-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon 50mm 1.4 of 1.2
- Thread starter sambass
- Start date
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
The 50 f1.4 is a journeyman of a lens. Nothing spectacular unless you are coming from the kit lens but it gets the job done mostly as far as I can tell from posted images here and elsewhere on the web.
Xtoph provides an excellent side by side comparison of the two lenses below. I am surprised that more comparisons such as this have not been posted. It's the first thing I do when I get a new lens, compare it to other similar FLs.
At the following link, you will find 3 RAWs representing a comparison of the 50L to a Zeiss 50/1.4 ZS & 50/2 ZF Makro in a landscape scene @ f8, a main photographic interest of mine. The 50 Makro was just recently added. It'll take a little work to download, but you will see that the 50L holds its own very well and by some accounts (not mine necessarily) it is indistinguishable from the Zeiss images (that's a compliment to the 50L).
http://www.box.net/shared/4syh0tz0go
Where the rub came for me with the 50L was at the wide apertures. The 50L is not as heavily corrected for focus shift (FS) caused by spherical aberration (SA) as I am used to. All lenses have SA, and some are more heavily corrected for it than others. There is this fine article online: http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/spherical.html to explain the whole thing. This is not fixable with a calibration.
As you can see from the article, one way to correct FS/SA is to employ a floating element in the lens design. The 24L, 35L, 85L, and even the old 50 1.0L all have floating elements. The 50 f1.2L does not.
When folks say someone "hasn't learned to work with the the lens", that is code for learning the workarounds" of avoiding the worst of FS. (You'll find those suggestions elsewhere in this thread.)
Xtoph also uses the same figurine appearing in the examples below in other comparisons to illustrate the effects of FS in a very excellent manner which he has posted to other threads in the past.
As for my personal experience with the 50L, I ordered two and sent back two. At f1.2, the lens is not supposed to be affected by FS. However, I was never able to acheive a correct focus and/or sharpness with this aperture even with manual focus at any distance as compared to other samples posted by Xotph and others. I concluded that the two lenses needed calibration which I decided against. Because? Canon requires registration before they will calibrate a lens which in turn voids the option of returning the lens to the retailer should some other aspect of the lens' operation does not please me. IOW, you have to commit to keeping the lens to get the calibration. Catch-22.
My intent had been to keep ordering 50Ls until I got one that was correctly calibrated straight out of the box so that I could see if "working with the workarounds" could grow on me, but Canon raised the price of the thing beyond my buy trigger so that plan is on hold at the moment.
By the way, I had no problem working with razor thin DoF handheld with my first f1.2 lens, the longer the 85L II.
The bottom line:
1.) There are sharper lenses than the 50L although this does not mean that the 50L is unacceptably soft (when properly calibrated).
2.) The 50L handily beats down on the 50 f1.4.
3.) First thing out of the box, be sure to check for appropriate focus/sharpness @ f1.2 from any distance, and any aperture beyond a distance 10 feet or so.
4.) If you are good from number 3, determine, preferably during the return period, whether the workarounds for FS as stated elsewhere in this thread are to your liking.
5.) Remember, FS can not be calibrated away.
6.) 50L bokeh doesn't beat the King of Bokeh the 85L, but it is obviously quite acceptable.
Xtoph provides an excellent side by side comparison of the two lenses below. I am surprised that more comparisons such as this have not been posted. It's the first thing I do when I get a new lens, compare it to other similar FLs.
At the following link, you will find 3 RAWs representing a comparison of the 50L to a Zeiss 50/1.4 ZS & 50/2 ZF Makro in a landscape scene @ f8, a main photographic interest of mine. The 50 Makro was just recently added. It'll take a little work to download, but you will see that the 50L holds its own very well and by some accounts (not mine necessarily) it is indistinguishable from the Zeiss images (that's a compliment to the 50L).
http://www.box.net/shared/4syh0tz0go
Where the rub came for me with the 50L was at the wide apertures. The 50L is not as heavily corrected for focus shift (FS) caused by spherical aberration (SA) as I am used to. All lenses have SA, and some are more heavily corrected for it than others. There is this fine article online: http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/spherical.html to explain the whole thing. This is not fixable with a calibration.
As you can see from the article, one way to correct FS/SA is to employ a floating element in the lens design. The 24L, 35L, 85L, and even the old 50 1.0L all have floating elements. The 50 f1.2L does not.
When folks say someone "hasn't learned to work with the the lens", that is code for learning the workarounds" of avoiding the worst of FS. (You'll find those suggestions elsewhere in this thread.)
Xtoph also uses the same figurine appearing in the examples below in other comparisons to illustrate the effects of FS in a very excellent manner which he has posted to other threads in the past.
As for my personal experience with the 50L, I ordered two and sent back two. At f1.2, the lens is not supposed to be affected by FS. However, I was never able to acheive a correct focus and/or sharpness with this aperture even with manual focus at any distance as compared to other samples posted by Xotph and others. I concluded that the two lenses needed calibration which I decided against. Because? Canon requires registration before they will calibrate a lens which in turn voids the option of returning the lens to the retailer should some other aspect of the lens' operation does not please me. IOW, you have to commit to keeping the lens to get the calibration. Catch-22.
My intent had been to keep ordering 50Ls until I got one that was correctly calibrated straight out of the box so that I could see if "working with the workarounds" could grow on me, but Canon raised the price of the thing beyond my buy trigger so that plan is on hold at the moment.
By the way, I had no problem working with razor thin DoF handheld with my first f1.2 lens, the longer the 85L II.
The bottom line:
1.) There are sharper lenses than the 50L although this does not mean that the 50L is unacceptably soft (when properly calibrated).
2.) The 50L handily beats down on the 50 f1.4.
3.) First thing out of the box, be sure to check for appropriate focus/sharpness @ f1.2 from any distance, and any aperture beyond a distance 10 feet or so.
4.) If you are good from number 3, determine, preferably during the return period, whether the workarounds for FS as stated elsewhere in this thread are to your liking.
5.) Remember, FS can not be calibrated away.
6.) 50L bokeh doesn't beat the King of Bokeh the 85L, but it is obviously quite acceptable.
Roentarre30
Veteran Member
I never liked the 50/1.4
50 f1.2 is the best!
http://www.roentarre.com/Gallery.aspx?id=1&lid=3
--
Roentarre, Melbourne, Australia
http://www.roentarre.com
http://www.roentarre.blogspot.com
http://facade-roentarre.blogspot.com
http://photoblog50mm.blogspot.com
http://www.melbournefoodforum.com
50 f1.2 is the best!
http://www.roentarre.com/Gallery.aspx?id=1&lid=3
--
Roentarre, Melbourne, Australia
http://www.roentarre.com
http://www.roentarre.blogspot.com
http://facade-roentarre.blogspot.com
http://photoblog50mm.blogspot.com
http://www.melbournefoodforum.com
Rick:
I am tired of sending back Canon lens either to B&H or service center. I am not quite sure if it is related to the copies sold in the US. Because when I was in Japan they kept telling me what sold there were the best. I noticed the lens price there was around 10-20% higher than in the US. But camera body was 10-20% cheaper.
And do you have any experiences with Nikon lenses. Because I am very concerned after playing around with sets of Canon primes and zooms. Dozens of Canon lenses passed by my hands and only few were kept. I am looking for wide angle zoom or primes and hesitated the continuing investment in Canon. Thanks.
Chris
I am tired of sending back Canon lens either to B&H or service center. I am not quite sure if it is related to the copies sold in the US. Because when I was in Japan they kept telling me what sold there were the best. I noticed the lens price there was around 10-20% higher than in the US. But camera body was 10-20% cheaper.
And do you have any experiences with Nikon lenses. Because I am very concerned after playing around with sets of Canon primes and zooms. Dozens of Canon lenses passed by my hands and only few were kept. I am looking for wide angle zoom or primes and hesitated the continuing investment in Canon. Thanks.
Chris
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
Of course, we are going off topic here. Check out my profile to see how I have dealt with WA lenses. I own the Zeiss 50.2 ZF makro. I have the 35/2 ZF on its way. I am eyeing the new Zeiss 18mm ZF. Plus I have a smattering of Leica and Oly.
I intend to get the D700 as a second camera and I am sure the ZF lenses will be deployed on it. The only Nikon lens I have on my radar at this point is the 14-24. I will keep the 5D (or the 5D mkII) in order to continue to use the Contax 21mm, Oly 24 & Leica 28 plus the 35L, 85L & 135L are nothing to sneeze at.
Also, I think the 24L is pretty durn good if not for landscape, for general photography.
I intend to get the D700 as a second camera and I am sure the ZF lenses will be deployed on it. The only Nikon lens I have on my radar at this point is the 14-24. I will keep the 5D (or the 5D mkII) in order to continue to use the Contax 21mm, Oly 24 & Leica 28 plus the 35L, 85L & 135L are nothing to sneeze at.
Also, I think the 24L is pretty durn good if not for landscape, for general photography.
David Nicole
Member
I had 3 copies of 1.4. None of them satisfied me. They all have back/front-focusing isues.
I kept the 100/2; is a stelar lens for the price.
--
Looking through aperture.
I kept the 100/2; is a stelar lens for the price.
--
Looking through aperture.
MattWeth
Forum Enthusiast
edit - wrong reply
--
Matt
--
Matt
MattWeth
Forum Enthusiast
I have the 1.4 and really like it.
It took some getting used to the razor thin DOF when wide open and close focussed (and it punishes poor technique), however I've had some great shots out of it - when I drive it properly it usually rewards me well.
It's my opinion that many (front focus / back focus / etc) detractors of the 50 1.4 are being defeated by its DOF at low apertures, rather than lens faults.
best
--
Matt
It took some getting used to the razor thin DOF when wide open and close focussed (and it punishes poor technique), however I've had some great shots out of it - when I drive it properly it usually rewards me well.
It's my opinion that many (front focus / back focus / etc) detractors of the 50 1.4 are being defeated by its DOF at low apertures, rather than lens faults.
best
--
Matt
Thanks and I agree with you. I checked your gears as you listed. They are descent.
dwdmguy
Leading Member
I LOVE the screen and it makes a huge difference for me.
--
Regards,
'I could crawl into the body of a camera, but what I wouldn't give to crawl into the mind of an artist.'
Tom
--
Regards,
'I could crawl into the body of a camera, but what I wouldn't give to crawl into the mind of an artist.'
Yes the 50L is very usable wide open. Mine gets its most use there.
But it really is a matter of managing expectations. Close in you will not get the sharpness of say the 135L wide open. Knowing this going in will help with your expectations. Ignoring it or hoping for something different will only lead to frustration.
billppw350z
Leading Member
I frequently use my 135L and consider it very sharp. I would agree that the 135L is probably better at close up work, but the OP was trying to decide between the two 50s, not the 50L and 135L, and chose the 50 1.4 a week ago.
Other than the novelty f1.2 shot, I don’t often shoot with the 50L wide open. I took and posted this picture to illustrate that the 50L is not “soft” as some were saying at f1.2 even at two feet.
By the way, this is a picture of my Z that got second place in the 350Z Stock Class at the Blackhawk Z Car Show where I took the picture. I might have got first if I had removed the tiny little cleaning cloth thread that was stuck to the bottom right corner of the letter Z on the car emblem. (LOL). If you look close, you can see it even on this small internet version I posted.
--
Bill
I’m no expert; I just like to take pictures and share them with strangers
http://billppw350z.smugmug.com/
Similar threads
- Locked
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum