50 1.4 on 5d3 anyone?

[dswatson83]

I use a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on my 5D3.  More to lug than the Canon...but results are excellent. I am a canon "L" man but I found this lens to be somewhere in between or closer to the Canon 50mm "L". Made a compromise on the 50mm, saved my money and went for the gusto for the ultimate low DOF and bought the Canon 85mm "L". 
...but for the cost and the size and the quality the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens too!

I pretty much shelved my 50 f/1.4 for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I'll carry the 85mm f/1.8 with me as well if I want distance. The Sigma blows the sharpness of the Canon 50mm out of the water and I find the focus motor on the 50mm slow. Just check out the reviews so far on the Sigma. It's built like a tank too and feels like an L lens and not a cheap feeling Canon 50mm f/1.4:
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

It even is blowing away the Canon 35 f/1.4L:

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 vs Canon 35mm f/1.4 - Fight!	Small | Large

[awinphoto]

I have the 50 1.4... I find that, for me, it's more reliable than the 50 1.2, in my tests, especially with F2 and narrower...  1.4-1.8 is very questionable if it will nail focus or not...  Sometimes it does and it's astounding, sometimes it doesn't, and it looks like crap...  Sometimes the halation kicks in and makes a sharp image look soft...  But below F2 it is ok... I tend to favor my 24-105 over the 50mm for 95% of my pro work...  I'm actually soon going to sell the 50 1.4 and buy the 100 2.8L...  working range, i would only be losing a stop, but I gain macro, IS, more consistent wide open, and much better build and AF... 

[Dylan777]

I sold mine 2-3 months ago. It was sharp from 1.8

GREAT lens at lower budget

[Vossie]

After switching from crop to ff, I find myself using the 40 1.4 more frequently. I like the FoV better then on crop. I think I actually use it more now than my 85L, partly because it's more forgiving than the 85L (especially with children than move around a lot).

A negative is that the bokeh is not that great, it's a bit "unresty" and less pleasing than the 70-200 2.8 of 85L.
Neverthless, I can certainly recommend it on the 5D3.

The 50 1.4 is by far my oldest lens, I originally bought it for an EOS 3 around 2001. Used it a lot on that camera. I guess I like the FoV of 50mm on ff.

[skitron]

+1 the Sigma.

If it were branded as Canon and was the replacement for the existing Canon 50 1.4 everyone would be praising Canon big time.

[keithfullermusic]

I have that combo and its my favorite.  Some are saying that its a crappy lens?  That's some of the stupidest "advice" I've ever heard.  I use it at paid gigs ALL THE FRICKIN TIME!!!

I looked into the sigma, but the reviews of it were that its great if you get a good copy, and I didn't want to deal with all that crap.  On top of being amazing in low light, focusing fast and accurate, and producing beautiful images, it also has the benefit of being small, light, and discrete.

If you want a 35 (as someone mentioned), then get it.  If you want a great 50, then get the 1.4.

[infared]

The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.

Terrible advice, just terrible.

I agree..it is terrible advice all the way around. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens at that price point.
...and SECONDLY...if you are going to advise someone to buy a 35mm PUUUUULEASE...advise them to buy the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It is sharper, better built, new technology and $429 less than the Canon "L"!!!! DUH! LOL!

(can't wait to see some more Artist Series Lenses from Sigma!!! Hope they hold this quality)

[Cptn Rigo]

The funny thing is, I don't otherwise use that lens very often on full frame (though it was my favourite on APS-C)

+1 I felt the same, just selled and bought the 85 1.2

[Shane1.4]

It is on my 5d mkiii 90% of the time when I shoot weddings. I had the 50mm 1.2 and didn't like it as much so I sold it. My 1.4 focuses much faster than my 1.2 did and after doing a micro adjustment of +8, the AF is spot on every time using my 5d mkiii whereas is misses often with my 60D. I sold my 24-105 for a 17-40 as I found the 24-105 to take nice photos but boring ones.

[myone]

The 50 1.4 is definitely a great lens and it takes sharp pictures at f/2.0 and above. However, I sold my copy a few months ago after knowing Canon might release a new version.

It is a good combo for 5D3, but since you are investing money on a new lens that I am sure you will enjoy, it is always smart to consider the longevity of the lens. The main reason I sold the lens is because of its micro USM, which is prone to go bad if you are not careful or if you are not lucky.

[gilmorephoto]

I think it's a great normal lens option for the 5D3 and, with AFMA, mine is good from 1.8 down.  (1.4 ain't that bad when I need it.)  But since I got the 40mm (lighter, smaller, sharp, and good compromise between 35mm and 50mm), I don't use the 50mm as much unless it's really low light.  If the 40mm didn't exist, the 50mm would be my default walk-around lens.  That's why I'm not ready to part with it yet, and were they to release a more current, less noisy, true USM version with current lens tech, I would have a hard decision to make.

[RS2021]

The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.

Terrible advice, just terrible.

+1
Indeed this is terrible advice. EF 50 1.4 is a damn good lens and holds its own even against the 50L. It is comparable if not slightly better average sharpness from f2 and higher, perhaps trading contrast a bit. 50L shines below f2. Canon keeps 50 1.4 in its arsenal because it is a stable seller and they haven't even been driven to update it in any hurry... But I will not recommend "strongly" the 35L at this time...35L is a good lens and there was a time when it was the "go to" lens for event and street photography in the film and early digital era with moving subjects or dimmer intereiors with lower usable ISO's. It was, by far, the best option all things considered: IQ, speed, and build.

But, it is almost 2013 and 35L has really aged in the digital era's high ISO and this shows its age once you move a bit off from the center of the frame.  Needless to say it will be replaced sooner than later by Canon.

[Knut Skywalker]

Though I have a 5D2 and not the 5D3, I want to share my opinion. First i thought this lens was unusable wide open at 1.4, but when i played around with the AFMA-Function and found the right setting, I was getting way better results with it when shooting @ 1.4. The hazy look on the edges that I got from this lens was gone and the pictures looked way better when there was high contrast. At 2.0 this lens is getting really sharp on my 5D2 and I like the results very much.

Addition to my previous post: The 50 1.4 is the only lens I bought since i bought it with my 5D2 nearly a year ago, it's a really, really, really versatile focal length and great for walkaround photography. I really learned to love this lens for its great versatility and that is why i bought it in the first place, because i knew i would'nt have the money to buy another lens for quite a while.

[7enderbender]

The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.

Well, that doesn't make sense and is actually not accurate. First of all, you can't tell somebody to go get a 35mm who is looking for a 50mm lens. Quite a different thing. And the 50 1.4 is neither cheap (at between 300 and 400 bucks) nor crappy. In fact, it's a lens design that has been around for decades and used to be considered THE reference lens for Canon. For good reason.

That being said, does the current EF version leave something to be desired when it comes to build quality, especially when compared to the previous FD manual focus lens (otherwise still exactly the same)? Yes, unfortunately. But with proper care - leaving the lens hood on at all times - it does ok. The results are great if you like fast 50mm lenses. And that's not to say that it's not worth considering a few alternatives - including other 50mm options.

[7enderbender]

I doubt I'd use it on any paid gigs.  Just something easy to shoot with in low light.  For example at my sisters to shoot her kids indoors acting like maniacs.

Why not on paid gigs? I also switched to the 1.2 but it would be a lengthy answer as to why and what the benefits and trade-offs are. I'm sure lots of people have been paid well over the last several decades using that lens.