Which is the best 50mm?

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>if you are shooting indoor portraits, then autofocus is not required, in fact it'd be a hinderance. if you can spring for the Ziess, then you will be buying a great lens with superior build quality. IQ of all these lenses would be adequate.</em></p>

<p>Are you kidding? Shooting portraits at f/1.4 and f/2 manual focus is nearly impossible with modern matte screens. The DoF is just too narrow. And I'm speaking as a young adult with excellent vision who can MF most lenses just fine. Heck, I'm finding that I need to use spot AF on my 7D to reliably nail the focus using the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon 85 f/1.8 up close and wide open, to say nothing of watching my breathing and making sure I don't sway between AF and shooting.</p>

<p>I would not recommend a manual focus 50mm for portraits on a modern EOS body unless the user had a 3rd party focusing screen with a focusing aid, i.e. a Katz Eye. f/1.4 can also be useful for portraits where shallow DoF and maximum background blur is desired, vs. f/2.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Daniel, your post reaffirms a beleif that I have. It amazes me how much new photographers rely on technology like autofocus and auto exposure. It's actually part of learning to take photographs, and yes it takes practice and skill, but if your ever tried it you may see how it can free your thinking and technique. Autofocus is for shooting birds and footballers. God forbid you try to use any other type of camera other than a small format SLR digicam. Why do you think it's neccessary to shoot a portrait at f1.4, and with digital, why can't you bracket your focus if you do want to shoot wide open?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ty,</p>

<p>I am not a new photographer. I used manual focus lenses for 25 years before getting auto focus ones. In my film days with fast lenses, Canon FDn 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2 and 135 f2, I was happy to get three critically sharp images per roll of 36, I was not unusual in that respect amongst my peers either. Now with AF on my 50 mm f1.4 wide open I am shocked if I get 3 unsharp images per hundred.</p>

<p>Don't play that salty old photographer with me, AF is an amazing development, I do not use it exclusively, but when I do I know when it will nail the shot, and, it can do that a damn sight more often, in faster changing circumstances and dimmer light than you or I ever could.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Daniel, your post reaffirms a beleif that I have. It amazes me how much new photographers rely on technology like autofocus and auto exposure. It's actually part of learning to take photographs, and yes it takes practice and skill, but if your ever tried it you may see how it can free your thinking and technique. </em></p>

<p>The 'salty old photographer' bit won't work any better on me than it does on Scott. While I don't have the time behind manual equipment that he does, I started with Canon FD, manual focus lenses and manually exposed slide film. To this day I often spot meter scene highlights and shadows and manually set my exposures.</p>

<p>It's pointless to argue AF vs. MF when we're talking about f/1.4 - f/2 glass and a matte focusing screen. A human cannot precisely focus a 50 f/1.4 wide open using a matte screen. The screen itself does not offer the precision necessary. You can be slightly front or back focused and the target will still appear sharp in the VF.</p>

<p><em>God forbid you try to use any other type of camera other than a small format SLR digicam. </em></p>

<p>You mean like my TLR? Or the MF and LF equipment I've used in classes at the local college?</p>

<p><em>Why do you think it's neccessary to shoot a portrait at f1.4, and with digital, why can't you bracket your focus if you do want to shoot wide open?</em></p>

<p>* It's not necessary, but when I do want f/1.4 for DoF and background blur focus becomes even more critical. It's just not possible to nail focus at f/1.4 using a matte screen. It can be difficult even with focusing aids. It may look like you have the desired focus in the VF, but at 16x20 you will discover it's not even close. Heck, even at f/2.8 at close distances for head and shoulder shots I'm sure AF can out perform me with a matte screen.</p>

<p>* Whether I shoot my digital 7D or my 35mm film A2e doesn't matter. A human still can't nail focus on, say, an eye at f/1.4 with a matte screen.</p>

<p>* When I shoot portraits I rarely use a tripod. I want to be free to move around. Focusing bracketing is out.</p>

[ilya_e]

<p>LOL, I am ready to reed a few "smart ass" posts how Zeiss is bad and MF sucks. Why don't you two educate us all. I am dying to hear your idiotic arguments. </p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>I agree with Ilya, the Zeiss is a marvelous lens and I prefer a MF to AF, at least when it is built like the Zeiss. Changing the AF switch to MF on a modern AF lens isn't quite the same. And I have no trouble nailing the focus with my Canon 50 f/1.4 with the stock focusing screen. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Speaking as a photographer, I use the 24-70, the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8. The 1.8 is a fine lens and it's great if you think you're going to get smacked around given the price. The only Canon lens I've had that self-destructed was the 35/2, and I paid about five times as much as I did for the 50/1.8. </p>

<p>I recommend you look at people's photos and see if they're doing things that might stress the equipment, that's probably the best way to figure out who knows what's going on.</p>

[scott_ferris]

Zeiss is not "bad" it is just expensive for its limited functionality, that is a fact, so are Leica cameras and lenses but they

have niche too. Don't mistake it, the Zeiss is a niche product and to randomly recommend it to people when you don't

know their experience and didn't ask about it is not helpful in my opinion.

 

Certainly they have a near fanatical following. But Rebecca asked about the three Canon 50's she knew about, not third

party manual focus lenses.

 

Whilst there will always be people who refuse technology the truth is that AF is proven to do a far better job than any

photographer almost all the time. I use manual focus with 10x live view for all my tripod work, product, landscape etc, but

the thought of trying to nail focus in dynamic situations with wide aperture lenses in less than ideal lighting is comical.

Formal posed portraits maybe, but why?

 

I remember reading a post by Ilya regarding manual focus with his Zeiss 85, another Zeiss lens he got rid of, he said it

was no problem for him to use 10x live view handheld! How exactly do you frame that shot? Just try it once to see how

farcical that suggestion is, I did.

 

So my idiotic argument boils down to the fact that so far I have heard nothing that makes any sense from you and the

experience I and many millions of photographers have had is that auto focus is worth it's weight in gold.

[ty_mickan]

<p>Comical! I shoot weddings most weekends with manual focus 1.4 lenses, including a 75mm. Paper thin DOF...........only at minimum focus distance. Expensive...........cost is subjective, and if you can't justify a Zeiss lens, doesn't mean the next person can't. Limited functionality! Extroadinary statement really, for something that is merely a camera lens. It seems clear that you have trouble focusing with a 1.4 lens, but it would seem that others, who aren't as reliant on the "point and shoot" modes of thier SLR seem to excel. But it would seem Scott, that with the information that you have given us here, an SLR might not be the best camera for you. You say you're into landscapes, product, and portraits, so why do you use a SFDSLR?</p>

[scott_ferris]

Ty,

 

I shoot whatever pays the bills, I buy the tools for the job, my last lens was a few weeks ago, it is a $2,000 manual focus

only Canon lens, it has functionality Zeiss dream of.

 

I have shot a lot of weddings, manual focus and auto focus. My camera does not have a point and shoot mode! It does have a shiftable program mode but I don't remember ever having used it. Most of my shooting is done in manual exposure. So what?

 

I don't know what an SFDSLR is, if it can help me take better pictures more consistently then I'll buy one though.

 

Now, how does any of that help Rebecca with her choice between the three Canon 50's?

[William Michael]

<p>As Beuh B stated your “buy new” Canon choice is between the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8MkII. I have the50/1.4: the main reasons why I bought the 50/1.4 and not the 50/1.8 are:<br>

> FTM Focus<br>

> Number of Blades.<br>

> Because it is F/1.4 and I use that.<br>

> It is heavier that the 1.8 and I like that balance on my cameras.<br>

> The only other option when I bought my 50/1.4 was the 50/1.0 and that focussed way too slowly and was way too expensive.<br>

There is nothing “wrong” with the EF 50F/1.8MkII in my opinion.<br>

Both are quite useable wide open, if used with care and knowledge and here is the 50/1.4 wide open: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=978598">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=978598</a></p>

<p>> On an APS-C Body: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=925228">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=925228</a><br />For interest’s sake, on a 5D: <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=964622">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=964622</a><br /><br /></p>

<p>Apropos making Manual Focus with the 50/1.4 – I do it sometimes (in low light): and I know that other Wedding Portrait Photographers who use the 50/1.4 lens, do so too. Most I know use the same or very similar technique. These techniques (and similar arguments) have been discussed at length on several Wedding Forum Threads.</p>

<p>In precise:<br>

Select MF<br>

Centre point AF indication square is selected.<br>

Good contrast edge is sort on subject. (line of dress on woman’s bust / line where white shirt meets man’s coat - as examples)<br>

Whilst holding the AF square active (I have AF selected top “*”) the lens is MF.<br>

The AF square will confirm – but one focuses slightly beyond that point.<br>

Then slightly turn the Focus Turret backwards - to get a second blink.<br>

Hold Focus.<br>

Recompose if necessary.<br>

Release the shutter.</p>

<p>Apropos AF or MF and focusing technique generally, it is only a tool or a technique and it would bode well for the OP to understand both Auto Focus and Manual Focus Techniques . . . and also Zone Focusing and Bracket Focusing techniques . . . and also Manual Pre Focussing for moving subjects and Focus and Recompose and . . . etc.</p>

<p>Knowing the techniques, one is then better armed to use the best in each situation.</p>

<p>To say that one focussing technique is not required simply because one is shooting indoors is a little silly IMO and it is just as silly to suggest that MF cannot be achieved or used to advantage in various circumstances. </p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

We are in complete agreement yet again William W. You just keep a much cooler head than me:-)

 

Learning AF techniques is of course very important, and, quite difficult with the Zeiss!

[scott_ferris]

Ty,

 

Small format DSLR? Why would you assume I use a crop camera? I don't. But the viewfinder magnification on the 7D is

pretty impressive.

[ty_mickan]

<p>I assumed you use a Canon 5D or Mk11 - Small Format DSLR.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>I don't always keep a cool head - I don't know very many people who do and I think they just Canonised the last one . . . anyway I saw this heading in a spiral downwards . . .</p>

<p>Also - to be a little more specific:<br>

I think it is highly likely that a <strong>Rangefinder Camera</strong> is being used for Weddings where it was mentioned that paper thin MF was attained with Manual Focus lenses including a 75mm lens. . . <br>

To be fair, I think the Rangefinder that might be being used - might just be a little easier to MF than the camera Rebecca is using and who (with respect) might be less familiar within MF techniques and obviously has a DSLR.<br>

Likely Rebecca’s DSLR is APS-C format and to MF with it in some circumstances inside is an entirely different kettle of kippers to using a Rangefinder – no matter the level of experience the person driving it – it requires a different technique . . . and after it is Rebecca’s question we are answering - No?</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[ilya_e]

<p>MF is a niche? Why don't you go back a bit and learn history of photography and maybe you will also be able to learn that MF lenses were around much longer than AF and that all famous photographers have used MF lenses to create works of art in every area (including sports, wildlife, etc). So the only conclusion I can make here is that you probably suck at using MF lenses. I don't see other reason why would you open your mouth and start pushing your onions on others when somebody recommends a MF lens. And your idea that I am a "Zeissphille" is a dumb one too. I objectively look at things and if I don't like it I am not afraid of saying it. I bought 85mm f/1.4 ZE and I did not like it. That fact hardly make me a Zeissphille. I currently own 6 lenses and 2 of them Zeiss: 50mm MP and 21mm Distagon; 1 Voigtlander and 3 Canons. I enjoy using MF lenses and took great number of portraits (this is what I do most of the time), wildlife and my kids sports, including using Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 wide open (when I had it).</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>William,</p>

<p>It would appear not :-) But today it is water off a ducks back, "see" you around..........</p>

[JohnOsterman]

<p>I also like the 50 f1.8 on my 40D and for the price, about $90, I won't cry to much if I drop it !</p>

[james_r2]

<p>Rebecca,<br>

Without knowing your level of technical knowledge, I'll try to answer your question as simply as possible, without sounding condescending: apologies if you already know this stuff.</p>

<p>Setting aside price, build quality, autofocus speed, and overall image quality, the basic difference between the 3 apertures has to do with how much light each lens can capture (how "fast" the lens is, especially in low light situations) and the depth of field when each is at its widest setting.(the wider the aperture, the shallower the depth of field, which helps to isolate a subject from the background).</p>

<p>Each lens also blurs out the background differently (popularly referred to as "boke"), and in general, the more expensive lenses are thought to have a smoother, more aesthetically pleasing boke. YMMV</p>

<p>When stopped down (narrower aperture/higher f-stop setting), the differences in sharpness between the 3 models are not as great - however, be aware that stopping down will put more of the background in focus, and may be distracting in a portrait.</p>

<p>Depending on the type of portraiture work you do (posed studio with lighting vs. more casual, docu style, including outdoors with available light), each lens may perform differently.</p>

<p>As a side note, longer focal lengths than 50mm are often used in portrait photography, in order to isolate more of the subject from the background, and also to avoid exaggerating facial features, especially the nose. (unless you're going for the Jimmy Durante look)<br>

For this reason, the 85mm and 135mm focal lengths are quite popular, as is the 70-200mm.<br>

With that in mind, you might consider getting both the EF 50mm f/1.8 and the EF 85mm f/1.8 lenses. Both are very affordable, and considered good bang for the buck - especially the 85mm f/1.8<br>

Having the flexibility of two different focal lengths for portrait work would be quite useful.<br>

Do get a lens hood for any lens you buy; it helps reduce lens flare, and also improves image contrast.<br>

hope this helps</p>

 

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>LOL, I am ready to reed a few "smart ass" posts how Zeiss is bad and MF sucks. Why don't you two educate us all. I am dying to hear your idiotic arguments.</em></p>

<p>LOL, I am ready to read a few "smart ass" posts with strawman arguments and personal insults. Oh...wait...</p>

<p>I'm dying to see you discuss a topic like an adult human being. I won't hold my breath.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>Comical! I shoot weddings most weekends with manual focus 1.4 lenses, including a 75mm. </em></p>

<p>Are you using a DSLR with a matte focusing screen, shooting wide open at close distances? If not then your experience is not relevant to what Rebecca will experience when shooting head and shoulder portraits wide open. If you are than I question just how precise your focus actually is because under those conditions a matte VF will appear to be in focus even if the plane of focus is a couple inches in front of or behind the desired target. It's not a matter of your skill or eyesight or how good you think you are. The matte screen is insufficient to the task. At 5x7 it won't matter. At 16x20 it will be painfully obvious.</p>

<p><em>Paper thin DOF...........only at minimum focus distance. </em></p>

<p>Given a crop camera and a 50 f/1.4, shooting a head and shoulders portrait wide open yields about a 2" DoF. You can't reliably manually focus that with a matte screen. With a Katz Eye (or an old MF SLR with similar aids) you could, but Rebecca is obviously using EOS and I doubt she's changed the VF screen.</p>

<p>Even when shooting groups or stopping down AF will yield a higher percentage of keepers in any kind of fast moving situation.</p>

<p><em>Expensive...........cost is subjective, and if you can't justify a Zeiss lens, doesn't mean the next person can't.</em></p>

<p>If she can't afford the 24-70 then why are we talking about Zeiss glass any way? Why was the topic taken in a direction that does not help her in the least? The implication of her post is that if she had that kind of cash she would already have the zoom.</p>

<p><em>Limited functionality! Extroadinary statement really, for something that is merely a camera lens. </em></p>

<p>Why is it extraordinary to point out that the lens you recommend is one stop slower, cannot achieve the same shallow DoF, and will yield more missed shots due to the human inability to keep up with modern AF systems?</p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>Are you using a DSLR with a matte focusing screen, shooting wide open at close<br /> distances? If not then your experience is not relevant to what Rebecca will<br /> experience when shooting head and shoulder portraits wide open. If you are than<br /> I question just how precise your focus actually is because under those<br /> conditions a matte VF will appear to be in focus even if the plane of focus is<br /> a couple inches in front of or behind the desired target. It's not a matter of<br /> your skill or eyesight or how good you think you are. The matte screen is<br /> insufficient to the task. At 5x7 it won't matter. At 16x20 it will be painfully<br /> obvious.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>no i don't use a dslr, i upgraded years ago. but like you say, you use the right tool for the job. i'm not sure how Rebecca ended up with a DSLR, and not some other type of camera that may have been better suited to her pursuits. <br>

So we weren't talking about shooting weddings, but indoor portraits, and again I say an 85mm at 1.4 is rarely going to be used at moderate distances, let alone closest focus. and more likely at f4 or thereabouts. </p>

<p> </p>

[DavidRabinowitz]

<p>If you are looking to do indoor portraits, i'd consider a zoom lens...the 24-70 is a flagship zoom but it is expensive...there are other Canon zooms and I'd stick with Canon...unless you are dead set on a prime lens, I wouldn't pass up the versatility of a zoom especially if you're using a flash unit...the 24-70 and I'd imagine the 50mm 1.2 are heavy and you cannot handhold well at 1/125 with these lenses, so you lose a little advantage of shooting at wider apertures if you're not using a flash...if you do not want to use flash, you need to see how well your camera handles high iso's...</p>

[w_t1]

<p>...or you could just save up and skip lattes for a while and get the 24-70. whew</p>

[david j.lee]

<p>this is an easy one. the summicron f2.0....fourth version.</p>