is the 50mm f/1.4 grossly overrated

[james_leung]

<p>Christopher, You're right. I tend to underexpose to keep the background, the sky especially, intact and work on the face later in Lightroom 2. But I do that with other lenses too. As for the difference in distance between camera and subject, I do admire Rainer T's astute observation, and pictures taken with Canon's 70-200mm f/4 do give a leaner look. But the subject shot with the Leica 30-70mm f/4 mounted on the 40D looks leaner than the 50mm f/1.4 from about the same distance. I actually didn't notice it until the model complained that the Canon lens made her look, well, less elegant. In fact, she is enormously proud of her "thinness."</p><div></div>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Ah, I thought maybe so. I've noticed that the Canon primes especially trend toward the yellowish gold colors with even just a small amount of under exposure. Considering most Canon bodies are calibrated about 1/3 of a stop under, that coloration shows up quite a lot - especially if you underexpose the already somewhat deficient Canon Exposure Value.</p>

[james_leung]

<p>Christopher, that seems to have solved the mystery of the yellow cast. The -1 stop exposure compensation did it. What about the perceived bloated look? Or is it just my imagination.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

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

<p>Or, as is more typical, people misidentify the source of their "shooting problems" and blame the equipment, even when tremendous numbers of people who use the same equipment don't have the problem. There are two possibilities. The OP has a copy with a problem (or a camera with a problem) or some issue with post processing, etc.</p>

<p>Yes, the EF 50mm f/1.4 does not posess L build quality. Yes, the EF 50mm f/1.4 becomes softer and has lower contrast at apertures (aperture, actually) larger than f/1.8. No, it is not a soft lens. No, it does not introduce strange color casts to the photographs. No, it doesn't turn "gold" when you underexpose - though this can introduce color and other issues with any lens. Yes, it is a very, very sharp lens stopped down.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Well, you might compare the face shot at something like 35mm and 85mm or 100 to the 50 (all Canon lenses). If all is well, the 35 should look the widest (roundest) while the 100 looks leanest. <br /> <br /> My perception is that the Leica lenses do have a slightly different geometry effect (I don't know exactly what this term should be called) than the Canon/Nikon lenses. My Leica's images all seem to be somewhat leaner - although I've always thought this was just my perception, because as far as I know, there isn't any physical reason for it being so.</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>James, the picture taken with the leica 30-70 does even more convince me that the problem's origin is distance to subject. In that picture (regardless if its taken at 50 or at 70) its even more obvious that the distance to subject is larger than with the 50/1.4 shot.</p>

<p>To have a proper test ... take images of your models face from the same distance(!) . Pair camera to lens as you like. ... for a final check whether the face looks pleasing in the same way, bring all faces to the same sice.<br>

After that, the conclusion is (as I already wrote) you (or your model) liked the look of the portraits taken at a bigger distance more ... and taking them from there requires a longer focal length (even at a crop camera).<br>

For a good reason, the "portrait primes" for crop-1.6 are the 50 and the 85 and on fullframe its the 85 and the 135. If you like the long end more, the 50 isn't a good lens for you regardless of how good or bad it optically is.</p>

[robmilton]

<p>

<p>Just sold mine, and didn't shed a tear. I didn't hate it, per se, but it did have it's frustrations.<br>

 

<p>As many here have said, mine was very soft wide open and gave a yellow or orange cast. I vacillated for a while about whether to keep it or sell/trade it. My decision came when I was staying up late one night going through a batch of shots from a friend's wedding taken with this lens: I realized that I spend more time "correcting" shots from the 50 than from any of my other lenses.<br>

 

<p>So I sold it.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>How could a lens possibly render correct color balance at one exposure and introduce serious color deviations at another? <br>

I compared mine to a Zeiss 50 1.4 and each looked great with very similar color......and the similar color is to be expected, folks greatly exaggerate the color casts of lenses from certain countries or makers. For critical shots there are indeed some Zeiss lenses at particular focal lengths that I will turn to but I've never been tempted on the 50, the Canon is darn good (assuming a proper unit.....) </p>

 

[ben_obryan]

<p>I just sold mine as well. Not discernably better than the 1.8 Mark 1 in my view - just larger and heavier (and neither much cop until stopped down a little). Conspiracy theorists think that they only discontinued the Mark 1 and replaced it with the nasty Mark 2 to drive people to the overpriced 1.4.</p>

[christopher hartt dallas]

<p>Desmond, I don't know why it happens, but it does. I would guess it has something to do with Canon's lens coatings. From the posts above, you can see it's a widely experienced phenomena. It happens with many of the Canon primes under 135mm. I have more limited experience using Nikon, but their primes seem to be more 'true color' at a range of exposures than Canon.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I find the build quality of mine mediocre. It feels coarse and loose, compared to a similar Pentax lens.</p>

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>"is the 50mm f/1.4 grossly overrated" No......</p>

<p>A better question here is Misused and purchased by snobs against the 50mm f1.8 mkII?, YES</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I don't think so, it is soft at f/1.4 it is slow focusing in low light, but what other lens could capture at that f stop years ago when I purchased it. Stepped up the 50 is sharp and very good color contrast.</p>

[lesterphoto]

<p>"is the 50mm f/1.4 grossly overrated" No......<br>

My Sigma 50mm f1.4 is a jewel. I shoot wide open all the time.</p>

[james_leung]

<p>I completely agree with Rainer T on the effect of distance from subject. And Christopher made a point which agreed with my own experience. The issue may have stemmed from the special characteristics of different brands rather than particular lens. As photo enthusiasts, we are all a little "snobbish," as Bryan suggests. In the pursuit of perfection, we always want to buy what we perceived to be the best lens we can afford. Don't we?</p>

[brian_seay]

<p>"Overrated", perhaps -- depending on who's rating you're reading and what you're comparing it against.</p>

<p>It has better build quality and is f/1.4, but is more expensive than the Canon f/1.8 Mk II.</p>

<p>It backfocuses much less when stopped down than the f/1.2L, but doesn't have f/1.2 and the AF doesn't perform as well, especially in backlit situations</p>

<p>It has AF, but doesn't have the color or "3D" rendering of the Lecia Summicron-R 2/50.</p>

<p>In 50mm lenses, there are many choices and many trade-offs.</p>

[mark_k3]

<p>My very first one was a Sony 50/1.4 and its sharpness surprised me very much. However Canon's is not so. I guess there must be a number of factors which include individual variation and maker. But of all important issues, the design of 50/1.4 is very old for current digital age.</p>

[er1]

<p>Build quality should be better however I use this lens often with pleasing resulsts. (usually in the f2 range for many journalistic images and f8 in the studio). I also believe that an upgraded lens design is past due. This lens needs to produce sharper images.</p>

<p>Over rated? I'd say yes</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>From everything I've read, the 50mm 1.4 is a great lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p>I think you should read a bit more.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Read less.<br>

Shoot more.</p>

[jmonzani]

<p>From an optical point of view and from my tests (portraits), the 50mm f1.4 is very similar to the f1.8, with better control over flare and better bokeh.<br>

At first sight, the built quality of the f1.4 is obviously better but I've got to say that I'm part of the several people who had AF problems with it. Basically, AF stops working. My copy went dead three times and was repaired twice. I was really disapointed when AF stuck for the third time and didn't touch the lens for some monthes. I then happen to use it with manual control and AF all of a sudden started to work again.<br>

Unfortunately, this isn't realiable, that's why I always carry the f1.8 as well as a backup.<br>

My reason for buying the f1.4 (and I was already owning the f1.8) was that I'm using the 50mm focal lens a lot and I thought it would be a great investment to go for something better built. It turned out to be the *worst* investment of my lens collection. None of my 85mm f1.8, 35mm f2, 24mm f2.8 never ever had AF problems or went to service.<br>

That's why I now advice people to rather go for the cheap 50mm f1.8 instead.</p>

[deozmac]

<p>I had the 1.8 but mine failed about a year ago, perhaps due to pressure on the front element at some stage - a reported build weakness I believe. I was very happy with its general performance.<br>

I bought a 2nd hand 1.4 from A***** and have also suffered from fairly regular AF issues - this detracts from its useability, however it's performance in other respects has pleased.<br>

I would go for the 1.8 for cost-performance.</p>

[sulka]

<p>Interesting, here's a point nobody above seemed to address:<br>

The "bloat" you're seeing in the portraits is due to the lens being a 50mm lens. A 50mm lens on a crop body still draws like a 50mm lens - the crop just causes the camera to capture a smaller area of the image drawn by the optics. The only place where you should really apply the crop factor, is in comparing the "draw area" of the lens between full frame and crop bodies. The cropping doesn't inherently change the optical behavior of the lenses, so you should expect any given focal length to behave the same, no matter if you're using a crop factor or full frame camera. Again, you're just capturing an area from the middle of the frame on the 40D.<br>

You're absolutely correct in saying that a 100mm lens draws a leaner portrait - the general thought seems to be the sweet spot for portraiture work in regards to focal length is 85mm. If you already have the 70-200 zoom (excellent piece of glass!), you have the glass you need for portraiture. On a crop body, you just need to stand back a bit more.</p>

[james_leung]

<p>Please don't get me wrong, folks. I don't disagree that you can take pleasing pictures with the Canon 50mm f/1.4. I took a set of pictures of a 3-month-old baby boy and made his mother very happy, showing to everyone photos of her chubby darling.</p><div></div>

[jason_munzel]

<p>I don't think I've seen this mentioned yet, and it may have nothing to do with what you were experiencing, but the heavy yellowish tint you referred to may be due to auto white balance (if you had your camera set to AWB). I was just playing with my new 50mm 1.4 last night and I too was experiencing some yellow-orange tint pictures that I was pretty dissapointed with. I had used it the last couple of days with no problems so I wasn't sure what the deal was. A few of the pictures I took looked fine, but many had a serious yellow-orange tint. Then I remembered something I read in a book not too long ago - never trust the AWB feature. I switched the White Balance setting to Tunsgten and with the next picture I took, it was clear that was the problem. Note that I never had this type of issue with the kit lens (on my XTi), but my suspicion is that at the wider apertures I was shooting at, late in the evening with only limited artificial light, the camera was struggling to figure out what the light source was.<br>

If that wasn't your problem... still something for people to keep in mind in the future.</p>