50 1.4 on 5d3 anyone?

[7enderbender]

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.

I'd add a few more choices to consider: Zeiss and old FD/FL lenses with the Ed Mika adapter. Both would be manual focus.

 

[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?

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.

Thats probably what I'll do....I'll start with the 1.4.

 

[bykes]

Got it yesterday. Great lens! I'm going to have fun with it.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm thinking about picking up the 50 1.4 for a fast option instead of lugging my 24-105 around to family events etc. Is anyone using one on a 5d3? Your thoughts?

Noticeably sharper than the 24-105 although that is when it focuses. The AF on it is worse than on the 24-105. It does focus a bit more reliably on the 5D3 than on most older cameras, which helps a lot, but still is a bit so-so in the AF department, especially shooting f/2 and under (but it won't drive you totally insane on a 5D3 as it might on some other bodies so it's workable).
I do use it as a super fast/low DOF complement to my 24-70 2.8 (and earlier to my 17-50 2.8).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Everyone seems to bashing the 35 1.4 advice that someone gave but it seems like decent advice to me. Personally I find 35mm more interesting than 50mm on FF (if you shot a 24-70 or 35-70 or 24-105 etc. how many shots are at 50mm? I bet the fewest). And the 50mm does have a delicate AF that is prone to breaking. The 35L works better. The new sigma, assuming the AF works well and since it is Sigma who knows, hopefully they have that in order these days (even if not it can't be worse than the 50 1.4 AF though even if it might not quite match the 35L), might be something to look into too since it has a good price and tests craaaaazy sharp.

But that said 50mm 1.4 is a nice lens too (other than the AF motor on the Canon).

 

[ChilledXpress]

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?

The 50L on the 5D3 has become my favorite carry !!! The 1.4 has a tendency to take a crap on you after a year or so. I've bought two and after having the 50L, I believe I wasted money on both 1.8's and 1.4's. I should have just gone for the quality build of the 1.2.

If you shoot between 1.2-2.0 most of the time... do yourself a favor and pony up for the 50L. If you shoot all over the range, don't care or need about a robust build, and don't shoot often in inclement weather... go for the other flavors.

My link has a "50 f/1.2 + 5D3" set if you’re interested in seeing images with this combo... On my 7D or 5D2, it was a difficult lens to get a solid grasp on (image wise). I think this is due to the AF. On the 5D3... Flawless Victory!!! As one commenter put it... it's a fookin winning combo!

 

[LOALTD]

Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field.
If you a new 5D MK III user, give it a while with the 24-105, you will get used to the weight. Good lenses are heavier due to the large amount of glass in them. The 24-105 is on the light side compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 or some of the other popular "L" lenses.

More versatile: yes
Sharper:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

No.

I use the 50/1.4 for about 90% of my work, it's an oustanding lens. So many people on here have drank the "L" koolaid. I've borrowed the 50/1.2 from CPS and I found it quite soft.

 

[bdunbar79]

Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field.
If you a new 5D MK III user, give it a while with the 24-105, you will get used to the weight. Good lenses are heavier due to the large amount of glass in them. The 24-105 is on the light side compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 or some of the other popular "L" lenses.

More versatile: yes
Sharper:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

No.

I use the 50/1.4 for about 90% of my work, it's an oustanding lens. So many people on here have drank the "L" koolaid. I've borrowed the 50/1.2 from CPS and I found it quite soft.

Yep. I dismissed the "L" bug myself when I sold my 50L and got the 50 f/1.4. The 1.4 is very sharp and I have not noticed any of the problems that some have mentioned. I typically shoot f/2 and narrower and the lens is very sharp and I don't miss the 50L. I also have the 24-70L II lens, which is just as sharp at f/2.8 at 50mm as the 50L, or even slightly sharper, but it's not much of a difference. I just do not understand the 50L's high price tag. It's the only L prime of Canon's that I dislike.

 

[Hector1970]

Another vote for the 50mm 1.4 on a 5D3. I think it's a great lens.
Some of the negative comments make me wonder if they ever used it.
It has a lovely shallow depth of field on full frame.
I'd be a big fan of it.
Sometimes people have a habit of rubbishing lens instead of improving technique.
No modern lens is that rubbish really if you take care with the photograph.
F1.8 50mm is also a good lens for it's price. People criticise it's plastic construction I'd say you'd be lucky to ever wear it out.
50mm is way more flexible on full frame. It really improves your photography as you have to move around a bit.

 

[kyklop]

Have used my 50 mm 1.4 on my 5D and 5DII now for five years. It gives me wonderful portraits in low light.
I read this Great 50 mm Shootout:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

In regards to resolution it is second to none - probably except for the Leica

 

[spinworkxroy]

The Sigma 50 f1.4 is definately a better lens than the Canon 50 f1.4
However, i did NOT get the Sigma 50 over the Canon for 1 reason, the 5D3 has in built CA correction for the Canon 50.
I know you can adjust it PP in photoshop or Raw or Lightroom etc…many way to do it..BUT i only use the 50mm for general shooting in jpg, and for those photos, i do not want to edit every single shot, just SOOC..so the in built correction on the 5D3 works brilliantly on the 5D3.

I do however own the Sigma 85 and sold my Canon 85 because i use the 85 specifically for commercial portraiture and i will edit every photo in RAW so the in built correction is not important for me in this case.

That's how i made my decision with the Canon 50 f1.4 and no i did not consider the 50L because i don't use the 50 very often at all

 

[sambafan]

I do love my 24-105L for travel, but lately I'm alternating between the 50 1.4 and the 28 1.8 for "walkaround" on my 5Dii. Light, relatively inobtrusive for street shooting.

 

[infared]

I have a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I love it. Way less money than the "L" and I find it to be all I need. All my other lenses (besides a Zeiss) are "L"......but I really enjoy that Sigma!

 

[skitron]

I'm liking the Sigma 50 on 5D3. I sent it to Sigma warranty for firmware update about a month ago and on 5D3 it works great at all distances and f stops. Before the firmware update it was "focus range bound" per Roger @ LensRentals description. It's nice to not have to compensate for that anymore.

 

[verysimplejason]

I do love my 24-105L for travel, but lately I'm alternating between the 50 1.4 and the 28 1.8 for "walkaround" on my 5Dii. Light, relatively inobtrusive for street shooting.

You might want to add an 85mm F1.8 lens or 100mm F2. Now you've got your perfect combo for street shooting.

 

[comsense]

Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field.
If you a new 5D MK III user, give it a while with the 24-105, you will get used to the weight. Good lenses are heavier due to the large amount of glass in them. The 24-105 is on the light side compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 or some of the other popular "L" lenses.

More versatile: yes
Sharper:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

No.

I use the 50/1.4 for about 90% of my work, it's an oustanding lens. So many people on here have drank the "L" koolaid. I've borrowed the 50/1.2 from CPS and I found it quite soft.

Yep. I dismissed the "L" bug myself when I sold my 50L and got the 50 f/1.4. The 1.4 is very sharp and I have not noticed any of the problems that some have mentioned. I typically shoot f/2 and narrower and the lens is very sharp and I don't miss the 50L. I also have the 24-70L II lens, which is just as sharp at f/2.8 at 50mm as the 50L, or even slightly sharper, but it's not much of a difference. I just do not understand the 50L's high price tag. It's the only L prime of Canon's that I dislike.

+10, I am so happy that I disregarded the opinion on this forum and bought 50 f/1.4 and 28 f/1.8. Please try and compare with 'L' counterpart yourself before making decision.They are not perfect (neither are some L for that matter) but very good (and perfectly usable under most conditions) esp. at that price. IMO,CR crowd opinion has been wrong on these lens. I wonder if its because most people who flock here has the bigger/L/more expensive the better bug. Some people flaunt it rather obscenely. I am sure when they look at great paintings, they pay more attention to quality and graininess of canvass......