50 mm prime lens

[sam_adams2]

<p>Hello Howard,<br>

I just happened to make a final decision on that exact question today for myself. I just bought the EF 50 1.4 for my 5DII. Here is why:<br>

I am familiar with this lens from the film/FD days. The optical design is identical and it was always one of my favorites. Yes, it is very sharp when stopped down and yes it is ever so slightly softer when wide open. I always loved the results. And there are no real alternatives as far as I am concerned. I came pretty close to investing in the 50 1.2L for its build quality. But the price difference is just way too big for what it is. Even if the 1.4 breaks in a few years it's still cheaper to replace/repair it 2 or even 3 times.<br>

The Sigma may be interesting to some and I had good experiences in the past with Sigma but this one didn't look quite right to me. The Zeiss manual focus lenses don't appear to be optically superior in any way and aren't really Zeiss lenses to begin with (made by some third party manufacturer in Japan). Plus on modern AF SLRs, unfortunately, the viewfinders and screens aren't meant to support manual focus.<br>

And that's pretty much all there is. Do I wish there was a 50 1.4L or at least some mechanically updated version available? Yes. And I was willing to pay for it. But with the limited choices I went back to the old 1.4 stand-by (as its "modern" rather plasticky iteration) and decided to spend the rest of the money on something else.<br>

Good luck</p>

 

[andrew_espinosa]

<p>I know 50mm is a really popular focal length, but have you considered the 85mm f/1.8.</p>

<p>Super fast, quiet, and accurate "Ring" USM focus and a similar price point to the 50mm f/1.4.<br>

You'll be shooting full frame anyways so you're not exorbitantly far from your subject as it is, and I believe (Haven't used it more than a few minutes firsthand) you get better optics, and a better overall experience out of the 85mm for about the same price. I think the math works out to that at 15 feet away you get about 5' of coverage of your subject with the 85mm as opposed to about 9' of coverage with the 50mm</p>

<p>I suppose the only other thing you'd have to specify is your usage and whether or not 85mm is an inconvenient focal length.</p>

[jazzphoto]

<p>Howard,</p>

<p>I uploaded my photos taken with the 50mm f1.8, about 80% of the gallery is with this lens. Beware a few photos have been scanned wrong and are the wrong size!<br>

http://fredventuri.zenfolio.com/bradipo</p>

<p>Fred</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>I ditched my Canon 50/1.8 in favour of the Sigma 50/1.4. The Sigma is a real gem; sharp, rapid and silent focus, nice background blur and well constructed. It's my first (possibly only) off-brand lens.</p>

[markus_keinath1]

<p>I have the EF 50/1.4 - and have used it long time on my EOS Rebel XT and EOS 5D - but not use it any more.<br />I own the EF 50/1.8 in both versions - I don´t like them. I like metal, I like the posibility for the IR correction (not good possible on EF 50/1.8 II).<br>

I own the old Zeiss (Contax/Yashica) 50/1.4 and 50/1.7 too, but I don´t use those often. <br />Why?<br />I have a DIY converted <a href="http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/minolta-rokkor-58-to-canon-eos-conversion.html">Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.2</a>, that is my personal favorite ~ 50 mm lens. That lens is not perfect, highlights could "glow", at least when the lens is used wide open. But I use the glowing as a part of my photography.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p> The Zeiss manual focus lenses don't appear to be optically superior in any way and aren't really Zeiss lenses to begin with (made by some third party manufacturer in Japan).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 50 f2 macro-planar is probably the best 50mm currently available for the EOS system, although the ZE 50/1.4 is no better than Canon's offerings. The "third party manufacturer" is Cosina/Voigtlander - a very highly regarded lens maker in their own right and the Zeiss ZE lenses are Zeiss lenses through and through - no review has had anything negative to say about their (superb) build quality.</p>

<p>I would pick the Canon f1.4 myself unless you want the Sigma which has nicer build quality, and is bigger and heavier and more expensive. I am not personally convinced that it has significantly superior optics, but I do notice quite a lot of pros using them</p>

[howard b. schwartz]

<p>thanks for all the responses. i was going to try the sigma 50 mm, but there seems to be a lot of discussion about inconsistency in the quality from lens to lens. many of the reviews i have read relate sending the lens back for poor focusing and quality. any comments?</p>

[andrew_espinosa]

<p>My last post was kind of long so you may have missed my question, but is there a particular reason you need the lens to be 50mm? It's obviously a very popular focal length, but I'm wondering if it has to be 50mm because much better lenses (optically) with much better features exist at around the same price as a 50mm f/1.4.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I have Zeiss 1.4 and Canon 1.4. The Canon is as good. Buy the Canon 1.4, use it til it breaks (mine is 4 years old, it's fine), buy a new Canon, use it til it breaks, repeat until something better comes along. </p>

[faysal]

<p>I've yet to notice a single focus issue or build issue with the the Canon 50 1.4, I love it.</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>thanks for all the responses. i was going to try the sigma 50 mm, but there seems to be a lot of discussion about inconsistency in the quality from lens to lens. many of the reviews i have read relate sending the lens back for poor focusing and quality. any comments?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Generally two things commonly happen whenn a very popular product is introduced. Sometimes there are manufacturing difficulties or some of the people that buy the newest and best don't know how to use it properly to get good result and blame it on the lens or cameras. </p>

<p>When the 7D was intorduced everyone was amazed at the new focus system and the high frames per second. And some people got very good results with it. However others had difficulty with the focus system. From many of the ealy 7D posts it was clear some people were either not using the focus system correctly or clerarly didn't really understand how to use the camera. And for some of the earliest adoptors they found there new cameras had a defective focus system. </p>

<p>The Sigma 50mm also had similar problems. Clearly some were not focusing correctly ot of the box. Others clearly didn't have any experience with the very thin depth of field the Sigma could achieve and blaimed there difficulties on the focus system when instead it was a technique issue or using a thin depth for a subject that really need greater depth of field. Although I didn't follow it closely there also were some early focus issues with the 1D MK III and canon did realest a firmware upgrade to address that. </p>

<p>I have the Sigma 50 F1.4 and get very relable focus with it (its just as reliable as my other 4 Canon L lenses). I never had to send it in for calibration. Yes some of the 50mm that sigma made had focus issues but in my opinion most of the comments I have seen in the last year indicate you are more likely now to get a good lens now than a bad one. </p>

[tdigi]

<p>I never used a Sigma lens but I would suspect many focus issues are user error. I do have the Canon 50 1.2 and 1.4 and really both are very close in image quality, I find the L is slightly better but the 1.4 is actually a bit shaper but only if you pixel peep. The L does make the 1.4 feel like a toy but that can be good and bad. Its certainly built better but its also heavier and bigger. You really can't go wrong with any of these and I would have probably gone for the Sigma but i just feel more comfortable with Canon lenses and even with the occasional focus issue the 50 1.4 is a great lens for the money.</p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>I have a circa 1988 50 1.8 mkI that I got for the price of the mkII thanks to a chance stumble at a garage sale. To this day it is my most favourite lens because it is light, cheap and produces very good pictures. Attached to my 30D, it feels like I have a small rangefinder. hahahah!</p>

[igord]

<p>My copy of 50/1.8 mkI is much better then my copy of 50/2.5 at f/8 and say 2-3 meters distance.<br>

This little 50/1.8 hit the hard floor of the studio, jumped several times, lost AF/M switch (I taped it immediately) but still works! I thought it had been destroyed ;) It is the sharpest lens I ever owned, maybe I am lucky with this very copy of it.</p>

 

[don_v.]

<p>At <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/">fredmiranda.com</a> if you read through enough user reviews of the Canon 1.4 (356 user reviews) and the Sigma 1.4 (90 user reviews), a pretty clear pattern emerges.</p>

<p>Both lenses scored an 8.9 (out of 10) cumulative rating. It seems that perhaps 10-20% of the Canon 1.4 users at FM have had focus-motor-reliability issues (as I have). Similarly, perhaps 10-20% of the Sigma 1.4 users at FM have had focus-accuracy issues (I haven't tried the Sigma yet, but I doubt [per a comment above] that "many" of the Sigma problem reports are "user error" when we're talking about a relatively expensive prime lens unlikely to be purchased by beginners).</p>

<p>Consensus is that you should buy whichever lens you settle on from a place that will let you return it without penalty if there are problems.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Buy the Canon 1.4, use it til it breaks (mine is 4 years old, it's fine), buy a new Canon, use it til it

breaks, repeat until something better comes along.

 

That was probably a good strategy for Yugo...

[JDMvW]

<p>I think Dr. Path has made a important point about the basic Planar design that has diffused across many marques.<br>

Only saving that some of us would prefer to call them Biotars or Biometars ;) (see http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00CA9L ).<br>

Try one of these old classics and you'll be surprised. Even the 80mm Biometer f/2.8 can be adapted fairly easily to modern Canon EOS cameras, although the adapter is a little more expensive than those for 35mm camera lenses.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Is today Ground Hog Day? :) There has been a lot of 50mm lens discussion and I keep waking up to "I Got You Babe" ... <br>

If your not going with the Canon 50 mm F/1.2, I recommend the Sigma 50 mm F/1.4. Maybe you can get Lucky and win the one in the Drawing on Photo.net. It is a great lens, hands down, no regrets, it rocks!</p>

[oofoto]

<p>Don't forget also the Canon 45 2.8 TSE, I find this lens sharp enough wide open and it opens up the creative side also.<br>

I also have the 50 1.2 which I shoot wide open 99% of the time.<br>

I really want to try the Nikon 50mm 1.2 on my 5D.<br>

I think with fast 50's the overall optical quality is more important than the sharpness.</p>