Love the Canon 50 mm f/1.4

Forums: 
IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191905228812.jpg) ? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191905248813.jpg)

Suave wrote: If you had it you would not be saying this.
Right because I wouldn't even get one in the first place. The only 50mm I would get is if Sigma released a new version with their focusing firmware or if I bought the 50L. I don't pay $360 for lenses that are not much better performance wise than a $100 lens.

So you don't own any of the 50's? Not 1.4, not Sigma, not L? What's your opinion based upon then? DxO Mark?

Suave wrote: So you don't own any of the 50's? Not 1.4, not Sigma, not L? What's your opinion based upon then? DxO Mark?
Based upon me owning the 50 1.8 and reports and reviews of the 50 1.4. I'm entitled to my own educated opinion.

Sovern wrote:
Suave wrote: So you don't own any of the 50's? Not 1.4, not Sigma, not L? What's your opinion based upon then? DxO Mark?
Based upon me owning the 50 1.8 and reports and reviews of the 50 1.4. I'm entitled to my own educated opinion.
There is no way you can say the canon 50 1.4 gets more negative than positive ratings and reviews from people who actually shoot photographs. Most people love theirs. I love mine. I've dropped the thing numerous times as well. It still works great. It's not a perfect lens and has its quirks but the same can be said of pretty much ANY lens. Just try one out side by side with your 1.8 in some low light or demanding scenarios. You'll appreciate the differences then.

I upgraded to 50mm 1.4 this week after selling 50mm 1.8 (good resale value!). 50mm 1.4 seems to be faster than 50mm 1.8. I am not a good photographer, to say the least, but so far I am happy with 50mm 1.4. The low-light pictures are amazing - I do not need to use a flash.

Sovern wrote:
MaxCh wrote: I am trying to decide if I should upgrade to f/1.4 from 1.8. Is 1.4 200$ better?
I upgraded. The 50 f/1.4 is much better, faster focusing, better "keeper" rate. I sold my f/1.8 and if fell apart a month later.
From what I've read no it's not worth it. It is well known to use a cheap version of the USM motor that is fragile and breaks easily, still has focusing troubles/inconsistancys, has micro USM as already noted, and the 50 1.8 is actually sharper than the 5 1.4 @ 2.5 and up or around there. You're really paying for better build on the syhell of the lens and more circular bokeh. It is about the same price as the Canon 85 1.8 but no where nears the same quality as the Canon 85 1.8
I disagree. I own both, they're both great. I think the sharpness is great on the 85 but I get more purple fringing at times. The 85 is a bit long on a cropped sensor for basketball.
Personally I'd keep the 50 1.8, save up another $160 and get the Canon 85 1.8. 85 1.8 is tack sharp wide open, has better bokeh characteristics way more consistent and faster AF (uses True USM), and can produce a lot less DOF.

curradob wrote:
Sovern wrote:
MaxCh wrote: I am trying to decide if I should upgrade to f/1.4 from 1.8. Is 1.4 200$ better?
I upgraded. The 50 f/1.4 is much better, faster focusing, better "keeper" rate. I sold my f/1.8 and if fell apart a month later.
From what I've read no it's not worth it. It is well known to use a cheap version of the USM motor that is fragile and breaks easily, still has focusing troubles/inconsistancys, has micro USM as already noted, and the 50 1.8 is actually sharper than the 5 1.4 @ 2.5 and up or around there. You're really paying for better build on the syhell of the lens and more circular bokeh. It is about the same price as the Canon 85 1.8 but no where nears the same quality as the Canon 85 1.8
I disagree. I own both, they're both great. I think the sharpness is great on the 85 but I get more purple fringing at times. The 85 is a bit long on a cropped sensor for basketball.
Personally I'd keep the 50 1.8, save up another $160 and get the Canon 85 1.8. 85 1.8 is tack sharp wide open, has better bokeh characteristics way more consistent and faster AF (uses True USM), and can produce a lot less DOF.
Purple CA is easily fixed in LR just hit the check box for Defringe. 85 1.8 might be long for some but I find it the perfect length for portraiture.

Sovern wrote:
curradob wrote:
Sovern wrote:
MaxCh wrote: I am trying to decide if I should upgrade to f/1.4 from 1.8. Is 1.4 200$ better?
I upgraded. The 50 f/1.4 is much better, faster focusing, better "keeper" rate. I sold my f/1.8 and if fell apart a month later.
From what I've read no it's not worth it. It is well known to use a cheap version of the USM motor that is fragile and breaks easily, still has focusing troubles/inconsistancys, has micro USM as already noted, and the 50 1.8 is actually sharper than the 5 1.4 @ 2.5 and up or around there. You're really paying for better build on the syhell of the lens and more circular bokeh. It is about the same price as the Canon 85 1.8 but no where nears the same quality as the Canon 85 1.8
I disagree. I own both, they're both great. I think the sharpness is great on the 85 but I get more purple fringing at times. The 85 is a bit long on a cropped sensor for basketball.
Personally I'd keep the 50 1.8, save up another $160 and get the Canon 85 1.8. 85 1.8 is tack sharp wide open, has better bokeh characteristics way more consistent and faster AF (uses True USM), and can produce a lot less DOF.
Purple CA is easily fixed in LR just hit the check box for Defringe. 85 1.8 might be long for some but I find it the perfect length for portraiture.
I know I can correct it but more PP is more time. But I do love the 85 and use it often. Just saying I love the 50 too and don't think the 85 is a ton better.

curradob wrote: I disagree. I own both, they're both great. I think the sharpness is great on the 85 but I get more purple fringing at times. The 85 is a bit long on a cropped sensor for basketball.
I take one step back from the baseline and it's perfect for me on a 1.3x crop sensor. I know lots of photographers shoot wide under the basket but I don't.

Worth it? Yes. Could it be even better? Again, yes.

I always thought the ultimate measure of a man was how well he photographed his cats?

30Dave wrote: I always thought the ultimate measure of a man was how well he photographed his cats?
Hahah! Not even my cat. I was in DC lying on the couch, sick, after missing the SU v G'town game and my sister-in-law's cat kept hanging around so I grabbed the camera. lol!

Nice looking pussy.

The 135 f2 runs rings around the 50 1.4 for performance and excellent results.

irm wrote: The 135 f2 runs rings around the 50 1.4 for performance and excellent results.
One cannot compare two obviously unrelated lens types. Everyone knows the 135L is all that, but try to use it in a small room. Get my drift !

curradob wrote: IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191905268814.jpg) ? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191905288815.jpg)
It is a wonderful lens. I sold mine after I got my 50L. It can't match the L in terms of focusing but still I am sorry I sold it because I could use it on a second body.

curradob wrote: IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191905308816.jpg) ? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191905338817.jpg)
That black and white is exceptional !

William DIllard wrote:
curradob wrote: IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191905358818.jpg) ? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191905378819.jpg)
That black and white is exceptional !
Ditto!

I am trying to decide if I should upgrade to f/1.4 from 1.8. Is 1.4 200$ better?

I own both lenses, and let me reasure you the build quality of the 50mm 1.4 is worth the extra 200$. If you upgrade you will not be sorry.

Thanks!

MaxCh wrote: I am trying to decide if I should upgrade to f/1.4 from 1.8. Is 1.4 200$ better?
It is not a half a stop you are paying for, as 50/1.4 is not very sharp at 1.4. This lens is rarely used wider than 2.0, mostly at 2.2, 2.5, or 2.8 depending on the taste. I love it stopped down to 5.6 or so. Of course you could do 1.4 when sharpness and contrast is not a goal, or for special effects, but this is not this lens' main use. You are paying for less flare, great contrast stopped down, creamy color, fast quiet focus, full time manual focus, etc. I bought it, then sold it, as I had this range covered by other lenses. But soon I missed it so much, I bought it again and has not parted with it again in a decade. Yet this did not stop me from getting Zeiss 50/2 Macro in addition, as they are different enough for each to have a purpose on its own. Money is subjective. If 50/1.8 is your most expensive lens and your $200 is to either upgrade or pay your rent, then no, it is not worth it. But if you have a significant investment in the equipment and $200 is not gonna break your budget, then this is not even a question. I recently bought 24-70/2.8L II at Best Buy (as the only place where I can convert my airline miles into lenses)? Later Best Buy matched the B&H price and gave me $250 back and it was barely enough just to buy a B+W polirizer for this lens. The way things are going, a couple hundred is not a fortune in photography.

MaxCh wrote: I am trying to decide if I should upgrade to f/1.4 from 1.8. Is 1.4 200$ better?
From what I've read no it's not worth it. It is well known to use a cheap version of the USM motor that is fragile and breaks easily, still has focusing troubles/inconsistancys, has micro USM as already noted, and the 50 1.8 is actually sharper than the 5 1.4 @ 2.5 and up or around there. You're really paying for better build on the syhell of the lens and more circular bokeh. It is about the same price as the Canon 85 1.8 but no where nears the same quality as the Canon 85 1.8 Personally I'd keep the 50 1.8, save up another $160 and get the Canon 85 1.8. 85 1.8 is tack sharp wide open, has better bokeh characteristics way more consistent and faster AF (uses True USM), and can produce a lot less DOF.

If you had it you would not be saying this.

Add new comment

Image
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.