Which EF 50mm Prime is better?

[tony3]

I keep reading that 50mm prime lenses are very sharp. Which 50mm lens

is better as far as sharpness and optics are concerned? the ef 50mm

1.8 mark 1 of the ef 50mm 1.4 ultrasonic.

[aaron_c.]

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/">Here.</a>

[mark u]

Sharper still is the EF 50mmm f/2.5 compact macro, which is in turn outshone by Sigma's 50mm macro optically.

[wgpinc]

I use the 50 2.5 macro. If you need macro get it otherwise if price is a concern get the 1.8. If you can swing it get the 1.4 and don't look back. Here is yet another review which may help. You really can't go too far wrong with any of the EOS 50s. Cheers.

 

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm

[John Crowe]

Well for sharpness, optics, AND pocketbook: the 50mm 1.8

 

You will rarely see much difference between the performance of these lenses. In the off chance that the 50mm f1.8 breaks, you buy another one!

 

For macro the 50 really just is not enough.

[robert_turner]

John- what do you mean "not enough"??

 

It is plenty "enough" if one has a DSLR with a crop factor.

 

gtd

[robert_turner]

...a caveat to my last post- depending on the situation, the camera body, and what the desired results are, the optional "life size" converter combined with the 50/2.5 further enhances the versatility and functionalityh of the lens, unless, I suppose, the distance to the subject demands more focal length.

 

gtd

[andrew robertson]

Actually, the 50mm f/2.5 Macro is less sharp than the 50mm f/1.4. The Macro has a little

less barrel distortion though. I read this last night, on the Rob Galbraith forum. Chuck

Westfall is the guy who made the post (in case you didn't know, he's North America's

favorite Canon employee).

[simonpg]

Universally the f1.4 is considered the best EF 50mm prime. Every technical test shows is has the best colour, lack of distortion, sharpness etc. It is one of Canon's best. It's also USM and allows fulltime manual focus. I love mine. The 1.8 is a good performer (50mm is the easiest lens focal length for an optical company to manufacture) but has a cheap construction and lesser optical quality compared to the 1.4. That is why it is so much cheaper - you get what you pay for.

[robert_turner]

"Universally", Simon?? Hardly. Some users of the 1.4 have actually been disappointed regarding durability of said lens, considering the premium paid over the 1.8. "You get what you pay for" is tantamount to meaningless in this context. Not to mention you are mistaken if you think the 1.4 is sharper than the 2.5.

 

Andrew- while we are on the subject of sharpness, where are coming from? Puppy Face's review, linked above, compares all three and says-

 

"Amazingly, the EF 50 2.5 Compact Macro is sharp wide open, with a super sweet spot at F5.6. In terms of consistent sharpness throughout the aperture range, the EF 50 2.5 Compact Macro rules, closely followed by the EF 50 1.4 USM and EF 50 1.8 respectively."

 

I see the 2.5 and 1.4 have the same Photodo 4.4 score fwiw.

 

You want bonus points for the 1.4, possibly to justify the extra cost? Ok, here are two-

 

-Bokeh is superb

-there is no substitute for narrow DOF and speed coupled with the right technique.

 

gtd

[b_hart]

I got lucky and found a new in the box 50mm mark I metal mount 1.8 last year and I am very happy with it. If you look on Ebay you will usually see at least a few used ones available from $75 to $150 depending on demand and condition.

 

I have a 28-135mm IS that covers this focal length but wanted a faster prime lens for low light situations. This was my first prime lens purchase and it prompted me to buy a prime wide lens (EOS 20mm 2.8) to use for landscapes.

 

Something else to consider is that the 50mm 1.8 is more compact then the 1.4. I can pack the 1.8 in my bag and barely know it's there. I have to admit that I don't use it as much as my zoom but I got it for $125 bucks and it provides the best performance for the cost of any lens you can buy.

 

The 1.8 auto focus is a bit slow and noisy but accurate. I was able to get a decent Christmas card shot of my 1 1/2 year old on the move even with the slow auto focus and lens set for shallow depth of field. The lens has a distance scale and is much better built then the new 1.8. The lens is very sharp although I have not done any extreme enlargements yet.

 

I know there is a thread here comparing the 28-135mm IS to the 50mm 1.4 when shooting at 50mm and I believe that there was little if any difference when shooting at higher apertures.

 

Maybe the thing to consider is how often will you shoot the lens wide open and will the half stop extra light make a difference if you go with the 1.4 Vs the 1.8. For me the higher price of the 1.4 wasn't worth it and I am glad I bought the 1.8 since I don't use the 50mm enough to justify the cost of the 1.4

 

From what I have read the 1.4 has a better bokeh then the 1.8's.

 

If you get the 1.8 metal mount mark 1 and you decide at a later date to get the 1.4, I can almost guarantee that you will be able to sell the 1.8 for what you paid as they are in high demand and are getting more difficult to find in great condition since they went out of production like 8 years ago. I don't know if the newer 1.8's have different lens coatings but everyone says they fall apart with any heavy use. If anyone can shed some light on the coatings and crappy housing or anything else I missed please chime in!

[andrew robertson]

Robert, with all due respect, I'll take Chuck Westfall's word over yours regarding which lens

is sharper.

[olivier_de_lame]

Hi,

 

I have had 50mm 1.8 mark I for a while (I still have it); a very good lens but I have recently bought the 50mm 1.4 USM, because of the USM. The optical performance of MY 50mm 1.4 USM is slightly better that this of MY 50mm 1.8 mark I; from the comments I see all the time, it seems that for both lenses there is a big variation between lenses of the same type. For instance I did not see barrel distorsion (but I do not do macro).

 

Regards,

 

Olivier.

[robert_turner]

>Robert, with all due respect, I'll take Chuck Westfall's word over yours >regarding which lens is sharper.

 

Good for you, Andrew, I am sure Chuck has taken a lot of time out of this job as US Director of Technical Information to perform side-by-side tests on said lenses. ;-) BTW, if you read my post, you would have noted I was referencing Puppy's comparison and Photodo's numbers, not my personal opinion (other than with respect to the bokeh)

 

Could you please link to the article you reference on Rob's site- I would be interested to see it.

 

Thanks,

gtd

[ed_schell1]

I am no professional, so I leave the evaluation of lens sharpness up to the professionals -- especially those who can do it objectively instead of subjectively. Well that is what the equipment that measures a lens MTF rating does -- an objective test. I like the www.photodo.com site for determining a lenses sharpness. This site has evaluated both the Canon 50mm/2.5 macro and the 50mm/1.4. From the tests, it looks as if the 1.4 is every so very very slightly sharper at the same wider aperatures (don't look at the overall rating, a 4.4 for both, but check out the finer details of the test). But it also seems from the testing, that the difference is so slight that a human probably would not know the difference. As far as barrel distortion, these tests do not take place here. So, with all the back and forth going on about which lens is sharper, it is really a wash and that is not opinion but fact determined from objective (i.e. machine) optical testing.

<br><br>

Besides these lenses have completely different uses any way. If you want to do macros you buy the Canon EOS 2.5. If you don't need to do macros but need the best in light response, get the 1.4. Either way no one is going to argue the sharpness of either lens, nor do I think that any one of us humans could actually tell the difference if using the exact same scenario (i.e. shutter speed/f-stop and foucusing point) for a side-by-side photo comparison.

<br><br>

So no one has to defend their purchase of either of these lenses since they serve different purposes and the both are top-notch. As for me I own the 50mm 1.8 Mk II and am completely happy with its quality even though it less than either the 2.5 or 1.4. Sure I would like the 1.4 or the 2.5 macro, but my deciding point was the price and I have no regrets.

[jackflesher]

They are all good, though the 50/1.4 has the best Bokeh.

 

FWIW the 50 macro with the life-size converter (or the 1.4x plus the EF 12 tube which accomplishes the same thing) becomes an effective 70mm macro lens -- Ironically, this is precisely what the focal length of the 100USM drops to when extended to 1:1 magnification. (This is because IF lenses reduce focal length to focus closer instead of moving the entire lens group forward.)

 

Cheers,

 

Jack