A final goodbye to my 50mm f1.4 lens

[extremeinstability]

I too only had one for a short time albeit it was on a crop. My copy had to be WAY stopped down to get sharp, hardly a good use for a 1.4. I'll try out a Sigma one of these days until then the flapjack and 24-70 do me just fine. (funny though how one is a feather and the other a brick.)

I took some tests the day I got mine, filling the house with the frame and focusing on the roofline. The white plumbing stacks towards the corners had white "shadows"/smears coming sideways off them through F2.8 it was so soft in the corners. The trees in the corners were garbage till hell F8 probably. So just now I took this sigma 1.4 out and did the same thing to see if it at least wasn't going to be worse(with my only real hope was to not have the coma stuff at night with stars/lights). Holy hell what a freaking difference. And it is cloudy and windy, yet just the tree(moving in wind no less) difference in the corners way open is so silly to what the Canon was.

I just went full frame again recently and now have 3 new lenses to sorta "review". 14mm Samyang, a 24L that was pretty damn far off(decentered and tilted focal plane) that I got used that is now fixed, and this sigma 50 I can compare to the canon 50 1.4. Been getting some pretty big eye openers through this. But now I want to see how close to typical the full frame corners were for that Canon 50 F1.4 to what I just briefly had. It was at least a sharp lens way stopped down. I was scared swapping it for the Sigma I might go backwards, but just looking at the zoomed in samples on my cam with the Sigma of the same scene......it's crazy crazy better.

 

[pierceography]

I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.

When I opened my camera bag this morning, I see an empty spot in my bag - where the 50mm sits when not in use.

My feeling right now = :-\ to :'(

Thats a low price. They go for $350 around here. No wonder you sold it so quickly.
I've been thinkinng of selling mine, I've had it boxed up for the last 4 months, but have not been able to part with it. I might sell it if I buy a 24-70 MK II. I also have the 50mm f/1.8 MK I with metal mount. I just finished doing a AFMA with it (-11). I want to do a comparison of images before I decide which to keep.

To me...the 24-70 II is a "SUPER" lens. This will be my most use lens for indoor.

The copy I have right now is sharp, even before AFMA. I decided to run through FoCal, the results are -5 @ 24mm and +1 @ 70mm. Regardless AFMA or not, I know the copy I have is a keeper.

I'll keep this lens until Canon offers 24-105 f2.8 IS

Perhaps this is a conversation for a different or new thread, but in regards to FoCal - Which version do you use?

I haven't really done anything regarding AFMA, but have read good things about it. I'm considering buying FoCal, but don't have a lot of money to throw around for software. Is there a huge difference (yes, I've read the version diff chart) between the three versions offered? Could I get away with just standard? Or is plus or even pro recommended?

Thanks in advance for any replies!

 

[Dylan777]

I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.

When I opened my camera bag this morning, I see an empty spot in my bag - where the 50mm sits when not in use.

My feeling right now = :-\ to :'(

Thats a low price. They go for $350 around here. No wonder you sold it so quickly.
I've been thinkinng of selling mine, I've had it boxed up for the last 4 months, but have not been able to part with it. I might sell it if I buy a 24-70 MK II. I also have the 50mm f/1.8 MK I with metal mount. I just finished doing a AFMA with it (-11). I want to do a comparison of images before I decide which to keep.

To me...the 24-70 II is a "SUPER" lens. This will be my most use lens for indoor.

The copy I have right now is sharp, even before AFMA. I decided to run through FoCal, the results are -5 @ 24mm and +1 @ 70mm. Regardless AFMA or not, I know the copy I have is a keeper.

I'll keep this lens until Canon offers 24-105 f2.8 IS

Perhaps this is a conversation for a different or new thread, but in regards to FoCal - Which version do you use?

I haven't really done anything regarding AFMA, but have read good things about it. I'm considering buying FoCal, but don't have a lot of money to throw around for software. Is there a huge difference (yes, I've read the version diff chart) between the three versions offered? Could I get away with just standard? Or is plus or even pro recommended?

Thanks in advance for any replies!

I bought the Pro version and currently using "AF Consistency". So far, I like it. For window version, 5D III and 1D X are not fully auto yet. You can still run the test. The software will promt you to change the AFMA values(-20, -15, -10, -5 etc...) in your camera manually. It's quite easy.

More info:
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/versions/version-comparison

Here are the test results on my 24-70 II - keep in mind, higher is better in this test.

 

[Menace]

Have fun with the new 24-70II ;D

 

[crasher8]

I too only had one for a short time albeit it was on a crop. My copy had to be WAY stopped down to get sharp, hardly a good use for a 1.4. I'll try out a Sigma one of these days until then the flapjack and 24-70 do me just fine. (funny though how one is a feather and the other a brick.)

I took some tests the day I got mine, filling the house with the frame and focusing on the roofline. The white plumbing stacks towards the corners had white "shadows"/smears coming sideways off them through F2.8 it was so soft in the corners. The trees in the corners were garbage till hell F8 probably. So just now I took this sigma 1.4 out and did the same thing to see if it at least wasn't going to be worse(with my only real hope was to not have the coma stuff at night with stars/lights). Holy hell what a freaking difference. And it is cloudy and windy, yet just the tree(moving in wind no less) difference in the corners way open is so silly to what the Canon was.

I just went full frame again recently and now have 3 new lenses to sorta "review". 14mm Samyang, a 24L that was pretty damn far off(decentered and tilted focal plane) that I got used that is now fixed, and this sigma 50 I can compare to the canon 50 1.4. Been getting some pretty big eye openers through this. But now I want to see how close to typical the full frame corners were for that Canon 50 F1.4 to what I just briefly had. It was at least a sharp lens way stopped down. I was scared swapping it for the Sigma I might go backwards, but just looking at the zoomed in samples on my cam with the Sigma of the same scene......it's crazy crazy better.

Yep it took to about 7.1 for me to get sharp but that only lasted until about 11 or a bit less. Pretty lame range. Funny how I have had unsharp 'sharp ' Canon(50 1.8, 50 1.4, 35 f/2) lenses but all the Sigma's I have had were awesome. Awesome on a crop that is.

 

[pwp]

Why'd you get rid of it? I have one myself, but have been considering upgrading to the Sigma. Not on the top of my priority list though.

I switched from an EF 50 f/1.4 to the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and it's not really an upgrade. Neither are great wide open, both start to look good at f/1.8, both are looking very good at f/2 through to f/5.6. Both have dubious AF.

For me the only real difference is the Sigma takes up a lot more room in my bag.

-PW

 

[brianleighty]

Yep it took to about 7.1 for me to get sharp but that only lasted until about 11 or a bit less. Pretty lame range. Funny how I have had unsharp 'sharp ' Canon(50 1.8, 50 1.4, 35 f/2) lenses but all the Sigma's I have had were awesome. Awesome on a crop that is.

I can agree on the 50's but the 35 2.0 has been pretty good for me on crop. You're not talking about corner sharpness right? That lens will never be sharp in the corners but the center is pretty darn sharp. I'm still contemplating whether to sell that or the 50 1.8 and get the 40 2.8. The only reason I'm even thinking about holding onto the 50 1.8 is it's a lot easier focusing for video than the 35 2.0.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The only reason I'm even thinking about holding onto the 50 1.8 is it's a lot easier focusing for video than the 35 2.0.

Do you have the 50mm f/1.8 MK I? The MK II is the poorest lens to manually focus I've owned, and by a large margin. The MK I is fine.

The 35mm f2 also has a actual focus ring.

 

[brianleighty]

The only reason I'm even thinking about holding onto the 50 1.8 is it's a lot easier focusing for video than the 35 2.0.

Do you have the 50mm f/1.8 MK I? The MK II is the poorest lens to manually focus I've owned, and by a large margin. The MK I is fine.

The 35mm f2 also has a actual focus ring.

Yes I have the mark II. Yes as crazy as it sounds, I find the 50 MK II to be much easier to focus smoothly with video. The 35 just doesn't feel right and takes a large amount of effort to switch. The 1.8's poor performance wide open isn't as much an issue either for video as the resolution is so much lower. Now for pics, I'll hands down take the 35 2.0 but for video it's not half bad.

 

[AudioGlenn]

I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.

When I opened my camera bag this morning, I see an empty spot in my bag - where the 50mm sits when not in use.

My feeling right now = :-\ to :'(

Sadly, i just sold mine today(for $280). There's an empty slot in my bag now, too where the 50 would sit. :'( My wife brought up a good point though. I should be happy that I have the new 24-70 II. After I purchase an UWA and a Macro lens, I'll save up for the 50L. In the meantime, the 35L will do.

 

[Dylan777]

I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.

When I opened my camera bag this morning, I see an empty spot in my bag - where the 50mm sits when not in use.

My feeling right now = :-\ to :'(

Sadly, i just sold mine today(for $280). There's an empty slot in my bag now, too where the 50 would sit. :'( My wife brought up a good point though. I should be happy that I have the new 24-70 II. After I purchase an UWA and a Macro lens, I'll save up for the 50L. In the meantime, the 35L will do.

he he....I thought I was the only one. My 50L is now taking over that slot. The copy I have now seems to have back focus issue. When AFMA is set at -8 in camera, the lens is AMAZING at f1.2 The build quality is SOLID