50mm Primes that don't suck wide open?

[paul13walnut5]

It's not what you want and I do know that, but the sigma 50mm f2.8 macro DG is exceptional wide open.

I'm not suggesting you buy one as it's slow focusing, darker than you probably want, but it does tick the boxes if being the right fl, and being sharp eide open. Even if wide open is f2.8.

On the other hand it will be more forgiving than a very shallow lens on full frame.

 

[bvukich]

F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.

I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens. If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2. If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.

 

[RLPhoto]

F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.

I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens. If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2. If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.

If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.

 

[Cannon Man]

You do need a 50 but they don't have one for you. I sold the 50 1.2 in disgust of how soft the pictures were even stopping down.

 

[ecka]

F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.

I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens. If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2. If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.

If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.

If you can afford Leica 50/1, then you can afford all the fast 50s in question here (as a backup or just for fun) .

 

[paulc]

The fragility of the Canon 50/1.4 focus barrel is mitigated by never taking the hood off it, even when you put it in your bag. The motor and gears are weak, but at least they're replaceable by laymen.

The real question is if you love the results or not.

 

[RLPhoto]

F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.

I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens. If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2. If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.

If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.

If you can afford Leica 50/1, then you can afford all the fast 50s in question here (as a backup or just for fun) .

Really, I believe don't so but point here is the Leica 50mm doesn't suck.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-NOCTILUX-M-50mm-f-1-11821-E60-/121136252503?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1c34488657

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-0L-f-1-0-L-f-1LLens-Made-in-Japan-Nr-MINT-/181148016924?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a2d43611c

 

[ecka]

F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.

I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens. If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2. If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.

If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.

If you can afford Leica 50/1, then you can afford all the fast 50s in question here (as a backup or just for fun) .

Really, I believe don't so but point here is the Leica 50mm doesn't suck.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-NOCTILUX-M-50mm-f-1-11821-E60-/121136252503?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1c34488657

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-0L-f-1-0-L-f-1LLens-Made-in-Japan-Nr-MINT-/181148016924?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a2d43611c

Leica M autofocus sucks and Canon 50/1.0L is just as good optically, if not better.

 

[skullyspice]

How does the old FD 50 1.2 lens compare to todays 50 1.2?

 

[Fleetie]

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.

Ah! A Zuikophile!

Yes, I have both of the f/1.2 lenses: The 50/1.2 and the 55/1.2. The 55/1.2 is NOT the older one with the radioactive glass element.

They are both pretty terrible wide-open, but pin-sharp at f/2.

I did a comparison of those 2 lenses with the Canon 50/1.4. I found that the Canon is faster (i.e. brighter in terms of T-stop or light transmittance) than the Zuiko f/1.2 lenses. But there wasn't a lot in it.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1282664807273.38454.1849695638&type=1&l=33b6f14d3f

I also have a Zuiko 50/1.4 silvernose that I had cleaned internally and it came back in really good nick, nice and clean.

And a 50/1.4 that has SOME fungus inside but not a huge amount.

And a final-version 50/1.8, the final version they did. That is totally 100% clean inside and out.

One day I intend to do a rigorous comparison of all of them.

I like the 50/1.8 cos it is tiny (short, almost pancake-y) compared to the f/1.4 and f/1.2 versions. So more portable.

When the EOS M II comes out, I intend to get it and use it (sometimes) with the Zuiko 50/1.8 on it.

 

[RLPhoto]

F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.

I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens. If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2. If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.

If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.

If you can afford Leica 50/1, then you can afford all the fast 50s in question here (as a backup or just for fun) .

Really, I believe don't so but point here is the Leica 50mm doesn't suck.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-NOCTILUX-M-50mm-f-1-11821-E60-/121136252503?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1c34488657

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-0L-f-1-0-L-f-1LLens-Made-in-Japan-Nr-MINT-/181148016924?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a2d43611c

Leica M autofocus sucks and Canon 50/1.0L is just as good optically, if not better.

Lol you said the canon 50mm 1.0 was good optically. That's cute.

 

[callaesthetics]

The Sigma 50 1.4 is very good on the Canon 5D3 body. Something about the 5D3 focus system that just makes the Sigma work perfectly. I say this because the same Sigma lens on my old 7D had the usual focus shift inconsistency.

 

[ecka]

F/1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 are compromises. I wouldn't classify them as suck, I only hold the EF 50mm F/1.0 in that category.

I really wouldn't say the 50/1.0 sucks, but it is a highly specialized use lens. If you're not sure you need the 1.0, you're definitely better off with the 1.2. If you're positive you need the 50/1.0, there's an 80% chance you're wrong, and you'd still be better off the the 1.2.

But... if you need to shoot a candle lit dinner in a coal mine, and don't mind (or like/want) the "dreamy" look the 50/1.0 gives, there really is no substitute.

If you need a 50mm F/1, get the leica... Or at least rent one.

If you can afford Leica 50/1, then you can afford all the fast 50s in question here (as a backup or just for fun) .

Really, I believe don't so but point here is the Leica 50mm doesn't suck.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEICA-NOCTILUX-M-50mm-f-1-11821-E60-/121136252503?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1c34488657

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-0L-f-1-0-L-f-1LLens-Made-in-Japan-Nr-MINT-/181148016924?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a2d43611c

Leica M autofocus sucks and Canon 50/1.0L is just as good optically, if not better.

Lol you said the canon 50mm 1.0 was good optically. That's cute.

"Good" and "as good" have different meanings, you know ... , while "as good" and "as bad" are practically the same thing .

 

[adhocphotographer]

Keep the 50 and see how you like it on FF... at 2.8 there is little difference between it and the 40, but you also get the option of opening it up if you really need to, something the 40 can't!

If you did not already have the 50, i would have said get the 40...

 

[noisejammer]

I did a comparison of those 2 lenses with the Canon 50/1.4. I found that the Canon is faster (i.e. brighter in terms of T-stop or light transmittance) than the Zuiko f/1.2 lenses. But there wasn't a lot in it.

So there are people with taste for older glass on this forum too. I'd turf out your fungus lens before it infects others and recommend you try the Rokkor 58/1.2.... you will like it.

To business - I'm deeply skeptical that the T-stop of the OM 50/1.2 is slower than the EF 50/1.4. Although there should only be 1/3 stop in it, none of your cameras are capable of detecting light that comes from faster than f/1.6. The 7D (iirc used for your test) is not capable of detecting light from a cone faster than f/2.

Nevertheless, Canon cameras appear to register better sensitivity when coupled to EF lenses. This is because the camera knows that it's connected to a fast lens and silently boosts its ISO. Of course, it has no idea about the OM 50/1.2, so it does nothing and gives you a faithful measure of the detected light.

I tested this quite carefully - the trick is to partially rotate the lens so that the electrical connection is severed - it's real. Curiously, my ZE 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 lenses also appear to be faster than they really are...

Others tested the 50L and found it behaves like a 50/1.6 on a 1D4 / 5D2 and a 50/2 on a 7D. I can't speak to a 5D3 - I decided that I'd be upgrading when I got to be better than my camera.

Canon is not the only culprit caught up in this game. Nikon, Sony and Pentax were also caught cheating customers out of large aperture. Per my comments, my Fuji X-E1 doesn't cheat with SLR lenses (but I've no idea whether it does with fast Fuji lenses.)

Now all this returns to the question of which lens is sharpest wide open. Well, the short answer is they're all pretty good at f/1.6 and excellent at f/2. Since the sensor doesn't actually detect light from a fast cone, it can't contribute to the bokeh - but since it's inside the mirror box, it could bounce around and degrade the contrast. Bear in mind that there's more than half a stop between f/1.6 and f/1.2 so 30% of the light intercepted by the lens is bouncing around...

 

[canikon]

I did a comparison of those 2 lenses with the Canon 50/1.4. I found that the Canon is faster (i.e. brighter in terms of T-stop or light transmittance) than the Zuiko f/1.2 lenses. But there wasn't a lot in it.

So there are people with taste for older glass on this forum too. I'd turf out your fungus lens before it infects others and recommend you try the Rokkor 58/1.2.... you will like it.

To business - I'm deeply skeptical that the T-stop of the OM 50/1.2 is slower than the EF 50/1.4. Although there should only be 1/3 stop in it, none of your cameras are capable of detecting light that comes from faster than f/1.6. The 7D (iirc used for your test) is not capable of detecting light from a cone faster than f/2.

Nevertheless, Canon cameras appear to register better sensitivity when coupled to EF lenses. This is because the camera knows that it's connected to a fast lens and silently boosts its ISO. Of course, it has no idea about the OM 50/1.2, so it does nothing and gives you a faithful measure of the detected light.

I tested this quite carefully - the trick is to partially rotate the lens so that the electrical connection is severed - it's real. Curiously, my ZE 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 lenses also appear to be faster than they really are...

Others tested the 50L and found it behaves like a 50/1.6 on a 1D4 / 5D2 and a 50/2 on a 7D. I can't speak to a 5D3 - I decided that I'd be upgrading when I got to be better than my camera.

Canon is not the only culprit caught up in this game. Nikon, Sony and Pentax were also caught cheating customers out of large aperture. Per my comments, my Fuji X-E1 doesn't cheat with SLR lenses (but I've no idea whether it does with fast Fuji lenses.)

Now all this returns to the question of which lens is sharpest wide open. Well, the short answer is they're all pretty good at f/1.6 and excellent at f/2. Since the sensor doesn't actually detect light from a fast cone, it can't contribute to the bokeh - but since it's inside the mirror box, it could bounce around and degrade the contrast. Bear in mind that there's more than half a stop between f/1.6 and f/1.2 so 30% of the light intercepted by the lens is bouncing around...

Uhmmm... I'm getting really confused about what you say.
There is something that I don't get at all.
If say a 5DmkIII can "see" only through a f/1.6 lens, so does this mean that everything faster is pretty much useless?
I do believe that the peripheral illumination could be as you say, so not sensitive from a certain relative aperture onward, but the central portion of the sensor should collect light coming from every angle from the lens aperture.
I am in office now, but I hope to be able to do some testing in this regard.
The test I would do is as follows:
- fix the ISO value
- fix the shutter value
- fix the ambient light level with controlled, artificial light
- take pictures at say f/1.4, f/1.6, f/1.8, f/2.0
- compare the brightness of the central pixel of each picture in the three channels (better to use a white paper i the center of the image so the channels would be roughly the same output)
- check if the RGB brightness will vary between the shots
I am pretty sure that it will.
I hope to be able to do so in the incoming week end.
BTW, I like so much you guys in this forum, you are always able to make me learn or at least think about new issues.
Best regards, have a nice day!

 

[mrsfotografie]

Nevertheless, Canon cameras appear to register better sensitivity when coupled to EF lenses. This is because the camera knows that it's connected to a fast lens and silently boosts its ISO.

I don't think so, that would make pictures taken with fast Canon EF lenses more noisy. It is a fact though that (depending on your camera model) the AF sensor knows it's a fast lens and this the f/2.8 cross points are activated giving you increased AF performance. This has nothing to do with the imaging sensor.

 

[Fleetie]

I did a comparison of those 2 lenses with the Canon 50/1.4. I found that the Canon is faster (i.e. brighter in terms of T-stop or light transmittance) than the Zuiko f/1.2 lenses. But there wasn't a lot in it.

So there are people with taste for older glass on this forum too. I'd turf out your fungus lens before it infects others and recommend you try the Rokkor 58/1.2.... you will like it.

To business - I'm deeply skeptical that the T-stop of the OM 50/1.2 is slower than the EF 50/1.4. Although there should only be 1/3 stop in it, none of your cameras are capable of detecting light that comes from faster than f/1.6. The 7D (iirc used for your test) is not capable of detecting light from a cone faster than f/2.

Nevertheless, Canon cameras appear to register better sensitivity when coupled to EF lenses. This is because the camera knows that it's connected to a fast lens and silently boosts its ISO. Of course, it has no idea about the OM 50/1.2, so it does nothing and gives you a faithful measure of the detected light.

I tested this quite carefully - the trick is to partially rotate the lens so that the electrical connection is severed - it's real. Curiously, my ZE 35/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 lenses also appear to be faster than they really are...

Others tested the 50L and found it behaves like a 50/1.6 on a 1D4 / 5D2 and a 50/2 on a 7D. I can't speak to a 5D3 - I decided that I'd be upgrading when I got to be better than my camera.

Canon is not the only culprit caught up in this game. Nikon, Sony and Pentax were also caught cheating customers out of large aperture. Per my comments, my Fuji X-E1 doesn't cheat with SLR lenses (but I've no idea whether it does with fast Fuji lenses.)

Now all this returns to the question of which lens is sharpest wide open. Well, the short answer is they're all pretty good at f/1.6 and excellent at f/2. Since the sensor doesn't actually detect light from a fast cone, it can't contribute to the bokeh - but since it's inside the mirror box, it could bounce around and degrade the contrast. Bear in mind that there's more than half a stop between f/1.6 and f/1.2 so 30% of the light intercepted by the lens is bouncing around...

I used the 7D in fully-manual mode with 1/50s and the lenses wide-open.

I have a hard time believing the Canon camera is silently boosting its ISO.

What ISO gets reported in the EXIF data?

The Canon 50/1.4 produced a slightly brighter photograph than the Olympus 50/1.2.

I am not saying you're lying. I am saying I find it hard to believe.

 

[noisejammer]

Uhmmm... I'm getting really confused about what you say.
There is something that I don't get at all.
If say a 5DmkIII can "see" only through a f/1.6 lens, so does this mean that everything faster is pretty much useless?
I do believe that the peripheral illumination could be as you say, so not sensitive from a certain relative aperture onward, but the central portion of the sensor should collect light coming from every angle from the lens aperture.
I am in office now, but I hope to be able to do some testing in this regard.
The test I would do is as follows:
- fix the ISO value
- fix the shutter value
- fix the ambient light level with controlled, artificial light
- take pictures at say f/1.4, f/1.6, f/1.8, f/2.0
- compare the brightness of the central pixel of each picture in the three channels (better to use a white paper i the center of the image so the channels would be roughly the same output)
- check if the RGB brightness will vary between the shots
I am pretty sure that it will.
I hope to be able to do so in the incoming week end.
BTW, I like so much you guys in this forum, you are always able to make me learn or at least think about new issues.
Best regards, have a nice day!

I think you missed the light from outside the f/1.6 cone arrives at the sensor from a steeper angle. Think of each pixel as a short straw with it's active part at the bottom of the straw and all should be clear - in effect the edge of the pixel vignettes each photodiode. I'd expect the cut off to be gradual as the photodiode is shaded.

After reading a recent Panasonic release (http://goo.gl/279uS) I learned that it is typical for current sensors to accept light that impinges between 15 and 20 degrees from the vertical. This corresponds to a light cone of f/1.86 and f/1.37, in general agreement with my measurements.

When you do your test, remember to half-release the lens from the camera so that the camera doesn't know there's an attached lens. Shoot a manual series (raw, full aperture, trade exposure against ISO.) You can then repeat the set with the lens fully mounted and compare images.

The result will then be fairly obvious. If you have software that allows you to compare pixel levels, so much the better.

 

[noisejammer]

I don't think so, that would make pictures taken with fast Canon EF lenses more noisy. It is a fact though that (depending on your camera model) the AF sensor knows it's a fast lens and this the f/2.8 cross points are activated giving you increased AF performance. This has nothing to do with the imaging sensor.

Um... AF performance has absolutely nothing to do with bokeh or detected light. Perhaps you should try to understand the post and then do the suggested experiment?

Remember, the boost is at most 1/2 to 1 stop. As it happens, the image noise does increase - albeit slightly. It takes considerable care to measure changes in the noise floor, particularly below 1600 - 3200 ISO.