50 1.4 on 5d3 anyone?

[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.

 

[bykes]

Getting some great responses here. Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?

 

[RS2021]

Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?

There is a short and long answer to this...

The short answer is generally no, given the competent performance of 1.4... but the long answer would continue further...

*unless* you have specific need for the better IQ from f1.2 to f2 or so and it's build... after that, the argument becomes more tenuous as 50 1.4 is no slouch. Then again, people don't get 50L to shoot at f 22. I do like the 50mm view on occasion but it does not live on any of my bodies...but your shooting style may favor 50mm or you may need that low light performance from the L for events or indoors...but here, subjectively, the normal field of view is not my cup of tea. Slightly wider is more edgy indoors and out.

50L 1.2 frequently generates diametrically opposed and usually strong opinions. I am no big fan, but I am sure you will hear equally valid points from its supporters.

 

[Shane1.4]

Don't get it. You will not notice a $1,000 difference over the 1.4. I went down the same path, bought the 1.2 and then sold it to again have the 1.4. Spend the money elsewhere.

 

[CharlieB]

Have not had the 1.2 version...

This I can say about the 1.4 version, and I've had an older one, and now a current one (the same design).

The image quality _can_ be very good from about f/2.0 out. From f/1.4 ti f/2.0... expect a certain creaminess in addition to the very shallow DOF.

Both of my own copes were fairly inconsistent in terms of focus repeatability. When shooting fairly close, at f/2.0 my own lenses would not focus the same place twice... the margin of error for very precise focus is somewhat hampered by the design of the mechanism. Realistic apertures of f/4-f/11 were consistent enough that you'd never see a problem, and results are very very good. Its that shallow DOF area... that the lens has a bit of an issue with. Not an AFMA issue, but a "make the lens do the exact same thing twice" issue. Mechanical slop, in other words.

I like the lens.... optically very very good for a 50/1.4 - one of the best out there... so use the slight caveats to judge its performance for your own needs.

I hope someone can say the 50/1.2 is mechanically tighter and consistent repeatable focus is not an issue.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

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

Its not that terrible. : I've used the 50mm 1.4 Professionally for sometime before getting the 50L.

Its a good lens for the $$$.

Ditto. It's a good lens. I've taken wonderful pictures with it. I almost sold it and then used it again for some portraits and decided to keep it.

 

[captainkanji]

The 50 1.4 takes fantastic shots. I broke mine though. I took it out of my camera bag the other day, and it made a rattle. I took off the back cap to discover the back lens element had come off. Not sure if it just came unscrewed or broke from a bump. I probably set my bag down too hard. It's less than a year old so it's under warranty and I'll be sending it in this week for service. I will miss it, since it is my go to low light lens.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Getting some great responses here. Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?

What you get for the extra $$ is a lot more glass, better construction, and the ability to have super shallow depth of field.
You have to pay lots of $$$ to get even a tiny improvement. Good used 50mm f/1.4's are available for $250, and are better on FF than the Sigma 50mm. The Sigma is optimized for crop bodies and does very well there.

 

[Nishi Drew]

The CA and purple flaring and double lining in bokeh are turning me away from the Canon 50 F/1.4 , I generally shoot at F/2.0 and the results are decent on FF, ideally I want to shoot at F/2.8 as it's sharp all around with minial CA and still shallow enough, but highlights are not circular, and in general the bokeh of the lens could be a lot better. And crazy triangle highlights in corners at 1.8 ~ 2.8 or so, they really tear up the image sometimes. And besides, aside from weight and cost, shooting a normal prime at F/2.8 so often tells me to just go and get a zoom lens. I'll keep the lens for 'product shots' or anything that needs the fantastic sharpness from F/4.0 though, it's a good length for the sort of stuff I like too. However, the lens was best on crop, although somewhat long, the overall performance wasn't as bad there.
Now I'm looking at the Sig 35mm, turns out something wider for scenes and portraits are what I was after too~

 

[skitron]

Good used 50mm f/1.4's are available for $250, and are better on FF than the Sigma 50mm. The Sigma is optimized for crop bodies and does very well there.

The Sigma is spec'd for full frame and works very well on FF with very similar caveats as the 50L on FF. Meaning very similar light falloff, softness towards frame edges, etc. But that said, it does work great on a crop.

The nice thing is that in practice, if you don't get hung up on the vendor, there are three good 50s to choose from with the Sigma sitting between the Canon 1.4 and 1.2L both in terms of price and "what it does". Consider the "asthetics" of the 1.4 and of the 1.2L as a range of sorts, and the Sigma sits between them about 2/3 of that range towards the 1.2L imo.

Toss the nifty 50 into the mix and we have four good 50s to choose from, all with a different optomization/price formulas. And as usual, a shot with the nifty by someone really capable and shooting a compelling subject is going to trump a shot with the 50L by a noob shooting his cat on the living room floor.

 

[7enderbender]

Getting some great responses here. Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?

I'm one of those who love their 50 1.2. But my advice would be to only buy it if you really know why you want it and what to do with it. I would start with the 1.4 or any of the other lower price choices. If it turns out that you use 50mm primes a lot and that you like to shoot at wide aperture then you can make a case for the 50L. Or not. It all depends. Or as somebody here said once: if you have to ask you probably don't need it.