Looking for a 50mm upgrade

[devin_earthman]

<p>I know anyone is asking for a flamewar with this kind of question, but let me try and kung fu all the usual sort of what-a-stupid-question responses and spell out some disclaimers first. I am a 5D2 shooter and the Canon 50mm 1.4 has served me well, but I have the budget lately for something better (yes, I think the 1.4 is a great lens, no I don't think an upgrade will make me a better photographer). I've also never been, subjectively, a huge fan of the 1.4's look.<br /> The problem is, within the current Canon realm, it doesn't get better all-around than the 1.4. I was very close this week to ordering a 1.2L but after falling out of its sexy bokeh/L-series spell, I've come to my senses that it practically goes backward from the 1.4 on the things I would actually want a new lens for. I'm not running around shooting in dark closets all day.<br /> This leaves me with manual and/or adapted lenses. The thing is, normally I just stick to Canon EF lenses and get on with it, so I've never had the chance to learn much about pro lenses beyond them.<br /> No, what I'm looking for is not "the best ever" 50mm lens. Nor who makes the best lenses, why a sigma zoom is all I should need if I were a half-decent photographer, or why I should jump off a bridge for considering manual focusing adapted lenses. What I would like are suggestions for a 50mm (or thereabouts) lens that is sharper wide open, and gentler with its transition areas and bokeh when stopped down a bit. I realize this probably means a slower lens. Basically I want an 85mm L in 50mm! This isn't to replace my 1.4 so I don't mind getting something with less practicality or more of a unique character.<br /> Along those lines, and with a budget of around 1500 or less, these are lenses at least look-wise I really like (I have no idea if these are actually relatively any technically better than the 1.4):</p>

<p><br /> Zeiss/Hasselblad Distagon f2.8 or 4 (would also be nice as I eventually want to get a Hassie)</p>

<p>Heliar 3.5</p>

<p>Leica Summilux 1.4</p>

<p>Voigtlander Nokton 1.1(I've read mixed things)</p>

<p>Pentax SMC 1.2 (possibly not on the same level as the others but I love the look and bokeh of these lenses and the 1.4's which I have)</p>

<p>I haven't even gotten to looking at Canon's own older lenses</p>

<p><br /> The thing is, you can read things calling any of those lenses the best ever blah blah. I already know I like the look of all the lenses above, because it's easy to find pictures taken with them. What I don't know is how they compare relatively, if there are options much better for the price range, and most important if they are even at least as sharp as the canon 1.4 stopped down. Last, I hope my application is obvious given the forum!<br /> Cheers and thanks!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You might actually want to put Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM on that list, as it scratches several of the itches you mention.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Read up on the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. It's not a speed demon, but it's probably the sharpest of Canon's normal-length prime lenses, it's not too expensive, and you get half-life-size (1:2) macro in the bargain.</p>

<p>Or, if you like the look of the Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.2, then why not use it? Just get a handy mount adapter, focus manually, and have fun. Your 5D Mark II will automatically default to stop-down metering when a manual (no electrical communication) lens is mounted.</p>

<p>Some of my favorite images that I've made with my 5D Mark II were shot with manual Nikon lenses such as the Nikkor 28mm f/2 AI, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AI, and the Nikkor 85mm f/2 AI-S.</p>

[devin_earthman]

<p>Thanks Matt I'll check it out. It does actually have really nice looking blur, and very circular even down a few stops.<br /> And Craig, I was just going to post about 50mm 2.5 macro as another option! I really like the idea of a dead-sharp, distortion-free 50mm. With that I couldn't think of anything better for routine stop down shots and would still have plenty of room in the bank left over for a fun old manual for going wide open. As for the Pentax 1.2 my only reservation is that I know the least about it and how it compares in the raw resolution department wide open and edge to edge, since it isn't written about as much. If it's anywhere close I wouldn't mind one at all!</p>

[devin_earthman]

<p>The only downside I see on the 2.5 macro is it gets real hexagonal real fast stopped down. Even with that the case though, the daylight stop down shots I see still have really smooth looking blur at least as long as there are no glaring point lights. That's a shame since its wide open bokeh is incredible.</p>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>One more lens to check out? I know that there is a <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/583975-REG/Zeiss_1677_817_Normal_50mm_f_1_4_ZE.html"><strong>'new' Zeiss 50mm f1.4 lens </strong></a>now available for Canon bodies.</p>

[ruslan]

<p>Voigtlander 90/3.5 APO Lanthar. (nice lens)<br>

Nikkor 50/1.4 AIS (antique look) <br /><br />Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE (twice as long as Nikkor focus ring rotation)</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>My "dream" 50mm is the Canon FD 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical that is readily available for under $1000 USD but then it would have to be sent to a gentlemen in eastern Canada to have an EOS mount put on it, for about $250. I have seen the odd one already converted come up on eBay for well under $1000 USD, so you could keep your eyes open. This lens has been rated right up there with the Nikon Noct 58mm f1.2 and the Leica Noctilux 50mm f1.0, which are both over $3000 USD each! The Canon EF 50mm f1.0 L is not in this realm at all, being extremely soft, and it too is over $3000. Oddly enough though this <em>may</em> be the one with the best bokeh considering how soft it is!</p>

<p>Others that I have considered are the Contax/Zeiss 50/1.4 and 50/1.7, Leica Summicron 50/2 R and the Summilux R you mention. I had the Nikon 50/1.4 AIS and have also considered the Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS, the earlier 55/1.2 is apparently not as good.</p>

<p>Unfortunately I have never tested my lenses for bokeh on a regular basis, but in one particular series of shots from various lenses the Nikon 200/2 AI was a stunning performer, but obviously a totally different kind of lens. I wish that I had never sold my Zeiss/Contax 85/1.4 because it was a phenomenal lens. I have one wedding "bokeh" shot that I will find and post at some point.</p>

<p>Which brings me to the 85mm lenses. Why do you discount the various 85/1.2 and 85/1.4 lenses? They are in the same price range and likely display better "bokeh". Other "portrait" lenses that I have considered recently and that are highly acclaimed are the Nikon 105/2.5 AIS, Zeiss/Contax 135/2.8 Sonnar and Lieca R 90/2 Summicron.</p>

<p>I have driven myself crazy trying to determine the best "bokeh" lenses on the internet but I think each of us is just going to have to take the plunge and try one. I still use Nikon lenses on my 5D II. Let us know how you make out.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> I was very close this week to ordering a 1.2L but after falling out of its sexy bokeh/L-series spell,

I've come to my senses that it practically goes backward from the 1.4 on the things I would actually want

a new lens for. I'm not running around shooting in dark closets all day.

 

 

That realization is good progress...

 

I think the photographic results one achieves are far more driven by your eye, ability to contemplate/translate/compose subject matter before the lens, finding and taking advantage of nice light, and post-processing skills. FAR

more than the slight minutia one finds between characteristics of different lenses.

[fotograf]

<p>Devin- none of the lenses you mentioned(Zeiss, Pentax, etc.)will fit a Canon EF mount so all bets are off on those brands.</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>I'll second Matt's recommendation of the Sigma 50/1.4. Also consider a Pentax K adapter and a K-mount SMC Pentax-M 50/1.4.</p>

[derek_hofmann]

<p>You might consider the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/12/canon-files-a-patent-for-a-bunch-of-lenses/">Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 II</a>.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Actually, Brian, you can adapt just about any lens, except of course Canon FD, to a Canon EOS body with a simple mechanical adapter.</p>

<p>One further note, medium format lenses, like the Hasselblads do not resolve as well as the best 35mm lenses. Medium format lenses should only be considered for very specific applications especially since some of the best ones are still so expensive.</p>

[devin_earthman]

<p>Thanks guys. John, I don't discount 85mm at all! I have one already and am more than happy with it. That's part of the problem is that my 50 doesn't impress me as much, and it's a length I find myself going to often enough that I thought it warranted some attention. I also think Nikons are great looking lenses, I've always liked their bokeh as well but have never owned one. I'll have to look into that 55mm fd as well.</p>

<p>Brian, I totally agree -- this isn't about me hoping for a new lens to do my work for me. I don't think photos with my 1.4 are bad or unacceptable, there's just something very specific in this case that I'm not getting in terms of how I'd like my photos to look and there's nothing I can do about it. That I think is ultimately more related to my "vision" as a photographer than the usual "which lens is better" talk, I couldn't care less. I'm only posting here to make sure that, as you quoted, I'm not pouring money into something that actually goes backward from what I already know does the job for me.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>"The thing is, normally I just stick to Canon EF lenses and get on with it, so I've never had the chance to learn much about pro lenses beyond them."</p>

<p>Many of us regard the Canon 50mm f/1.4 as being a great lens for professional work. I think that it is important to try to put aside the subjective romance of those other lens options long enough to actually identify what, if anything, will really change for you if you get one of those special purpose lenses. I suspect that not much will change at all.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Devin, I was in a similar position a short time ago, being very happy with my 50/1.4, but wanting a slightly faster 50mm for my EOS bodies (I have several f/1.2 primes for my FD bodies). And, like you, I've resisted the temptation to buy the optically inferior 50/1.2 L (and saved a lot of money in the process!). So what I did is pick up a couple of Nikkors, the 55/1.2 pre-Ai and the 50/1.2 Ai-S, one of which I might sell once I've thoroughly "tested" them both.</p>

<p>However, if I were you, I'd take the advice of some of the other posters and get a prime of a <em>different</em> focal length than 50mm, an 85/1.2 L II or a 35/1.4 L, for example. That way, you'll have an excellent 50mm prime <em>and </em>an excellent prime with a complementary rather than redundant focal length.</p>

[devin_earthman]

<p>Hey mark, as mentioned earlier, I already have the 85 and 35 L! The 35 is on my camera probably half the time. I love the 85 but don't use it often. The rest is 50mm. That's why I'm looking at my 1.4, I'm just not as in love with it. I think Nikons are definitely something to check out.</p>

[matthijs]

I've read really nice things about the Zeiss 50/2 MP.

 

It's a 1:2 makro and renders well.

 

Alas I don't have one so I can't give personal experience.

(Stephen Penland uses one every now and then. He's on photo.net.)

[matthijs]

<p>Like <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/1421214@N23/pool/">here</a>...</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Zeiss's 50/1.4 ZE is probably not the "best" Zeiss lens in their current lineup, but it is certainly the cheapest. If the look of the Canon 50 is what you don't like, you might be pleased with the Zeiss, since it has a quite different look especially at large apertures. It's manual focus but you do at least have the luxury of automatic aperture control.</p>

[devin_earthman]

<p>Yeah that Zeiss 2.0 Makro is definitely a beauty. I'm not terribly impressed with some of their other ZE lenses considering the price and mf tradeoff but that one is a stunner. It's a tough proposition though when compared to the ~$200 Canon 2.5 macro no matter how good it is!</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I'm no stranger to the flaws of the EF 50/1.4, and for years I've put up with it's inadequacies. Frankly it just isn't that good. I've used it as necessary for professional work where anything short of f2.8 was required by the lighting, but knew that if I pushed it below f2, it's poor IQ would as likely as not put the image below my standards.</p>

<p>I'm not the kind of shooter who wants to fiddle with MF only lenses, as good as they may or may not be. I move to much, and so do my subjects. I would suggest trying the Sig 50/1.4 HSM also. While it's not a perfect lens, if you are looking for WO capability, no other normal lens I've ever used (including some of the MF alternatives mentioned) comes close to it's predictability, and IQ at or near WO. </p>

<p>When my EF 50/1.4 dies (and I did say when, not if), I'll probably try out the EF 50/1.4 II (assuming it ever sees the light of day -- I've been waiting a decade for that guy!), but unless it absolutely rocks WO and near WO, I'll be buying the Sig 50/1.4.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>According to photozone's testing, the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1">EF 50/1.4</a> has superior resolution figures to those of the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1">EF 50/1.2 L</a>, the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff?start=1">Sigma 50/1.4</a>, and the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/537-zeiss50f14eosff?start=1">Zeiss 50/1.4 ZE</a>, even at wide apertures.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/535-zeiss50f2eosff?start=1">Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2</a> is better in the corners at f/2, but of course doesn't go any wider.</p>