What about a new 50/1.4 ??

[mathino]

Some patents were released/filled, but it's hard to guess if something like new 50 f/1.4 will be released. If you need that focal length then I would suggest to go for Sigma 50 f/1.4 - it's a decent lens and yes it is usable on 1.4 and I think that it has better bokeh.

+1 for the sigma
Real usm, (in my opinion) better bokeh & great IQ at f2.0 and wider. Those are my top 3 reasons for chosing the sigma...

Hi all,
I'm also waiting for any news…

I'm buying a new 50mm lens within the next 3 or 4 months (baby coming soon).
50mm is my favourite portrait focal length on my 7D. I also have the great 85mm f/1.8 but I don't use as much as I use my  50mm f/1.8.

I'm pondering between the 50L f/1.2 and Sigma 50mm f/1.4. But since 50mm is my favourite focal length, I'm thinking of getting the best possible and go for the L (not that I need the 1.2..it would be nice to have it, but I would stop it down a little bit...I'm considering the Canon for it's sharpness, color, contrast, built quality, etc).

I'm not so concerned about the price tag here…

How does the Sigma compare with the 50L?

Rgds
GB

I disscussed this with one guy who owns both of them and he said his favourite 50 mm lens is Sigma 50 f/1.4 and that there is not so huge difference (in real life situations, not test charts) between them. So unless you really need 1.2 aperture I suggest to go for Sigma. For a little plus over Canon EF 50 f/1.4 you get a nice lens that performs fine even wide open (we are buying primes to shoot them at narrow apertures).

I had both Canon EF 50 f/1.4 and Sigma 50 f/1.4 for a little unscientific test and (for me) Sigma is the winner. This is a lens I will probably pick up as my 50 mm lens for FF in the future.

If you want I can send you some pics from my findings :-)

Regards

Thank you all for the feedback.

Mathino,
If you don't mind, I really would like to see those pics.

My concern with the Sigma is the possible focus issues (but I know it's more bad-mouthed than in fact it is).

I have a Sigma myself and I'm very happy with it (17-50mm f/2.8 OS HSM). +6MFA on my 7D seemed to give me very good results across the whole range (and subject distance as well). It's a good, and very sharp lens, I use it very often (very good match with my 70-200 f4 IS).

Before that, I had a Sigma 18-50mm Macro....I had focus issues and I decided to return it and replaced by a Canon 15-85mm (at that time, my camera body didn't have the MFA, it was a 40D).

Cheers
GB

I've sent you message here on CR with links to those shots. Hope that it will help you to decide for which lens to go. And IMHO if you have 7D and possibility to micro-adjust AF for lens then it'll be ok. I suggest to test the Sigma before buying. I don't know about your country/store but I asked if there is possibility to adjust camera and lens together to have AF working correctly and they said it can be serviced within warranty. There is also a 4 years warranty in here where I live on Sigma lenses.

[willrobb]

I'll echo gb2012's request for a few pics up. Won't be buying either as I already have the L, but I would like to keep my options for future purchases open.

Some patents were released/filled, but it's hard to guess if something like new 50 f/1.4 will be released. If you need that focal length then I would suggest to go for Sigma 50 f/1.4 - it's a decent lens and yes it is usable on 1.4 and I think that it has better bokeh.

+1 for the sigma
Real usm, (in my opinion) better bokeh & great IQ at f2.0 and wider. Those are my top 3 reasons for chosing the sigma...

Hi all,
I'm also waiting for any news…

I'm buying a new 50mm lens within the next 3 or 4 months (baby coming soon).
50mm is my favourite portrait focal length on my 7D. I also have the great 85mm f/1.8 but I don't use as much as I use my  50mm f/1.8.

I'm pondering between the 50L f/1.2 and Sigma 50mm f/1.4. But since 50mm is my favourite focal length, I'm thinking of getting the best possible and go for the L (not that I need the 1.2..it would be nice to have it, but I would stop it down a little bit...I'm considering the Canon for it's sharpness, color, contrast, built quality, etc).

I'm not so concerned about the price tag here…

How does the Sigma compare with the 50L?

Rgds
GB

I disscussed this with one guy who owns both of them and he said his favourite 50 mm lens is Sigma 50 f/1.4 and that there is not so huge difference (in real life situations, not test charts) between them. So unless you really need 1.2 aperture I suggest to go for Sigma. For a little plus over Canon EF 50 f/1.4 you get a nice lens that performs fine even wide open (we are buying primes to shoot them at narrow apertures).

I had both Canon EF 50 f/1.4 and Sigma 50 f/1.4 for a little unscientific test and (for me) Sigma is the winner. This is a lens I will probably pick up as my 50 mm lens for FF in the future.

If you want I can send you some pics from my findings :-)

Regards

[Canon-F1]

i would love to see a new canon EF 50mm f1.4.

i don´t shoot that much with a 50mm prime to justify the 50mm f1.2 but i would pay for an 50mm f1.4 MK2 in the 500 euro range. if it has a stellar IQ i would go up to 600 euro (the EF 50mm f1.4 costs 299-320 euros here).

i really think canon should produce such a lens.
as said nikon has one that is really good.
with todays technologie it should be no problem to outperform the old model easily.

and what is the best sensor technologie worth with medicore lenses in front of it?? 


the sigma 50mm f1.4 has very mixed reviews.

the review on photozone is very positiv... the review on digital-picture not so much.
when i read from user experience it seems to be an 50:50 mix of love and hate.

i don´t know if it´s the usual dreaded sigma quality management.
but i stay away from sigma if possible.
 

[KHAWACHEN]

Bought > Sold > ?  > Bough again > Sold again

haha i have done that too and it's happening to me again but with Sigma 30mm 1.4, haven't bought it yet but feel the itch to do so... 

I once owned the 50mm 1.4.

I must say that I do like the look of the pictures at 1.4. Nonetheless, the pictures are pretty soft at that aperature. And the lens suffers from purple fringing, at night. ( Both of my copies were the same ).

Another thing I didnt like about this lens is the minimum focusing distance. You do need to be quite a way away to focus. Overall, a fun lens to use, but for me, it wasnt practical and too much pain to use for the return of what it can do.

so I sold it.

then bought another one cos I thought I missed it.

but nope, I realised why I sold it soon after I bought it back so I sold my 2nd copy. Never looked back.

[papa-razzi]

I bought the Canon 35mm f/2, and am not too happy with it.

I would be interested in why you were not happy with the 35mm f/2 (or anyone else who has used this lens)

I have read universally positive reviews on the 35mm f/2.  Very good value for the price.  Very sharp lens.  Noisy AF is really the only consistent complaint?

I haven't used this lens, but was considering purchasing it.

[Craig Richardson]

Some patents were released/filled, but it's hard to guess if something like new 50 f/1.4 will be released. If you need that focal length then I would suggest to go for Sigma 50 f/1.4 - it's a decent lens and yes it is usable on 1.4 and I think that it has better bokeh.

+1 for the sigma
Real usm, (in my opinion) better bokeh & great IQ at f2.0 and wider. Those are my top 3 reasons for chosing the sigma...

I own the Sigma 50mm and I love it, however realize that it can be a very strange lens.  Many copies (including my own) front focus up close and back focus past 20 feet.  Use the lens in AI-Servo and you can't go wrong.  Make sure you can return the lens from the dealer you buy it from.  Even with all of it's focusing flaws it makes pictures comparable to the 50L, which also has some of the same problems!

[kennykodak]

Bought > Sold > ?  > Bough again > Sold again

are we related or just have studied at the same school?

[mathino]

I'll echo gb2012's request for a few pics up. Won't be buying either as I already have the L, but I would like to keep my options for future purchases open.

Some patents were released/filled, but it's hard to guess if something like new 50 f/1.4 will be released. If you need that focal length then I would suggest to go for Sigma 50 f/1.4 - it's a decent lens and yes it is usable on 1.4 and I think that it has better bokeh.

+1 for the sigma
Real usm, (in my opinion) better bokeh & great IQ at f2.0 and wider. Those are my top 3 reasons for chosing the sigma...

Hi all,
I'm also waiting for any news…

I'm buying a new 50mm lens within the next 3 or 4 months (baby coming soon).
50mm is my favourite portrait focal length on my 7D. I also have the great 85mm f/1.8 but I don't use as much as I use my  50mm f/1.8.

I'm pondering between the 50L f/1.2 and Sigma 50mm f/1.4. But since 50mm is my favourite focal length, I'm thinking of getting the best possible and go for the L (not that I need the 1.2..it would be nice to have it, but I would stop it down a little bit...I'm considering the Canon for it's sharpness, color, contrast, built quality, etc).

I'm not so concerned about the price tag here…

How does the Sigma compare with the 50L?

Rgds
GB

I disscussed this with one guy who owns both of them and he said his favourite 50 mm lens is Sigma 50 f/1.4 and that there is not so huge difference (in real life situations, not test charts) between them. So unless you really need 1.2 aperture I suggest to go for Sigma. For a little plus over Canon EF 50 f/1.4 you get a nice lens that performs fine even wide open (we are buying primes to shoot them at narrow apertures).

I had both Canon EF 50 f/1.4 and Sigma 50 f/1.4 for a little unscientific test and (for me) Sigma is the winner. This is a lens I will probably pick up as my 50 mm lens for FF in the future.

If you want I can send you some pics from my findings :-)

Regards

Sorry for late response, now I have time to reply. Ofc Ill repost you those links to see the difference. Check here on CR in your messages.

Regards

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I bought the Canon 35mm f/2, and am not too happy with it.

I would be interested in why you were not happy with the 35mm f/2 (or anyone else who has used this lens)

I have read universally positive reviews on the 35mm f/2.  Very good value for the price.  Very sharp lens.  Noisy AF is really the only consistent complaint?

It's a good lens, that has a few annoyances which make me feel uncomfortable with it.

Bokeh is one, and there's a photo (one with branches in the background, just the type of situation when the problem occurs) in photozone's review that illustrates it.

The manual focus ring and plastic finish make the lens feel like a toy, and the noisey AF doesn't help.

The lens has no USM, which forces a use of a switch to switch between MF & AF.

The lens has good IQ, but the Samyang has better IQ, improves on all those points (except for AF - it's fully manual), and is one stop wider.

Which brings me back to my point - Canon can fix those issues without redesigning the while lens or make it compete with the f/1.4 L. It's no more than adding USM, good MF ring, and better aperture (say add blades).

____________ Added in editing ____________

A point I've missed is that Samyang lenses are sold with a hood and pouch. Canon sells pouches & hoods for non-L lenses separately, in this case for ~U.S.$50 in B&H. This is, of course, not a deal breaker, but it adds to the 'this is a cheap / toy lens' feeling.

[00Q]

I bought the Canon 35mm f/2, and am not too happy with it.

I would be interested in why you were not happy with the 35mm f/2 (or anyone else who has used this lens)

I have read universally positive reviews on the 35mm f/2.  Very good value for the price.  Very sharp lens.  Noisy AF is really the only consistent complaint?

It's a good lens, that has a few annoyances which make me feel uncomfortable with it.

Bokeh is one, and there's a photo (one with branches in the background, just the type of situation when the problem occurs) in photozone's review that illustrates it.

The manual focus ring and plastic finish make the lens feel like a toy, and the noisey AF doesn't help.

The lens has no USM, which forces a use of a switch to switch between MF & AF.

The lens has good IQ, but the Samyang has better IQ, improves on all those points (except for AF - it's fully manual), and is one stop wider.

Which brings me back to my point - Canon can fix those issues without redesigning the while lens or make it compete with the f/1.4 L. It's no more than adding USM, good MF ring, and better aperture (say add blades).

____________ Added in editing ____________

A point I've missed is that Samyang lenses are sold with a hood and pouch. Canon sells pouches & hoods for non-L lenses separately, in this case for ~U.S.$50 in B&H. This is, of course, not a deal breaker, but it adds to the 'this is a cheap / toy lens' feeling.

+1

Sensible man. Photography is only a hobby, not worth the exchange of food that is needed to feed your family.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I bought the Canon 35mm f/2, and am not too happy with it.

I would be interested in why you were not happy with the 35mm f/2 (or anyone else who has used this lens)

I have read universally positive reviews on the 35mm f/2.  Very good value for the price.  Very sharp lens.  Noisy AF is really the only consistent complaint?

It's a good lens, that has a few annoyances which make me feel uncomfortable with it.

Bokeh is one, and there's a photo (one with branches in the background, just the type of situation when the problem occurs) in photozone's review that illustrates it.

The manual focus ring and plastic finish make the lens feel like a toy, and the noisey AF doesn't help.

The lens has no USM, which forces a use of a switch to switch between MF & AF.

The lens has good IQ, but the Samyang has better IQ, improves on all those points (except for AF - it's fully manual), and is one stop wider.

Which brings me back to my point - Canon can fix those issues without redesigning the while lens or make it compete with the f/1.4 L. It's no more than adding USM, good MF ring, and better aperture (say add blades).

____________ Added in editing ____________

A point I've missed is that Samyang lenses are sold with a hood and pouch. Canon sells pouches & hoods for non-L lenses separately, in this case for ~U.S.$50 in B&H. This is, of course, not a deal breaker, but it adds to the 'this is a cheap / toy lens' feeling.

+1

Sensible man. Photography is only a hobby, not worth the exchange of food that is needed to feed your family.

Insightful man, knowing how many mouths I have to feed, and how much free cash I have.

I happen to be a bachelor with a well above average salary. I can't buy L primes, but I can still afford to upgrade the 35mm f/2 to the Samyang 35mm f/1.4

[funkboy]

Personally, I feel the world is well-fed with 50mm lenses (one of the reasons I got into Canon in the first place was that it's so easy to adapt lenses from other systems).  I seriously doubt that IF Canon is planning on releasing a new prime for mere mortals any time soon it would be a 50mm.  I would guess it would be a fast EF-s lens somewhere in the 24-35mm range, because this is where the biggest hole in their current lineup is.  I can also see them adding IS to the 60mm macro.

What I'd really like to see, though, is Canon giving us a stabilized fast short telephoto.  I don't care if it's EF or EF-s or a prime or a zoom, as long as it's f/2 or better, it has IS, and has as good or better IQ than the 85mm f/1.8.

It should be crystal clear that Canon sees FF lenses as clearly professional territory for years now.  As far as Canon is concerned (at least up 'till now), anything that's not professional FF is an EF-s zoom in their eyes (the only EF-s prime is the 60mm macro).  Nikon users should count themselves lucky that Nikon clearly doesn't see things that way and has been dutifully updating their old designs across the board.

[Axilrod]

If someone wants an upgrade from the current 50mm f/1.4 but doesn't want to lay down the dough for a 50L, I think the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 is a fantastic lens. 

You can find them for around $600 used and they are razor sharp, color rendition/contrast are absolutely beautiful.  That is if you can live without Autofocus.

[smirkypants]

I let me just echo what has been said... I own lots of L glass but my Siggy 1.4 is the one I have the most fun shooting with. LOVE it.

Do NOT buy this lens unless you can micro-adjust. Mine front-focuses horribly and I have to go all the way to +20 to reign it in. I probably should have sent it back but I was having too much fun shooting with it to want to be a week or so without it!

[funkboy]

Bought > Sold > ?  > Bough again > Sold again

I know what you're talking about.

So far, over the last 8 years, here's the list of 50mm lenses I've owned/sold (in chronological order):

Canon f/1.4 USM
Zeiss Planar f/1.4 C/Y mount (Bob Shell adapter)
Canon f/1.8 II
Zeiss Planar f/1.4 ZE

Got my eyes open for a Canon nFD f/1.2 now that EdMika is making really nice adapters for them.  I still have the ZE and nifty fifty (technically it belongs to the GF), but I get the feeling that the ZE will get sold if I get the nFD f/1.2.

I don't know whether it's my copy or what, but the ZE seems to lose a massive amount of contrast when used wide open (the C/Y Planar certainly didn't. I regret selling that one; it was before I had my Katz Eye screen that enabled accurate manual focus).  After f/2 or so it's razor sharp & super nice, but it's got a weird look to it when used wide-open, which is primarily what I bought it for.   Photozone & other tests indicate a noticable loss of contrast at wide apertures, but not as bad as what I'm seeing...  I've also got a Voigtländer 20mm Color Skopar pancake that's pretty much made on the same production lines & it's great wide-open (granted that's f/3.5, but still...)