Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM

Excellent Prime Lens from Canon, L picture quality

Pictures are sharp if not wide open, Autofocus ok, price is reasonable for build

That is my impression also, a real bargain if the construction of your copy holds up to use.

Anyone know of a better alternative to this lens, with center to edge sharpness at f5.6 - f8, good contrast and low distortion?

polizonte wrote:

That is my impression also, a real bargain if the construction of your copy holds up to use.

Anyone know of a better alternative to this lens, with center to edge sharpness at f5.6 - f8, good contrast and low distortion?

40mm 2.8

Yeap...the 40Pancake. Cheaper, lighter and smaller too.

I bought it for the 1.4 - AF is iffy and I have to use live view . It is not that much better at 5.6 than my 1.8 - not enough for the money .

I used on XTI , and when I got the 7D - the 17-55 was used - I just upped ISO . If it broke I would not replace it

How the hell do you say it's 'L' quality, when it's not sharp wide open (and focuses all over the place)? Have you ever used a L?

Easy...

Is that true what you say?

photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

Border resolution of 1200 lines compared to 3500 in the center stopped down, and nearly 3EV light fallof wide open is not convincing for L lens as you paint it. Sorry....

Anyway, I have both Canon EF 40mm STM f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4, and while I don´t record video, I prefer 50mm all the time. Faster focusing and tracking, more options, little bit sharper when stopped down, and ooooh that spectacular close up portraits on crop body (80mm)... Will sell my 40mm this week without eye blink. Only reason to buy this lens is the size (though it´s still very good prime glass - but looses in comparison with 50mm f/1.4) and round bokeh. I decided to make some sacrifice of size and bokeh in the name of absolute IQ rank and potential of that lens.

edlc168 wrote:

Excellent Prime Lens from Canon, L picture quality

LOL.

What LOL? Don't push me to find few worse L lenses...
--
Why does he do it?

crashpc wrote:

Easy...

Is that true what you say?

photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

Border resolution of 1200 lines compared to 3500 in the center stopped down, and nearly 3EV light fallof wide open is not convincing for L lens as you paint it. Sorry....

Anyway, I have both Canon EF 40mm STM f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4, and while I don´t record video, I prefer 50mm all the time. Faster focusing and tracking, more options, little bit sharper when stopped down, and ooooh that spectacular close up portraits on crop body (80mm)... Will sell my 40mm this week without eye blink. Only reason to buy this lens is the size (though it´s still very good prime glass - but looses in comparison with 50mm f/1.4) and round bokeh. I decided to make some sacrifice of size and bokeh in the name of absolute IQ rank and potential of that lens.

quality of bokeh is a part of overall image quality, is it not?  A nice clean crisp subject with excellent color rendition and micro-contrast are diminished if the bokeh is nervous as hell.   Seriously, just ask my 70-300L!  In some situations the bokeh sucks, detracting from the overall image quality.

i guess by image quality you mean sharpness?

Excellent Prime Lens from Canon, L picture quality

Pictures are sharp if not wide open, Autofocus ok, price is reasonable for build

it is very good lens if price is included. No where close to L lense for wide open however it is there if needed for some reason. For f4 and above I dont see significant difference with 1.8 version, some time 1.8 even win but I dont like the built. May be that is just my experience..

If I have some free time. I'll try some direct comparison. I still believe 50mm is generally better even when some selective aspect of quality can talk more for 40mm STM lens. Sometimes you need to bind certain qualities with need of final result in your photo, so it's not that easy to judge pretty anythink from one parameter you like. I like that focal range, resolution, wider aperture more than bokeh. For the contrast - isn't actual resolution binded to the contrast parameter? Anyway I will try some real life shots, but I don't believe I will see some difference here.
--
Why does he do it?

crashpc wrote:

Easy...

Is that true what you say?

photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

Border resolution of 1200 lines compared to 3500 in the center stopped down, and nearly 3EV light fallof wide open is not convincing for L lens as you paint it. Sorry....

Anyway, I have both Canon EF 40mm STM f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4, and while I don´t record video, I prefer 50mm all the time. Faster focusing and tracking, more options, little bit sharper when stopped down, and ooooh that spectacular close up portraits on crop body (80mm)... Will sell my 40mm this week without eye blink. Only reason to buy this lens is the size (though it´s still very good prime glass - but looses in comparison with 50mm f/1.4) and round bokeh. I decided to make some sacrifice of size and bokeh in the name of absolute IQ rank and potential of that lens.

I saw in your which list that you would like to pass FF sometimes in the future.

I had the 50 f/1.4 on crop (40D) and it was great.

However I sold it as soon that I bought the 6D as anything below f/2.8 was not convincing me at all especially from mid of the picture until the corner. Also the AF was not that precise and a bit tricky sometimes.

Since I got the 40 f/2.8 I feel really comfortable from wide open.

Yes 40mm is not 50mm, but it is close

Yes f/1.4 is not f/2.8 but here the result of the 40mm is sooo good and better for me.

Please think twice and hold on with selling the 40mm at least until that you tried the 50mm on FF

cheers

Thanks for advice, but I won´t pass on FF in next few years, so I feel comfortably with my choice. Maybe I wouldn´t listen to you as I love that FF wide open shots with shallow DoF and great light falloff at corners for special look and effect. Anyway it´s not gonna happen in near future. 40 is fine, but it does not deliver what I would like to, it´s slower, it fits less for portraits, so it propably goes away. While these are my only lenses now, I will be happy to get some 24mm and 100mm (not at once) primes instead of two similar lenses.

crashpc wrote:

Thanks for advice, but I won´t pass on FF in next few years, so I feel comfortably with my choice. Maybe I wouldn´t listen to you as I love that FF wide open shots with shallow DoF and great light falloff at corners for special look and effect. Anyway it´s not gonna happen in near future. 40 is fine, but it does not deliver what I would like to, it´s slower, it fits less for portraits, so it propably goes away. While these are my only lenses now, I will be happy to get some 24mm and 100mm (not at once) primes instead of two similar lenses.

good to read... enjoy 

Philippe Castagna wrote:

However I sold it as soon that I bought the 6D as anything below f/2.8 was not convincing me at all especially from mid of the picture until the corner. Also the AF was not that precise and a bit tricky sometimes.

Not that precise?  I know my 50mm 1.4 misses the focus intermittantly.  Is this a trait of the lens?  I just thought I was doing something wrong.  I was using a single focus point but planned on using all the focus points for future shots (and hoping nothing is closer than the subject).

ZX11 wrote:

Philippe Castagna wrote:

However I sold it as soon that I bought the 6D as anything below f/2.8 was not convincing me at all especially from mid of the picture until the corner. Also the AF was not that precise and a bit tricky sometimes.

Not that precise? I know my 50mm 1.4 misses the focus intermittantly. Is this a trait of the lens? I just thought I was doing something wrong. I was using a single focus point but planned on using all the focus points for future shots (and hoping nothing is closer than the subject).

I was not able to get "tack sharp" image as I can get from the 40/2.8, the 70-200 and even the 24-105

according to the above I never incriminate the AF of the 6D but the 50f/1.4 itself

I know what mean and look like a shallow DOF and what I was getting was really inconsistant AF issue.

It's good to note that I never got this issue with the crop 40D.

Using all focus point could be a solution in certain situation but not any (except maybe with a 1DX or 5DmkIII)

Here is a full size 100% with 50 sharpening and 25 mask and some PP work to reduce wide-open aberrations.  These settings are much less aggressive in sharpening compared to what Cameralabs uses for 1k+ primes they've reviewed recently.

Too much coma and astigmatism, contrast hit, fringing against overexposed awnings, lack of DOF, and some halation wide open...sure, but a trait of many normal 1.4 besides an Otus (or maybe the new Sigma).  It is not lacking in sharpness.  It's light and compact except for the mandatory lens hood usage (but lens hoods are good to use anyways otherwise you'd never be able to take wide open shots outdoors without huge issues anyways).  Pic is also ETTR'd due to my 4k limit on 6D which in some ways is good for shadow detail but not good for blown out white awnings with fringing.

Unlike the Zeiss and Nikon, EF 50mm F1.4 actually has autofocus, and unlike the Sigma 50mm, it doesn't double as a boat anchor. (That Sigma 50mm is almost as heavy as EF 50mm F1.2L!) With standard primes, compactness is a feature.