50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
S

seamonster

Nov 30, 2012
47
0
4,901
#1
In preparation for my upgrade to a 5d3 (from a 60D) later this year I'm trying to compile a list of potential prime lenses to get between the 35 and 100mm range. I've already got a 24-105L and will sell my non-L 70-300 to get the L version. Also have a 50mm 1.8 so I'll need to get a 85 1.8 to get my portrait capability back.

Then the question remains: Do I keep the little plastic toy (which never use wider than 2.8 anyways) or just get a pancake (which is actually pretty usable wide open, vignetting aside)? Do I even need a 50? I know the 50mm 1.4 isn't great wide open either and has fragility issues but at least it'll work with the automatic CA corrections in the 5d3 (I shoot RAW+jpeg). The sigma 50 1.4 is...really big for a 50mm prime, has AF quality control issues and won't work with auto CA corrections. Rumor mill has it that the sigma 50 is due for a rebody to the "art" line they've got going now but probably won't get an optics refresh... Oh yeah, the 50mm 1.2 is a no thanks I'll keep the money. Everything 50mm seems to be a compromise and you'd think after so many decades of people using such a prolific "normal" lens the designers would have perfected the formulas by now.

Do I even need a 50?
 
#6
dexstrose said:
Just keep what you have until you get the FF. Shoot with the 50 1.8 and see if you like it on the FF. DOF changes when on FF and there is no 1.6 multiplier like crop. So it might change your mind on what you need.
Click to expand...

+1

I'm happy with my 50 1.4. I normally shot it at f/2.0 - 2.8, but its nice to have the ability to shoot at 1.4 if I need to for really shallow DOF. The lens is a soft at the corners at this aperture, but I'm normally using it for portraits anyway and don't have my subject in a corner of the frame, so that's OK. The 40mm pancake is a nice little lens. I don't see myself buying once since its so close to the 50mm and I now have a 24-70 2.8 II that can take the place of all primes in the range.
 
Upvote 0
#8
seamonster said:
The sigma 50 1.4 is...really big for a 50mm prime, has AF quality control issues and won't work with auto CA corrections.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...are you sure the Sigma doesn't work with CA corrections? Did you mean in-camera or software? Not saying you're wrong, I'd just be surprised if Lightroom didn't have a profile for that lens. Only usuing LR as an example since that's what I use and it's fairly common, but obviously I don't know what you use.
 
Upvote 0
#9
I've own the Canon 50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, OM 55/1.2, Rokkor PG 58/1.2, Zeiss ZE 50/2 MP, OM 50/1.8 and probably a few others that I can't remember.

First, most full frame digital sensors cannot accept light that impinges from a cone outside the f/1.6 region, so it's moot whether a fast lens is of any particular benefit. Still, I expect this will change over the next year or three as new sensor technologies are adopted. As an aside, some CSC sensors accept light from far wider angles and CAN exploit f/1.2 optics. I have tested this on my Fuji X-E1.

So based on this, the lens with the best sharpness / bokeh trade-off is a converted Rokkor 58/1.2. It can have difficulty reaching infinity focus but this can be dealt with using live view. I've not observed spherochromatism either. Typically $600+ for one in good condition - quite amazing for a 40 year old lens....

The Zeiss ZE 50/2 MP is superb at all apertures, exhibits negligible focus shift on stopping down and is about as sharp as can be had. It can also do 1:2 macro which is sometimes helpful.

The Sigma 50/1.4 has excellent bokeh but suffers from spherochromatism and considerable focus shift. This is fine provided you don't stop it down - but then it becomes a one-trick-pony.

The Canon 50/1.4 is very good. It does have vignetting when wide open (typical of fast lenses) but its biggest drawback was slow autofocus and fragility. It is a very good lens and excellent value for money.

The OM 55/1.2 is soft when wide open and sharp at f/2. I'm not finished with it yet. typically $550+

The OM 50/1.8 is sharp at all apertures but has weird bokeh - probably a result of its rudimentary aperture control. That said, they can be had for about $30 and are compact, well made and robust.
 
Upvote 0
#10
seamonster said:
In preparation for my upgrade to a 5d3 (from a 60D) later this year I'm trying to compile a list of potential prime lenses to get between the 35 and 100mm range. I've already got a 24-105L and will sell my non-L 70-300 to get the L version. Also have a 50mm 1.8 so I'll need to get a 85 1.8 to get my portrait capability back.

Then the question remains: Do I keep the little plastic toy (which never use wider than 2.8 anyways) or just get a pancake (which is actually pretty usable wide open, vignetting aside)? Do I even need a 50? I know the 50mm 1.4 isn't great wide open either and has fragility issues but at least it'll work with the automatic CA corrections in the 5d3 (I shoot RAW+jpeg). The sigma 50 1.4 is...really big for a 50mm prime, has AF quality control issues and won't work with auto CA corrections. Rumor mill has it that the sigma 50 is due for a rebody to the "art" line they've got going now but probably won't get an optics refresh... Oh yeah, the 50mm 1.2 is a no thanks I'll keep the money. Everything 50mm seems to be a compromise and you'd think after so many decades of people using such a prolific "normal" lens the designers would have perfected the formulas by now.

Do I even need a 50?
Click to expand...

Well, 40mm in comparison is much closer to 35mm than to 50mm prime and if such angle works for you, then you should consider the new Sigma 35/1.4 ART.
Perhaps, at f/1.4, Sigma 50 is the best prime lens at the moment (at least in sharpness and bokeh quality). Canon's 50L has similar AF problems (focus shift), so (IMHO) it is not a much better solution.
 
Upvote 0
#11
If you want the blur and/or light gathering ability of a fast 50, the Sigma is the best choice for Canon. The bokeh is amazing and the IQ as good as the 1.2L.

I suspect a large percentage of the AF QC complaints are actually related to the challenge of shooting wide open and nailing/keeping the plane of focus where you want. With a Canon L fast prime the gut reaction is "what am I doing wrong", but with a 3rd party fast prime it's "what did the manufacturer do wrong."

I have about the same difficulty with any of my fast primes, and my success rate has improved as I've learned better technique.
 
Upvote 0
#12
I've owned the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 and the Sigma of the same specs. Hated the Canon, loved the Sigma, especially the color characteristics. Nicknamed the Sigmalux for good reason. But I'd gladly trade the Sigma 50 for the 35/1.4 as I often feel crowded with the 50 lately.
 
Upvote 0
#13
dexstrose said:
Just keep what you have until you get the FF. Shoot with the 50 1.8 and see if you like it on the FF. DOF changes when on FF and there is no 1.6 multiplier like crop. So it might change your mind on what you need.
Click to expand...

Well, dof of the lens doesn't actually change, just the dof at the equivalent angle of view (as with a 35mm lens on a 1.6 crop sensor). So he can just put his 50/1.8 on his existing 1.6 crop and get a sense of the dof, which he's probably already familiar with. The 1.4 will have only slightly shallower dof.
 
Upvote 0
#15
tallrob said:
dexstrose said:
Just keep what you have until you get the FF. Shoot with the 50 1.8 and see if you like it on the FF. DOF changes when on FF and there is no 1.6 multiplier like crop. So it might change your mind on what you need.
Click to expand...

Well, dof of the lens doesn't actually change, just the dof at the equivalent angle of view (as with a 35mm lens on a 1.6 crop sensor). So he can just put his 50/1.8 on his existing 1.6 crop and get a sense of the dof, which he's probably already familiar with. The 1.4 will have only slightly shallower dof.
Click to expand...

FF + 50/1.8 is equivalent to APS-C + 30/1.1
APS-C + 50/1.8 is equivalent to FF + 80/2.8
It's a big difference really
 
Upvote 0
#20
seamonster said:
In preparation for my upgrade to a 5d3 (from a 60D) later this year I'm trying to compile a list of potential prime lenses to get between the 35 and 100mm range. I've already got a 24-105L and will sell my non-L 70-300 to get the L version. Also have a 50mm 1.8 so I'll need to get a 85 1.8 to get my portrait capability back.

Then the question remains: Do I keep the little plastic toy (which never use wider than 2.8 anyways) or just get a pancake (which is actually pretty usable wide open, vignetting aside)? Do I even need a 50? I know the 50mm 1.4 isn't great wide open either and has fragility issues but at least it'll work with the automatic CA corrections in the 5d3 (I shoot RAW+jpeg). The sigma 50 1.4 is...really big for a 50mm prime, has AF quality control issues and won't work with auto CA corrections. Rumor mill has it that the sigma 50 is due for a rebody to the "art" line they've got going now but probably won't get an optics refresh... Oh yeah, the 50mm 1.2 is a no thanks I'll keep the money. Everything 50mm seems to be a compromise and you'd think after so many decades of people using such a prolific "normal" lens the designers would have perfected the formulas by now.

Do I even need a 50?
Click to expand...

I have the 50 1.8 ...ok in a pinch I suppose...

but.....NO ....skip the 50mm.....I never found one that I liked

get the sigma 35 f1.4 ...
this is a VERY good 'normal' lens..
it is just GREAT wide open
sharper than most other lenses ...wide open
clean...from most aberrations..

I just went for a walk with what I think is essential......
an ultrawide 14L II (or choose a 16-35 II)
a sigma 35 1.4....really good value and sharp...and it pops the shots....
and a 100mmL macro (or choose the 135 f2)

add a 12mm tube and a 1.4x TC (a tamron fits the macro or the 135L) - especially with the 135L ,

and insert your .... 5D3

love it all

I have the 24-105 (nice lens) if I only want ONE lens.... it never fails to please....24mm is pretty wide already
...
and....I also have a few specialty lenses ...85L II, 70-200 f4 I.S., 70-200 f2.8 II.... 24L (mk 1)

but the three basic lenses (100L versus 135L ...you decide)
are enough to do the typical stuff...

start there
I M O

TOM
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

snappy604
RF wide angle - RF 15-35mm 2.8 vs RF 16-28mm 2.8
Replies
3
Views
287
snappy604
snappy604
J
Sigma USB DOCK for Canon EF Discontinued
Replies
4
Views
914
Jon741
J
kapalabhati
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 Sports + Canon R7 = Complete Failure (works fine on R6/RP)
Replies
9
Views
1K
Michael Clark
Michael Clark
S
Canon’s disdain for APS-C users.
Replies
34
Views
3K
EricN
EricN
DSB
AI discussion: The end of photography as we know it
Replies
11
Views
1K
DSB
DSB
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu