stop down. I bought it a year ago and used it a few times on my 40D and 5D. It's as sharp as it's supposed to be at 5.6 or smaller. Other than that, it almost can't do anything right. The color is off with a heavy yellowish tint and the contrast is too low to re-create a lively scene. On portraiture, the lens makes the subject's face look rounder than it is and the always-present yellowisn tint makes her look, well, unhealthy. I can take much better portrait shots with my really old Leica 90mm Emerit with a Novoflex adapter. This is not to trash Canon lens. The 70-200 mm f/4 IS, for instance, is as good, if not better, than any of the Leicas I have.<br>

To be sure, the 50 mm f/1.4 is relatively inexpensive. But I believe that the concept of value-for-money is never a primary consideration to people who visit this forum, otherwise speciality vendors like Novoflex would have all gone out of business.<br>

My question is: why are photo enthusiasts in this forum so obsessed with sharpness, which, I think, is one of the least important attributes of a good lens? As you all may know, any lens is sharp when stop down.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Something must be wrong with your lens. I use this lens extensively, and it is quite sharp by f/2, I don't notice any color casts. There is a bit of barrel distortion, but it is minimal and typical of such lenses - and easily corrected in post in the very rare situation where it is noticeable in a photograph.</p>

<p>You may want to borrow someone else's EF 50mm f/1.4 and see if you can figure out what is wrong with yours.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[lmwalker]

<p>I agree with Dan, there must be something wrong with your copy. I also use this lens extensively, and I am very pleased with it.</p>

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

 

[mbkissel]

<p>No problems with this lens. One of my favorites.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[picturesque]

<p>Ditto the above two.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p> At f5.0</p><div></div>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>The build quaility is suspect, but the IQ is not. I use it mainly around f2.</p>

<p><a title="kid with lantern by ko-knia, on Flickr" href=" title="kid with lantern by ko-knia, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3152/3082103858_c8186407d4_m.jpg" alt="kid with lantern" width="160" height="240" /> </a><br>

<a title="tween by ko-knia, on Flickr" href=" title="tween by ko-knia, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/85/259382022_6c409643f6_m.jpg" alt="tween" width="160" height="240" /> </a><br>

<a title="thai kid by ko-knia, on Flickr" href=" title="thai kid by ko-knia, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/324944977_e6014079a9_m.jpg" alt="thai kid" width="190" height="240" /> </a></p>

[tdigi]

<p>Same here I use it most at about F2 but its usable at 1.8 and sometimes even 1.4. Its my favorite lens and I own a few L's</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Apparently IQ varies with this lens. I owned one a few year back and, like the OP, found it low contrast and soft below F5.6. Barrel distortion was terrible nearer than 3 meters. It was unusable from wide open to F2.8. AF was among the worst in low light of any lens I've owned. But there must be some good copies out there as many photos will attest.</p>

<p>As for facial distortion the OP mentioned, that's what happens with any lens when you shoot too close. The 50mm perspective looks best when shooting full body and upper body portraits.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>The range of comments above seems to me to be pretty fair in the light of my own experience with this lens, although I would be a bit more positive than Peter about the IQ: to me, it's a good f/2 and an excellent f/2.8, but I agree that at close distances there is rather a lot of distortion. Since this is a lens that does not report distance information, DPP has to assume infinity focus for applying its corrections, so additional correction for close shots has to be applied by adjusting the distance slider manually. If the lens is working properly, AF is fast, although not quite as fast as with true ring-USM. Slow AF is an early symptom of the collapse of the AF mechanism, a well-documented design fault with this lens. I see no yellowish colour cast by comparison with other lenses. So, no, I don't think this lens is grossly over-rated. Recent tests on DPReview showed almost identical optical performance from several 50/1.4 lenses of this generation of optical design; the more recent Sigma 50/1.4 shows that wide-open performance can be improved by using a different design with larger lens elements, but that does not automatically provide improvements at smaller apertures. It is much easier to design a lens with a slightly longer focal length and smaller maximum aperture, so the good performance of the Elmarit is no surprise, and others have pointed out that for portraiture the longer focal length is in any case preferable.</p>

[sbp]

<p>I use this lens on cropping and FF bodies, with equally good results. Try another copy.</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>--" On portraiture, the lens makes the subject's face look rounder than it is ... . I can take much better portrait shots with my really old Leica 90mm Emerit with a Novoflex adapter"</p>

<p>This is a completely useless comparison since you are comparing perspective and not the lens.<br>

Comparing images made with lenses whose focal length is different by about factor 2 especially, when the field covered in the image shall be the same, is a comparison of the perspective ... and the main factor for this is the distance between camera and subject.<br>

Ok, we now know, you like portraits better if they were taken from a distance. But that is not a problem of the 50/1.4.</p>

[anthony_hicks]

<p>James, I can't really add to the 50/1.4 part of your question, because I have used one only fleetingly - I use a 50/1.8 mark1 instead. However to answer your general sharpness question, I guess to some extent it depends on what kind(s) of photography you do. If portraiture is your main subject matter, your requirements/priorities for a lens will naturally be different from somebody who takes, for example, landscapes. Sharpness might not be a prime consideration for you, but it is for many people, myself included. I like my photos to have real "bite" with plenty of detail.</p>

<p>Sharpness is of course far from being the only ingredient of a good lens. For some people, bokeh is a big consideration, but for me it has no importance. However, distortion is important to me, and my pet hate is a lens that at F5.6 and beyond is sharp in the middle but mediocre at the edges (the Sigma 30/1.4 and Canon 28/1.8 spring to mind). But for people who take portraits I fully understand that this particular characteristic is of no concern and might even be beneficial!</p>

[james_leung]

<p>Rainer T, I was using the 50mm on the 40D and the 90 or 100 mm Leica on the 5D. There were little difference in focal length, considering the crop factor. Try to upload two pictures of the same person taken with the lenses mentioned on two different cameras. Look like they are different persons. Amazing.</p><div></div>

[james_leung]

<p>And this is with the Leica 100mm f/2.8 Macro</p><div></div>

[mike dixon]

<p>It makes <strong>absolutely no sense</strong> to compare photos taken at different times, from different angles, in different lighting, with different cameras and blame the differences on one of the lenses.</p>

[pisq]

<p>Lens tests cannot tell you if one lens is better than another to acheive a photographic intent. That is strictly the result of the photographic inner eye. If the results of one lens looks "better" to you versus another, the you should trust that result as being better for you. An objective result from rigerous quality testing, is not the same thing as a subjective result.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>I think it is <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/717198/">sharp enough</a>. I am mostly bothered by BQ and AF. They could be better. I'd really like 50/1.4 Mk II with BQ and AF like the 85/1.8.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[mark_hanna2]

<p>I agree with you Mike. The two cameras could easily have different colour rendering in particular.<br>

James, you say that any lens is sharp if stopped down. I disagree, I would say any lens is sharper when stopped down but I have had some crap zooms many years ago that you could not call sharp.<br>

If you don't think sharpness is important, and sometimes softer is better for portraiture of course, then you could turn this to your advantage, and save money by buying an old 4MP DSLR second hand, and simply upsizing your photos when you needed to print them larger.</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>-- "Look like they are different persons. Amazing."</p>

<p>Not really ... I tried to calculate the distance camera-to-person and therefore assumed her size with 150cm.<br>

In that case, the 40D + 50mm/1.4 had a distance of about 2.6mtrs to the girl, and the 5D + 100mm/2.8 had a distance of about 4.2meters.<br>

The difference in distance is why the images look different.</p>

 

[jay a. frew]

<p>Whenever the EF50/1.4 is the subject of a post, an intense debate ensues regarding its quality - either image quality, build quality...or both.</p>

<p>It seems that Canon quality assurance is below standard on this particular product.</p>

<p>Cheers! Jay</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>James, it sounds like you might be under-exposing somewhat (the yellowish color) and/or need to do a better WB. Other than that, your comment about this lens being a fan favorite bears consideration. The 50 1.2 L is a far better lens IMO, but the 1.4 is at a price point more people can justify. The mass market products will always get the majority of favorable reviews on this forum. It's the same phenomena of polling 1000 people about 'the best car'. You'll hear raves about the Fords and Toyota's and far fewer references to the Mercedes' and Jaguars. That doesn't mean that the Fords and Toyotas are better cars, just suited to a larger number of peoples usage and budget.<br /> <br /> As for the geometry of the lens (rounder face), is the lens dented or does the barrel seem distorted somehow?</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>From everything I've read, the 50mm 1.4 is a great lens. However, when James asks if it is grossly overrated, it makes me wonder if the 50mm 2.5 lens is grossly underrated? Just wondered if anyone had both lenses and could tell me which has better IQ at same apertures?</p>

[elliot1]

<p>50mm lenses typically earn their keep when lighting is poor and you can't or don't want to use flash or when bokeh is a big concern. A bad copy is a bad copy but a good copy will deliver the kind of results you just can't get with any other lens.</p>

<p>James, I suggest you send you lens in to have it checked to make sure it is functioning correctly.</p>

[awaraagard]

i've been using this lens for over a year now with Canon 60D and 40D and found it an amazing possession. it has come up extremely well for portraiture and surprisingly sharp and accurate when stopped down between f2 and f4. i have no problem with color cast or distortion. most recently i shot some portraits [extreme close ups] at f2 ans f 2.8 in very low light and i notice nothing unusual about them. great lens! regards!