In search of an ~50mm faster prime lens

[ahsanford]

Luckily, I haven't yet had a chance to play with the pricey L primes, so it's not ruined for me yet.

The L zooms I have are great, though.

There are 'levels' of L lenses, IMHO.

Back in 2012 I rented the 28 f/2.8 IS USM and the first 35 f/1.4L USM and I actually preferred the non-L over the L. And I could buy a 50L tomorrow but my 50 f/1.4 USM is a better instrument for my needs (read: I don't shoot that much wider than f/2).

But yes, some L primes are gangbusters -- the 35L II immediately comes to mind on that front.

- A

 

[gruhl28]

I read all the time about one lens rendering better than another, people preferring the "look" from one lens, one lens looking flat whereas another looks 3D, etc. I wish for once someone would post comparisons of THE SAME SHOT taken with two of these lenses so those of us who can't purchase all of these lenses would be able to see for ourselves whether there really is a difference visible to us. I've seen people post photos from different lenses supposedly showing a difference, but they're always completely different scenes, with different lighting.

I understand your request very well. I have tried to find good comparison pictures as well, without much luck.

My most relevant experience was a night I had some friends over playing a game. I took pictures with both the Sigma and the Canon 50L that night. Same camera, same light source and angles, same apertures (f2-f2.8), same people. The day after I selected the pictures I liked, and ended up with 3 from the Sigma, and close to 20 from the 50L - and I had about as many pictures with each lens to begin with. The main difference was that the Sigma-pictures looked flat and lifeless, and the Canon 50L-pictures had much more depth and "life" to them.

I have deleted the pictures I didn´t like, and I don´t want to share pictures I have left of my friends online. Besides the few Sigma-pictures I kept was pretty good and wouldn't illustrate the difference very well.

I would also like to mention that my wife, who has no technical interest in cameras or lenses, also preferred the Canon 50L pictures without hesitation. (And she didnt know which lens was used...)

That is why I encourage you to have a look at different flickr-groups where the Sigma 50 Art and the Canon 50 L are used. When you look at the 50L-groups, be aware that you find way to many pictures taken at f1.2, and/or which is slightly out of focus. I think the strength of the 50L is between f2 and f4, and you will have to look for those pictures as if you were looking for a needle in a haystack.

I think the pictures "Johnny [shakedown]" takes generally are very good at illustrating how well depth is rendered by Canon L - primes: https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnyshakedown

I have to admit, some of those "Johnny [shakedown]" do show depth really well.

 

[Jopa]

Hi Guys!

I´m lacking of an about 50mm prime lens that is, or is faster than f1.8 with an good image quality for my Eos 5D Mark IV. Preferred with an image stabilizer. Pricing not higher than 1200€.

An german shop offers the Tamron SP 1,8/45 mm Di VC USD Canon EF lens at 500€, thats 150€ off.
Would that be an good choise?
Or better buy an Sigma 50mm Art without IS?


Thanks a lot
Daniela

I asked the same question here a few months ago. Also was thinking Sigma vs Tamron, both are good lenses but unfortunately not great, so decided to keep the GAS level down and stay with my $125 50/1.8 STM

 

[aceflibble]

As someone, who has first 50/1.8 II, then moved to 50/1.4 USM and then finally settled on 50/1.2L, I have to disagree with you. Focusing with 50/1.2L is fast and more importantly noiseless (50/1.4 is NOT noiseless at all). And sharpness in reviews is one thing, real application is another. 50/1.2L has much nicer and saturated colours, much better contrast and rendering of focus transition zone and is actually built like a tank (50/1.4 seems rather vulnerable with that extending inner tube).

Then you got very lucky with the 1.2 and unlucky with the 1.4, or I've had the reverse fortune. I've had three of the 50 1.2s and two of the 1.4s. All five lenses had consistent behaviour; the 1.2s being slower to focus, unusable soft until dropped to f/1.8 and still softer than the 1.4s until around f/8 when they finally equal. (Which is not to say that the 1.4s were perfect, either, just that they were sharper by f/2.) I also found all the 1.2s to be unnaturally warm-toned (as in, compared to all other Canon lenses in my possession and correct white balance) which is an entirely subjective preference for many uses, though for my own (highly technical) work, it made it unusable compared to the more neutral rendering of the 1.4s. However I purposefully omitted that point from my original post because I recognise that rendering style is, in most cases, down to each individual's subjective taste and what one person regards as better or worse rendering may be the opposite for another, hence why I stick to only talking about the bare bones technical aspects. (E.G. resolving power, lock speed.)

For the record, I now use the Sigma and Samyang and they both blow both the Canons out of the water optically, so hey.

 

[Khalai]

As someone, who has first 50/1.8 II, then moved to 50/1.4 USM and then finally settled on 50/1.2L, I have to disagree with you. Focusing with 50/1.2L is fast and more importantly noiseless (50/1.4 is NOT noiseless at all). And sharpness in reviews is one thing, real application is another. 50/1.2L has much nicer and saturated colours, much better contrast and rendering of focus transition zone and is actually built like a tank (50/1.4 seems rather vulnerable with that extending inner tube).

Then you got very lucky with the 1.2 and unlucky with the 1.4, or I've had the reverse fortune. I've had three of the 50 1.2s and two of the 1.4s. All five lenses had consistent behaviour; the 1.2s being slower to focus, unusable soft until dropped to f/1.8 and still softer than the 1.4s until around f/8 when they finally equal. (Which is not to say that the 1.4s were perfect, either, just that they were sharper by f/2.) I also found all the 1.2s to be unnaturally warm-toned (as in, compared to all other Canon lenses in my possession and correct white balance) which is an entirely subjective preference for many uses, though for my own (highly technical) work, it made it unusable compared to the more neutral rendering of the 1.4s. However I purposefully omitted that point from my original post because I recognise that rendering style is, in most cases, down to each individual's subjective taste and what one person regards as better or worse rendering may be the opposite for another, hence why I stick to only talking about the bare bones technical aspects. (E.G. resolving power, lock speed.)

For the record, I now use the Sigma and Samyang and they both blow both the Canons out of the water optically, so hey.

For technical work, I'd perhaps consider Zeiss Milvus 50/2 Makro-Planar or Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 Distagon. Insanely sharp lenses with amazing contrast and microcontrast. If you can live without AF of course.

 

[Larsskv]

I read all the time about one lens rendering better than another, people preferring the "look" from one lens, one lens looking flat whereas another looks 3D, etc. I wish for once someone would post comparisons of THE SAME SHOT taken with two of these lenses so those of us who can't purchase all of these lenses would be able to see for ourselves whether there really is a difference visible to us. I've seen people post photos from different lenses supposedly showing a difference, but they're always completely different scenes, with different lighting.

I understand your request very well. I have tried to find good comparison pictures as well, without much luck.

My most relevant experience was a night I had some friends over playing a game. I took pictures with both the Sigma and the Canon 50L that night. Same camera, same light source and angles, same apertures (f2-f2.8), same people. The day after I selected the pictures I liked, and ended up with 3 from the Sigma, and close to 20 from the 50L - and I had about as many pictures with each lens to begin with. The main difference was that the Sigma-pictures looked flat and lifeless, and the Canon 50L-pictures had much more depth and "life" to them.

I have deleted the pictures I didn´t like, and I don´t want to share pictures I have left of my friends online. Besides the few Sigma-pictures I kept was pretty good and wouldn't illustrate the difference very well.

I would also like to mention that my wife, who has no technical interest in cameras or lenses, also preferred the Canon 50L pictures without hesitation. (And she didnt know which lens was used...)

That is why I encourage you to have a look at different flickr-groups where the Sigma 50 Art and the Canon 50 L are used. When you look at the 50L-groups, be aware that you find way to many pictures taken at f1.2, and/or which is slightly out of focus. I think the strength of the 50L is between f2 and f4, and you will have to look for those pictures as if you were looking for a needle in a haystack.

I think the pictures "Johnny [shakedown]" takes generally are very good at illustrating how well depth is rendered by Canon L - primes: https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnyshakedown

I have to admit, some of those "Johnny [shakedown]" do show depth really well.

I am happy that you notice what I am talking about. This is what I find lacking with the Sigma 50 and 35 ART lenses (which I have both owned and sold). They were both very sharp, and with almost no chromatic aberrations, but I never liked the look of their pictures.

 

[aceflibble]

For technical work, I'd perhaps consider Zeiss Milvus 50/2 Makro-Planar or Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 Distagon. Insanely sharp lenses with amazing contrast and microcontrast. If you can live without AF of course.

I manually focus most of the time anyway. But no, those two are out of the question for me simply as the insurance costs skyrocket when adding that much value to the lens drawer. I already need to downscale as the premiums have gotten ridiculous.