Cheap 50mm unreliable - what do I need instead?

[jesper_hansen3]

<p>Hello again,<br>

original poster here :) Thanks for all of the recommendations and for pointing out some of the issues to consider. Hope that my post didn't have the side-effect of starting a Sigma vs. Canon war, but I appreciate all the info about brand-related concerns as well. </p>

<p>I thought that I would just let you and future readers know what I ended up with:</p>

<p>At first, it seemed to be a decision between a new 50 1.8 mkII, the Canon 50 1.4, and the Canon 17-55 2.8 zoom. Then the Sigma 50 1.4 which I didn't know about entered the line-up. I decided against the zoom because my 17-85 IS never impressed me, and because I wanted to go wider than 2.8. Didn't want a new 1.8 mkII. I would recommend it anytime, but since my budget is a bit better now, I liked the thought of upgrading rather than replacing. So it was Canon 50 1.4 or Sigma 50 1.4. I was quite sceptical about the "third-party" lens (sorry, Sigma, I know that was a bit unfair) being more expensive than the Canon one. </p>

<p>Fortunately there are several comparisons between them on the net, and lots of reviews and forum entries. As some of you also pointed out, it was easy to completely loose faith in the project, since both lenses actually get a fair amount of "bad experience forum entries", getting bashed for focus issues, construction problems etc. Both lenses fare very well in "formal" tests as well in the many great sample pictures provided by happy, dedicated users.</p>

<p>While reading all of the comparisons and viewing the samples, I actually got quite impressed with the Sigma and its large glass, so I am picking one up tomorrow, naively believing that this *could* be my new favorite prime. IF I get one with AF problems, I will return it, one experience richer and go with the Canon.</p>

<p>Thanks again for all your input - it has been invaluable.<br>

Best regards,<br>

Jesper. </p>

<p> </p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>Steven, I hate to belabor the point, especially since Jesper seems to have decided what's best for him, but you are very wrong. The time line goes something more like this: 1) Sigma produced lenses that failed with later Canon cameras. 2) They fixed the incompatibility problem, but in a couple years found out that their "fix" no longer worked with the introduction of yet newer Canon cameras. 3) They fixed the issue again, only to be only to be discovered broken again with even newer Canon bodies. This pattern went on several more times for well over a decade, with multiple upgrades of Sigma lenses, just to make them work every time Canon launched a new set of bodies. The last new incompatible Sigma was produced just a few years back, and it is still too early to know if this issue is really behind us all now.</p>

<p>Sigma did "re-chip" for free, and the new eeprom chips MAY be able to offer upgrades if this happens again, but we still don't know. Also, Sigma eventually capitulated to all the angry customers they created and did offer a low cost upgrade path for a while, perhaps they still do. But none of this should have happened in the first place, and there should have been a class action lawsuit.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Jim: there should only be a class action suit if Sigma (or <em>any</em> maker of any product) has made specific assurances of specific forward compatibility in a quickly evolving technical product field.<br /><br />For example: I own lenses made by Nikon that I cannot use on my current Nikon bodies. Nikon will not modify them, even for a fee. But then, I'm not terribly upset about that. <br /><br />The two Sigma lenses I've been using for some years now are humming along nicely, even after body updates. They have more than earned their keep, and anything I've spent on them has been earned back in spades.<br /><br />So if some pending re-invention of Nikon's AF protocols or physical mount makes them eventually unusable (except on the cameras on which I've been happily using them), then... that means that time has marched on. These are lenses that cost roughly the same as three nice dinners out in a major metro area (well, complete with one bottle of non screw-top wine). I pay way more than that more for a decent set of <em>tires</em> on my truck. I will not fuss if Sigma has to re-chip (at my expense) a lens I've been using when I make a substantial change to the body/ies I'm using.<br /><br />My most recent change didn't require any such change, of course. I just wish I could use some of my older Nikon lenses ... but I can't, not without having a third party more expensively modify some of them.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>I suppose you're right Matt. But it still irks me that Sigma got away with this for so long and for so many times. In any case, I think people should know what they are getting into when they buy. Hopefully none of this will apply to new Sigma lenses.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Yes, people <em>definitely</em> should know what they're getting into. If companies like Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma can't bank on Canon keeping a stable interface (in terms of how a "smart" lens interacts with the camera's brains/software) then it certainly does make the recipe one to consider more carefully. It's the same problem with software-driven flashes, etc.<br /><br />The good news is that I'm betting Sigma's (and everyone else's) in-lens brains are more <em>flashable</em> now, than they used to be, rather than something that needs physical swapping-out. That's where the whole industry is headed, when it comes to such devices. I note that Nikon's new SB-900 speedlight supports downloadable software upgrades. Cool!</p>

[billy_decola]

<p>I agree with Tim Gray<br>

The 50mm f/1.8 Mk II is so cheap it's a nice lens to have. Yeah it's crappy and cheap... and clunky auto focus... but for the price you can't go wrong.</p>

[jesper_hansen3]

<p>Well, got the Sigma 50mm 1.4 home and took some quick snaps of my home made test-board.</p>

<p>Lens is a little bit soft and with less contrast at 1.4 and 1.8, but that is expectable when wide open, I guess. At the wide open apertures, it seems to me that AF is slightly front-focusing, but only when using other focus points than center - I don't know if this makes sense, technically. I am sure it is only visible because of the extremely shallow DOF.</p>

<p>At 2.8 and upwards the results are sharp and with great colors and contrast, and AF focusing seems reasonable fast and fine - all focus points included. It may be helped by the fact that DOF is less shallow here. At 4.0 and up, the lens seems to be at its very best. Results are great, comparable to or better than my 100mm 2.8 macro, which was the benchmark I set out to match in the original post. The lens is solid, feels like great quality, much better handling on the camera than the small and light 1.8 mkII, and with an impressing 77 mm front it looks good as well :) </p>

<p>I still think this lens has the potential to become my next favorite. If it is reasonable that it costs several times the price of the 1.8 mkII is a completely different discussion :)</p>

 

[matthias_meixner2]

<p><em>If companies like Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma can't bank on Canon keeping a stable interface</em><br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

No, the interface is stable or old Canon lenses would not work, too. I would think, that those companies did not implement the full interface but just a subset of it, probably because they were reverse-engineering the procotol and did not capture all features. Now each time when Canon starts to use one of the previously unused features of the protocol then 3rd party lenses break.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Indeed, Jesper, you get a practically non-existant workable DoF. Even a tiny bit of movement on your part can fake you out on front/back focus when you're wide open. <br /><br />On my copy of that lens, I've used my D300's AF fine tune feature to push the focus back just a hair. Once you're stopped down even a tiny bit, or you're working much past the minimal focusing distance, it would never matter anyway.<br /><br />And yeah - you'll get addicted to that color rendition and contrast.</p>

[steve_crist]

<p>I have the Canon 1.8 and the 1.4 versions of the 50mm. Really there's no comparison. The 1.8 is very delicate and cheaply built. I've had my 1.4 about 5 years now and it gets fairly heavy use. The 1.8 is basically a throw-away lens that probably isn't designed to be used everyday. I think the allure of the 1.8 is that for the price it does produce decent (but not great) images.</p>

[jimstrutz]

<p>I also have both the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, and I agree, the f/1.8 is cheaply built. But it still works great after much abuse, while the f/1.4 took a slight bounce once and hasn't worked since. I also have a Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 macro that looks and feels more like crap than the Canon 50mm f/1.8. After over many years of use, both of them still work, and takes great pictures too. Sometimes, those cheap throw away lenses prove to be a really good deal.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM for an APS-C sensor at 80mm f/1.4 would be the ideal choice with respect to shooting wide open. The bokeh is better which would mean a better portrait at about 1 to 1.5 metres.</p>

<p>I'm happy with mine on a Canon EOS 5D. Setting the exposure value to about +1/3 removes a portion of the vignetting too.</p>

[paul_runnoe2]

<p>Here is a link on disassembling the 50mm f/1.8 II - usually to fix a stuck focus ring.</p>

<p>Give it a shot if you're adventurous.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.ejarm.com/photo/ef5018iidis/">http://www.ejarm.com/photo/ef5018iidis/</a></p>

[jesper_hansen3]

<p>Nice link, Paul - thanks. I'll do it a day I feel lucky!</p>