Reading mode: Light Dark

50mm f1.4 - Soft most of the time

Go to last post
5D, 1/40, f/1.4, ISO 1600

http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/p122030976/?photo=798362973

I guess I should be unhappy with this pic, because I used a 50 1.4 wide open and I hear it sucks. For some reason (maybe I have low quality standards?) I really like this shot.

I focused on her right eye with the center focus point. Her right eye is sharp. Move a few millimeters front or back and you're out of the DOF. Is this a fault of the lens?

Not sure what halation is. I have only seen that in the very old film days. Is there any halation here?

I love the bokeh of the lights above her head, although I hear that the bokeh of the 50 1.4 is not good. ;-)

--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/
 
If money isn't a big deal and you plan on using a 50mm quite a bit get the 50/1.4; it is a better lens. I've had my 50/1.4 for seven or eight years and have never had any regrets; it's better than any of Canon's previous 50/1.4s and consistently ranks at the top of the best 50/1.4s currently available.

If you live in the real world along with the rest of us--Stovall excluded--you won't use the lens wide open every single time and you will appreciate the better quality of the lens in those situations.

If money's tight, or if you only plan on using it every once in awhile, or if you haven't figured out how to stop down your lens, go for the 50/1.8. It's a good lens too, and certainly a lot cheaper. They're both somewhat soft wide open, but if slight softness is going to ruin your photographs, you might want to learn to take better photos in the first place.
 
Hmmm...yeah, I'd not thought of sending it back under warranty...and if I remember correctly, it is still under warranty...cool :)
 
Hey Focal, this is great, thanks.
I've just downloaded the test chart and I'll give it a go.
If I can figure it out, I'll post the results here...
 
The DOF seems like it landed on her hair. In any case, it looks like:

1. It's an ISO 1600 shot, so the sharp detail is not too dependent on the lens anymore.

2. It's downsized considerably, so number 1 is not really that much of an issue, but it should be for the 100% shot.

3. The picture seems to have much of jpeg artifacts. (That or oversharpening, I can't tell from that size.)

It seems Stovall makes some controversial remarks more often than not, but in this case, I agree with him 100%. I have had the 50/1.4, and all those issues he mentioned were also issues with me and my 20D. Especially AF and, the halo on high-contrast areas, which can be post-processed in some way, but it's just not the same as a nice, clean picture (which lenses like the 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and 50/1.2 give you wide open).
Gary Jean said:
5D, 1/40, f/1.4, ISO 1600

http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/p122030976/?photo=798362973

I guess I should be unhappy with this pic, because I used a 50 1.4
wide open and I hear it sucks. For some reason (maybe I have low
quality standards?) I really like this shot.

I focused on her right eye with the center focus point. Her right
eye is sharp. Move a few millimeters front or back and you're out
of the DOF. Is this a fault of the lens?

Not sure what halation is. I have only seen that in the very old
film days. Is there any halation here?

I love the bokeh of the lights above her head, although I hear that
the bokeh of the 50 1.4 is not good. ;-)

--
Gary
http://garyjean.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
 
Actually, I don't agree that the 50/1.4 will always give you poor images, as he seems to imply. I guess it would depend on the scene, what you do in post-processing and how much you downsize.
saynomore said:
It seems Stovall makes some controversial remarks more often than
not, but in this case, I agree with him 100%. I have had the
50/1.4, and all those issues he mentioned were also issues with me
and my 20D. Especially AF and, the halo on high-contrast areas,
which can be post-processed in some way, but it's just not the same
as a nice, clean picture (which lenses like the 35/1.4, 85/1.2 and
50/1.2 give you wide open).
Click to expand...
 
Ok, so I've carried out the test using the Focus Test chart.

Lighting stayed the same, I used a remote switch so I wouldn't move the camera at all...actually, the camera moved a little bit when I put the lens hood on.

These shots were taken on ISO320, all I did in Photoshop was to apply autolevels and resize them.

The camera was set on 'One shot' autofocus and I was using the centre focal point.

Here's the results..



(you'll have to ignore the messy desk :)









It does seem when you few them at 100% that for the wider aperture the focusing is a little soft, not nearly as bad as the problem I experienced in my original post. And the smaller the aperture the sharper the picture.

Looking at both sets of contact sheets there doesn't seem to be any advantage to using the lens hood (that was £40 wasted..)..
Interesting really.

So I guess my conclusion in all of this is my original problem was down to user error, not lens or camera error (which is a relief), and at a aperture larger than f2.2 the lens isn't as sharp.
Any thoughts??
 
This chart is used to test AF accuracy more than reliability. The AF in this chart will tend to always focus consistently (correctly or incorrectly) because of the well-defined contrast of the middle line.

AF reliability (as in consistency) in real-world photos could vary by a lot, so this is not a good test for that purpose.

Also, your pictures seem unusually soft, I hope you are not using the same resizing technique for your real-world pictures, because that could be the source for some softness that you see.

That said, the 50/1.4 is well-known for low contrast wide open (the white halo), and for many (me included), for being AF inconsistent. That lenses are softer at their wider apertures is normal.
mmurfitt said:
Ok, so I've carried out the test using the Focus Test chart.
Lighting stayed the same, I used a remote switch so I wouldn't move
the camera at all...actually, the camera moved a little bit when I
put the lens hood on.
These shots were taken on ISO320, all I did in Photoshop was to
apply autolevels and resize them.
The camera was set on 'One shot' autofocus and I was using the
centre focal point.

Here's the results..



(you'll have to ignore the
messy desk :)
http://www.mmurfitt.plus.com/ContactSheet1-WithHood.jpg
http://www.mmurfitt.plus.com/ContactSheet2-WithHood.jpg
http://www.mmurfitt.plus.com/ContactSheet1-WithoutHood.jpg
http://www.mmurfitt.plus.com/ContactSheet1-WithoutHood.jpg

It does seem when you few them at 100% that for the wider aperture
the focusing is a little soft, not nearly as bad as the problem I
experienced in my original post. And the smaller the aperture the
sharper the picture.
Looking at both sets of contact sheets there doesn't seem to be any
advantage to using the lens hood (that was £40 wasted..)..
Interesting really.
So I guess my conclusion in all of this is my original problem was
down to user error, not lens or camera error (which is a relief),
and at a aperture larger than f2.2 the lens isn't as sharp.
Any thoughts??
Click to expand...
 
Yeah Mark, most people i know with this lense can get away with using it above f2.

Are you shooting alot in low light?

Matt
 
And this is part of my problem, in being that they do seem a little too soft. I'd have expected them to be sharper.

Just to qualify...In resizing the pictures I reduced them to 800px high and then used the automated 'Contact sheet' action in PS. So I guess they'd be a little degraded from the originals...but not much.

I wonder if it might be worth sending the lens back to Canon to get it serviced...
 
Could you post 100% samples of those pictures that you are having problems with, including camera and exposure data? Also, which part of the picture was cropped.

Tests for sharpness should also be done in RAW, and preferably processed with any popular program besides RAW Image Task (RIT) within Zoombrowser, because RIT will apply some fixed noise-reduction softness all the time (even at low ISOs). The same is for in-camera jpegs, which apply the same conversion as RIT. This can vary depending on the camera (I know for a fact that it is so with the 5D), but a more neutral ground can be achieved if processed with something like DPP, and your pictures will be potentially sharper and more detailed.

There could also be any other number of factors involved in this softness you see, and though I didn't like the quality of the 50/1.4 wide open, it also wasn't as bad as more negative people would say. But, not everyone has the same expectations, I guess.
mmurfitt said:
And this is part of my problem, in being that they do seem a little
too soft. I'd have expected them to be sharper.
Just to qualify...In resizing the pictures I reduced them to 800px
high and then used the automated 'Contact sheet' action in PS. So I
guess they'd be a little degraded from the originals...but not much.
I wonder if it might be worth sending the lens back to Canon to get
it serviced...
Click to expand...
 
Of course, when shooting wide-open, careful management of stray light is essentially a "must" at standard or wide focal lengths to prevent flare, ghosting, and other negative effects which are MUCH more a product of the light than any negative characteristic inherent to the lens. I always use a hood with it, indoors or out.

At f/1.4, depending on the focal point, field depth can be very, very slim indeed, often a matter of a few millimeters. It's very easy for the intended area of emphasis to slip outside the field depth without realizing it, even with careful attention. Otherwise, unless the question really is one of the camera moving in and out as to negatively shift the field depth, one of the best thing about f/1.4 is that in any sort of reasonable light and ISO setting, it can do away with the need for a tripod.

I've always been very happy with what I call the "Lil' Champ".
mmurfitt said:
A friend brought to my attention that often when he's using this
lens he'll get soft pictures when looking at them at 100%.
I thought it was just his dodgy picture taking, until I bought the
lens and started experiencing the same.
(I've read elsewhere that this lens should be used with a lens
hood, which I have) .

So, my theory is this, due to large aperture the depth of field is
so much smaller meaning any slight movement on my end of things, or
the subjects, will leave me with a slightly soft focus as the
subject will have moved out of the effective sharp 'focal zone'.
I just wanted to know if anyone else has experienced this, and if
this lens can only be used with a tripod on f1.4?
Click to expand...
 
I'd be more than happy to post the full size images. I think it would be more beneficial to post hyperlinks so you can download the picture with all the camera data inbedded already.
I'm not sure how to give you just the link and not the whole picture...

I'll try, but if anyone has any idea the easiest way of doing this I'd love to here about it...
http://www.mmurfitt.plus.com/100EOS5D/

I guess you should be able to right click and download...if there's any problem then let me know...
Looking forward to any thoughts...
 
Yeah, I'm thinking more and more that it's probably user error, in the instance of my first post anyway.

However, if you have a look at the images I posted with the focal test chart it doesn't seem very sharp, and that's with a tripod, and a cable release...it's not nearly as sharp as I would have expected or indeed wanted..
 
I shoot a lot in low light, although I've not had much opportunity with this lens yet as it's relatively new. However a friend of mine uses it almost exclusively as his low light lens when he's shooting gigs and concerts..
 
mmurfitt said:
I'd be more than happy to post the full size images. I think it
would be more beneficial to post hyperlinks so you can download the
picture with all the camera data inbedded already.
I'm not sure how to give you just the link and not the whole
picture...
I'll try, but if anyone has any idea the easiest way of doing this
I'd love to here about it...
http://www.mmurfitt.plus.com/100EOS5D/
I guess you should be able to right click and download...if there's
any problem then let me know...
Looking forward to any thoughts...
Click to expand...
Those don't seem to be 100% crops, but I think I know what's going on with your focus test charts.

If you used those same pictures to build your contact sheets, then those downsized pictures were upsized again to fit the contact sheet, making them blurrier.

In any case, do you have 100% crops from real-world pictures, especiall the ones you're having trouble with?
 
You may want to send it in for calibration. Did you take them manually focused, or using the center AF point?
mmurfitt said:
Yeah, I'm thinking more and more that it's probably user error, in
the instance of my first post anyway.
However, if you have a look at the images I posted with the focal
test chart it doesn't seem very sharp, and that's with a tripod,
and a cable release...it's not nearly as sharp as I would have
expected or indeed wanted..
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top