I need a 50mm

[pauloriskas]

<p>Hi!<br>

For my body full frame (Canon 5D) what canon 50mm do you advise? The 1.8 II or 1.4 USM. My other lens is a 24-105 L IS.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Paulo</p>

 

[scrivyscriv]

<p>The f/1.4, hands down. Both are good but the 1.4 has nicer bokeh and doesn't look like a toy.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<blockquote>

<p>... doesn't look like a toy</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only when it's compared to other Canon lenses.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>Try the f1.8 lens. If you are not totally thrilled with it, exchange it for the f.1.4 version (make sure you purchase it from a reseller that accepts returns). I just bought the f1.8 lens (after having sold the f1.4 last year and realizing I stilled needed a fast 50mm lens). Like many others, I am thrilled with everything about the lens, especially the IQ</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>There are 4 to choose from:</p>

<ul>

<li>Canon 50 1.8. Corners are not very good on a full frame.</li>

<li>Canon 50 1.4. Rattles when you shake it and doesn't have ring USM. </li>

<li>Sigma 50 1.4</li>

<li>Canon 50 1.2L</li>

</ul>

<p>I looked at the first 2 and wasn't impressed with either. Based on the reviews I have seen the Canon 50 1.4 doesn't do really good until you stop down to F4 or so. The Canon 50 1.2L has everything you want but the price tag. </p>

<p>I settled on the Sigma 50 1.4. Very good bokeh and performs very well wide open. It also has a ring type USM and overall good build. It costs about $100 more than the Canon 1.4 but also comes with a hood and a very nice padded case. For the price it is in my opinion a better buy. </p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"Corners are not very good on a full frame." </em> I am shooting with a full frame camera and have not noticed any corner issues.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Sharpest by far is the 50 macro, damn good value too. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12145-USA/Canon_2537A003_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html don't think it is only for clos ups though.</p>

<p>I own the 50 1.4, every time I use it I am impressed with it, a lot of people slag it off but I wouldn't sell mine.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I've got the Canon 1.4 to go with my 5D, and it continues to feel like the best fit. It's build quality isn't that hot, but ok. Ergonimically it's a nice combo.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The claim that the 50/1.4 doesn't get sharp till f/4 or so is complete nonsense. It's one of the sharpest primes in Canon's lineup. If it weren't, Canon would have altered it's optical formula since the introduction of the FD 50/1.4 in 1971: the EF 50/1.4 and FD 50/1.4 are optically identical. As the old adage goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Of course, it is true that the lens is not <em>razor</em> sharp wide open, but my copy is more than adequately sharp at f/1.4. And what lens is at its best wide open, anyway? We would all like the lens to have ring USM, and to be a little better built, but, hey, I wouldn't trade mine for the world.</p>

[mike_connell1]

<p>I picked up a 50mm 1.8 as my second lens and I think it's great for the price. I've been using it with tubes for macro shots and I've been very impressed with it. Manual focus is maybe a little awkward with the tiny ring, but other than than I'm happy.</p>

[ddomonkos]

<p>I had the 50/1.8 and IQ was good in most cases, its pentagon bokeh (5 blades) and grinding AF not so good. I thought I lost it and bought the 50/1.4. A much better lens, smooth bokeh and quiet AF. The build, images and AF are worth the money. The good news is I found my 50/1.8 and sold it for about what I paid for it on eBay. I love the 50/1.4, the bashing it gets is not warranted in my opinion.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>I have both.</p>

<p>I use my 1.8 exclusively on my 400D and the 1.4 mostly on my 50D. It just feels better that way. Since your 5D is a lot more like my 50D than my 400D I'd say go for the 1.4.</p>

[markonestudios]

"...but the 1.4 has nicer bokeh and doesn't look like a toy." Looking like a toy and performing like a good lens are not always mutually exclusive. I don't think the 50 1.8 looks at all like a toy :) As an optic, it could arguably be the best bang-for-buck lens in Canon's entire line-up. And for the record, I have dropped mine twice, once on tarmac and once on concrete while moving at speed. Not a scratch in either case, and optics are still intact. Go figure...

[jack_nordine]

<p>The sharpest 50mm I believe is the 50mm 2.5 CM. If you do not need the faster lens, this may give you the best IQ.</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Sigma 50 f/1.4. Very good IQ and nice bokeh as well.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Both the 50 f1.8 and the f1.4 are excellent, sharp, optics. In fact there is very little between them. The 1.4 is nicer made and easier should you want to focus manually, but equally the 1.8 is plastic, robust and cheap. The 1.4 does have better bokeh. The 1.4 perhaps should be considered an excellent f2 lens as wider than this the performance is not great (but can be very effective nevertheless wide open). Both stopped down to f2.8 are very sharp.</p>

<p>The disappointment that most of us feel with the 1.4 is simply that it does not have a ring-type USM which means the AF is less robust than an L lens, but I have no complaints about its performance (assuming you don't want corner to corner sharpness at f1.4).</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>I love my 50 1.2.<br>

It may not be fashionable to say it but it's a good lens. It would appear that most 50's have quirks and the 50L does have the odd issue but I get shots with it that I can't get with any other lens I own.<br>

I'll have that the 1.4 has a great bokeh too but I wasn't that happy with the build etc. I got a good deal on my 50L and it's a lens that I truly enjoy (mostly!) using. I also find it very sharp from 1.6/1.8 up.<br>

It's a lot of extra cash from a 1.4 but you get 'L' build quality, weather-proofing and the ability to use 1.2.<br>

Do they charge too much for 'L' lenses? Absolutely but build quality is important to me, that's why I got the 50L.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>the 1.4 ... doesn't look like a toy.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And why should that matter? I take some pleasure in making good photographs with unimpressive looking lenses like the 35mm f/2.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Look at the review of the plastic fantastic (the 50mm f/1.8 mk ii) on a 35mm sensor camera on <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/415-canon_50_18_ff">Photozone.de</a> . It doesn't quite do the superlative job on the 5D that it does on the APS-C bodies, but it is still the greatest bargain that Canon offers. It may look cheap, but it seems to be at least as durable as the f/1.4. I'd say try it first--used ones are for sale all the time on eBay and if you are patient can be got much cheaper than the store prices, which are pretty cheap in their own right. For a 35mm-sensor body like yours, if you want good bokeh and wide aperture for for portraits, I'd suggest the 85mm f/1.8 as a possibility.</p>

<p>For a little wider lens, also consider the 28mm f/2.8 or the 35mm f/2, both of which are bargains, and lots of people have used the 35mm length by preference over the more normal 50mm.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I find the Canon 50 F1.4 to be a good lens optically. It would be nice if it had ring USM as the Af is probably it's weak point - especially with slower AF systems like the 5DII. I did not buy the Sigma as I was concerned by future compatibility - the only other Sigma lens I bought (14mm F3.5 failed this test!). It should be reasonably durable based on it's predecessor - I still have and use my FD 50 F1.4 and it was bought in 1982. I have not used the EF 50 F1.8 but the FD one is not as sharp at the edge as the F1.4 lens. If this situation is the same for the EF lenses than on a full frame body get the F1.4.</p>

[pauloriskas]

<p>My concern is only about the F1.8 durability. I read various forum where people say that it is a waist of money to buy the F1.4. Only if you have a return with your work. As i'm an amateur...no return with work. I read also the IQ is similar. So for me the question is about how much time each one keep the functions in perfect conditions.</p>

[scrivyscriv]

<blockquote>And why should that matter? I take some pleasure in making good photographs with unimpressive looking lenses like the 35mm f/2.</blockquote>

<p>G - how does the 35mm f/2 hold up, by the way? I've got the 28mm f/2.8 and really want to give the 35mm a run.<br>

I agree with your statement, but at the same time as a professional I want to have<em> the ability</em> to give off "I'm a pro, I can handle whatever comes up" and the f/1.8 doesn't give me that option. Not because of its size, but its overall design, similar to the 18-55 kit lens. It just looks cheap. Mind you I'm not at all discounting its performance or abilities! I own & use the f/1.8... I just <em>prefer</em> the f/1.4.</p>

<p>But either way I'm not that concerned with looks. If I was, the f/1.8 wouldn't be with me at weddings &such.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>G - how does the 35mm f/2 hold up, by the way?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>As in almost all such things, the answer depends on how you use the lens. I most often use it for landscapes stopped down where it does a very, very fine job. On top of that, there usually aren't a lot of people around looking at me and wondering "why is he using such a cheap little lens?" And when there are, I don't worry about it.</p>

<p>This would not be my first choice for shooting weddings and so forth, though the photographer we hired for my daughter/son-in-law's wedding made good use of similar lenses in some cases. When I saw her using some non-L Canon primes for certain subjects/situations, this actually convinced me that she knew what she was doing!</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>For sharpest 50mm, I believe the prize goes to the 1.8. You can compare them at The-Digital-Picture.</p>

<p>I like the 35mm f2.0 too. Only thing is it's restrictive compared to a wide zoom, but very compact, and very sharp except for the corners.</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>I don't think you can say the 1.8 is the sharpest and that's not the conclusion of the Digital Picture review.<br>

As others have said, the 1.8 isn't the best choice for FF as the 1.8 sharpness drops off at the edges. You can check that on the MTF charts. It is also a lot slower focusing in low light.<br>

But for it's cost it is indeed a bargain and anybody who thinks getting this centre sharpness for $150 is a waste of money needs to take a realistic look at the other options and realise this is the best value lens that Canon make.</p>