Best 50mm?

[ChrisKrueger]

Read up on other lens manufacturers, Kellert. There are plenty of great lenses out there, and they don't all say "Canon" on the side. The 50/1.4 is not even the sharpest CANON lens out there. Think about it for a second: it's a superfast prime. It's rare for these to be very sharp.

It's certainly not bad, and it's certainly sufficient for most purposes, but to say it's the highest quality 50mm out there is stupidity.

If you can't believe that a 50mm macro lens could be sharper than a
fast 50mm prime, you need to get your head adjusted.

you can't even produce your so-called article.

and there's a lot more to a good lens than just sharpness (of which
the 1.4 is). the bokeh and color saturation from the 50/1.4 is
exceptional...so much so that it is compared as the economical
alternative to the 85/1.2 and the 135/2. plenty of pros know this
and use the 1.4

Guess what? The Canon 50/1.4 is far from the best 50mm prime on
the market.

"far from the best"...now i know you don't have a clue.

 

[kellert]

i'm not sure about that. besides, i think these lenses are impractical on canon bodies.

do you have any image examples...not that i'm going to rush out to find one of these lenses...i'd just be curious.

thanks.

Both Carl Zeiss 50/1.4 and Leica 50/1.4 Summilux are better that
Canon 50/1.4. You can use both on Canon bodies. I chose CZ 50/1.7
--
Michael

 

[majorkimba]

They are both quite good:

See following:

EF 50mm f1.4



EF 50mm f2.5 Macro



As a rule Macro lenses are typically sharper, but much slower than your typical lens because of the Macro function (extending tubes for focus). One exception to this rule, I believe, is the EF-S 60 f2.8, because it is a new design with true Ring USM, and it is internal focus.

EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro

 

[Barugon]

There's also the Canon 50/2.5 macro (1:2, not 1:1) and the Sigma
50/2.8 (true 1:1). They're definitely slower than the standard
primes, but they're also sharper. There's a comparison floating
around here of the 50/2.5 that makes the 50/1.4 look almost POOR in
terms of sharpness.

Were the lenses compared at the same aperture? Or was the comparison made at 1.4 vs 2.5?

--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg/candid

 

[Buchan-Grant]

OK its a dog to use but lovely and sharp wide open, which is more than I could say for my 1.4 before I sold it in disgust but seriously what's the point of a 1.4 lens if it only starts looking good around f2??
--
Neil
http://www.buchangrant.com/
http://www.pbase.com/buchangrant

 

[Julian500]

--
http://www.pbase.com/julianw

 

[Joel G]

OK its a dog to use but lovely and sharp wide open, which is more
than I could say for my 1.4 before I sold it in disgust but
seriously what's the point of a 1.4 lens if it only starts looking
good around f2??

Mine looks pretty good at f1.4.

 

[Peter White]

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 has since the early 1970s been one of the best 50mm lenses tested. This has been the case in test after test.

Of course, the differences between the 50mm lenses from the best manufacturers are tiny. Whether you're shooting a Pentax, Nikon, Leica, Canon, or Zeiss makes virtually no difference in the final print. Arguments along these lines are just piissing matches, and rather boring as piissing matches go I might add.

--
Peter White

 

[kpv]

I differ from all of you guys.

The best 50mm is the Canon EF50mm f1.0 L USM lens. It is a big hunky, beefy piece of glass that is very, very highly regarded. Unfortunately, you will only find them on the used market.

Here is a review......

http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/0402sb_canons/

And another......

http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/3112003113228.pdf

--
Enlightenment is Ego's Ultimate Disappointment.

1Ds Mark II and 'L' Glass

http://www.pbase.com/kpv

 

[Richard Crowe]

Photozone.com rates the lenses as follows:
50mm f/1.4 = 4.51
50mm f/2.5 macro = 4.40
50mm f/1.8 MK-II = 4.01

Photodo.com doesn't quite agree and rates them as follows:
50mm f/1.4 = 4.4
50mm f/2.5 macro = 4.4
50mm f/1.8 MK-II = 4.2

I doubt if someone could tell the difference in a print up to say 8x10 inches between any of the above lenses.

The 50mm f/1.8 Canon Manual Focus FD lens is rated higher (4.4) by Photodo than the newer EF 50mm MK-II (4.2)

Photozone rates the 50mm f/1.8 MK-I (3.72) considerably lower than the f/1.8 MK-II (4.01) which I don't agree with.
--

Retired Navy Master Chief Photographer's Mate - 30 years service. Combat Cameraman, Motion Picture Director and Naval Aircrewman. I have done considerable comercial photography including weddings. I have paraphrased equipment names so forum searches will not hit on my equipment. Bodies: Canon Three-Fifty-D and CanonTen-D DSLR. Zoom-Lenses: Canon 17-40 Millimeter f/4L; 28 to 135 millimeter IS; 70 to 200 millimeter f/4L Prime Lenses: Sigma twenty-eight mm f/1.8; fifty mm f/1.8 MK-I; Tamron 90 Millimeter f/2.8 Macro; and Tokina 400 Millimeter f/5.6 ATX SD. Also Canon 1.4 x teleconverter and 420 ex flash.

 

[ThreeGigs]

Nikon ES 50mm f/1.4 w/ adapter

$50 gets you a lens that's as sharp as the Zeiss, and another $25 gets you the adapter so it fits your EOS.

Go ask in the Nikon forums and you'll hear them complain about how they can't use that lens, but Canon owners can.

 

[Barugon]

Both Carl Zeiss 50/1.4 and Leica 50/1.4 Summilux are better that
Canon 50/1.4. You can use both on Canon bodies. I chose CZ 50/1.7

Here's photodo.com's MTF test rezults of Canon, Leica and Zeiss 50mm f 1.4 lenses.

Canon:



Leica R:



Leica M:



Zeiss:



Please point out this huge advantage the Leica and Zeiss lenses have over the Canon. Or is this just one of those "special feelings" you get only from using a completely manual (including aperture) lens.

--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg/candid

 

[HoppyUK]

Read what Peter wrote - a superb summary of this thread

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 has since the early 1970s been one of the best
50mm lenses tested. This has been the case in test after test.

Of course, the differences between the 50mm lenses from the best
manufacturers are tiny. Whether you're shooting a Pentax, Nikon,
Leica, Canon, or Zeiss makes virtually no difference in the final
print. Arguments along these lines are just piissing matches, and
rather boring as piissing matches go I might add.

The OP is notably absent from this thread. Perhaps he's not into piissing matches. These are the only realistic options:

Canon 50mm f/1.4 - well made, very fast
Canon 50mm f/1.8 - cheap, fast
Canon 60mm f/2.8 EF-S - sweet macro

From f/2.8 they will produce indistinguishable results from any sensible perspective.

Best regards,

Richard.

 

[CyNiCaL_VeZ]

Just got the 60mm and it is unbelievably SHARP!

Taken with 20D;

 

[ChrisKrueger]

The comparison I saw had the 50/1.4 at f/1.4, and both lenses (actually, the f/1.8 as well) at f/2.8.