Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 Replacement Ready? [CR1]

[martti]

The point I was trying to make is that the people who have the 50mm f/1.2 do not see the Sigma or the Otus so much better that they would need to change. Also, the two third-party lenses are obviously not aimed at the same buyers as the Canon L. Now, if the owners of the Canon lens would be unhappy because their lense is not sharpe enough, that it is not fulfilling their demands, there would be a big supply of these lenses on the market pushing the prices down. Obviously, this is not the case.

Privatebydesign has a valuable point there. People paid a lot for something and they'd rather stick with their product than let go of it at a price that might actually close the deal. This might very well be the case. People buy shares and stick to them way past the point where they should have been sold. And those are the ones who finance the profits of the professional dealers but that is beside the point.

It might be that this lense is for two groups of users:
–Professionals who know what and how and who really do not care a bit about what DxO says as long as they get their pictures as they themselves and their clients like them
–Well off amateurs who can well afford expensive gadgets lying around the house with no other purpose but the pleasure they gave while unboxing them.

Which may well be a simplification but in my mind it would explain why I cannot get this lense at about 600 dollars that I would be happy to pay for it. That's what I paid for my 24mm f/1.4 which is impossible to sell anywhere near that price now that the v. II is on the market. What the hell, I do not have to sell it at half the price...yes, definitely you have a point there, Privatebydesign.

(sorry, baking a pizza here on the side sort of caused my line of thinking to shatter)

 

[chromophore]

According to my DoF calculator, using the minimum focus distance of .28m, 1.34cm.

Using the same calculator, at the minimum focus distance for the 50/1.2L (.45m), the depth of field is 0cm.

So you might say that the 16-35/f4L has infinitely more depth of field than the 50/1.2L when both are at their widest aperture and shooting at their minimum focus distance

URL for DoF calculator:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

That is nonsense. "0 cm" depth of field is impossible. The calculator that you use is not accurate. Equally nonsensical is the idea of "infinitely more DOF" on the basis on your claim that the 50/1.2 has no DOF.

Consider that even with an MP-E 65/2.8 at 5x magnification shot wide open, there is still some non-negligible DOF, otherwise it would not be possible to obtain any usable image, and I absolutely GUARANTEE that at 5x, the MP-E will have WAY less DOF than the 50/1.2L at MFD. Dozens of LordV's incredible insect macro shots with the MP-E are my proof. Hell, even my own macro shots with my 100/2.8L, with extension tubes to get above 1:1, are proof that "0 cm" DOF is nonsense.

Oh, and how about the 85/1.2L? That lens has the same f-number but a longer focal length. Its DOF at the same subject-camera distance will be even less than the 50/1.2L. But somehow, myself and a whole bunch of other photographers have no problem getting great shots with it.

 

[ahsanford]

Defendants exhibit one:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Defendants exhibit two:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Can we please look at the facts?
We are talking about sloppy..sloppy...sloppy disregard for the "normal view" prime for FF cameras from the biggest manufacturer of said cameras. It's embarrassing and lazy.(same with the 35mm). Yes...Canon makes a LOT of 50mm lenses...but none of them are very good.
Sigma has called this to Canon's attention..with improved products and, more importantly SALES in a shrinking market.

I think you mean, "Can we please look at the facts sharpness?"

No one is refuting that the 50 Art is a sharper lens. This is simply true, not a matter of opinion. But you continue to drive past the bigger picture regarding the Sigma 50 Art:

• It weighs three times that of the 50 f/1.4
• It is as discreet as an elephant gun.
• The AF is famously inconsistent -- not front or back focused, but inconsistent. That leads to missed moments. That's a bad thing.

The Art is not a better lens. The Art is a better lens for you and those who prioritize sharpness over other variables.

But the notion that Canon needs to defeat it / outperform it / win the high school class presidency over it in an election to demonstrate its virility is patently absurd.

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

"I think Sigma will push the R&D team on a decent 50mm, just like I believe they did for the 35mm."

I'll say it again without context if that makes you happy, anybody that believes that comment is delusional.

The Canon lens department is leagues ahead of any other camera lens manufacturer, they have shown they can make pretty much any lens design they choose to and any compromises to IQ are either deliberate, as in the 50 f1.2 L (for enhanced portrait images), or due to price point, as in the 50 f1.4. That none of the five 50mm options Canon already offer fit your needs is irrelevant in the context of the Canon lens department capabilities, and they are certainly not 'pushed by Sigma' to do anything.

Defendants exhibit one:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=941&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Defendants exhibit two:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Can we please look at the facts?
We are talking about sloppy..sloppy...sloppy disregard for the "normal view" prime for FF cameras from the biggest manufacturer of said cameras. It's embarrassing and lazy.(same with the 35mm). Yes...Canon makes a LOT of 50mm lenses...but none of them are very good.
Sigma has called this to Canon's attention..with improved products and, more importantly SALES in a shrinking market.

As ahsanford says, you are conflating sharpness wide open with pretty much everything else.

I often shoot my 50 f1.4 at f5.6 or f8 with strobes. Look at what I get http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3 yes, sharper than my 100L Macro at f5.6, for $349!

If I want shallow dof I can use my f1.4 at f1.4, I don't get the same sharpness in the corners as your Art, but I don't care, the sharpness my particular copy of the EF 50 f1.4 delivers wide open to f2 is plenty good enough for what I want, which is the main reason I never bought the EF 50 f1.2.

I am happy to agree that some shooters want different metrics (sharper corners wide open), but saying 'Canon are forced to fill that gap' in their lineup, or that 'Sigma are forcing them to do anything', or that the five Canon EF 50mm lenses you can buy new at B&H today are all "sloppy.... embarrassing... lazy...." is farcical.

 

[AE-1Burnham]

"Will the L or non-L follow the trend of retrofocus (Otus 55 and Sig 50A) design?" is my question?

The previous many decades of 50mm lens design has said double-gaus provides enough "fill-in-the-blank" -- well does it today? Retrofocus design allows for many corrections, internal focusing, and size (esp. length and also typically in weight).

Are the following lens DOA when you unbox them: Noctilux / 1.2L / 58G (NOTE: all double-guass) ? Imagine them built as retrofocus and your arms/back will hurt from the thought and your wallet might commit suicide.

Happy shooting y'alls!

 

[Hector1970]

I currently have the 50 1.2L which is a great lens but for many years I had the Canon 50mm 1.4.
I really liked it. It was very sharp stopped down but it made a great image at 1.4.
It had a rather unusual look at 1.4.
It vignetted in beautiful way and out of focus bokeh was nice and smooth.
This made for a lovely image.

I haven't had the pleasure of using the Sigma Art 1.4
I'd be interested in trying it.
I find the 50 1.2L quite sharp. It's tricky dealing with 1.2 but when you get it right you get a special picture.

I know people want technically the best equipment they can find / afford. It becomes obsessive.
Some people might be better off perfecting their technique first until they reach the limit of their gear.
If you were a relatively new to photography and you want photos with shallow depth of field and good bokeh I'd highly recommend the current Canon 50mm 1.4. It will be a bargain as soon as a new lens comes out.
You'll get great images with it and it will grow you as a photographer.

 

[ahsanford]

"Will the L or non-L follow the trend of retrofocus (Otus 55 and Sig 50A) design?" is my question?

You say retrofocus design, I say 'heavy pickle jar'.

The non-L will stick to its roots -- double gaussian goodness. The middle 50 f/1.4 USM is as known for its compact size, and I don't see Canon abandoning that.

On the next 50L, however, Canon has an expensive decision to make. Either squeeze a little more sharpness out of that 50 f/1.2L design as is, possibly drop in that BR technology, etc., or pursue a major redesign to try to climb Sharpness Mountain. By any measure, the only way to accomplish the latter is to get huge.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If you were a relatively new to photography and you want photos with shallow depth of field and good bokeh I'd highly recommend the current Canon 50mm 1.4. It will be a bargain as soon as a new lens comes out.
You'll get great images with it and it will grow you as a photographer.

+1. If I know someone is relatively serious about committing the time to learning photography, I recommend the Canon 50 f/1.4 USM as a first prime instead of the nifty fifty.

- A

 

[crashpc]

I got my 50mm f/1.4 in nice condition for about $180, and I agree. Very good lens if handled with some skill (took me some time, indeed). I believe they´ll stick with current design, making it a little bit better as they did with STM, adding IS. Even f/1.6 would be okay.

 

[infared]

These break so often that there is a repair video readily available for your use.
...and why did Canon wait 22 years???? :-X

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTu00wgJgRE

 

[privatebydesign]

These break so often that there is a repair video readily available for your use.
...and why did Canon wait 22 years???? :-X

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTu00wgJgRE

I've had mine for over ten years and it works fine, meanwhile I have broken three different L lenses. I always have the hood on it especially when it is loose in my bag.

 

[ahsanford]

These break so often that there is a repair video readily available for your use.
...and why did Canon wait 22 years???? :-X

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTu00wgJgRE

I've had mine for over ten years and it works fine, meanwhile I have broken three different L lenses. I always have the hood on it especially when it is loose in my bag.

You just gave me one more reason to get excited about a future 50 f/nooneknows IS USM -- a proper hood. I can't stand the current 50 f/1.4 USM hood.

My 50 f/1.4 is still going strong at five years. Soft as a pillow at f/1.4, I tend not to use it wider than f/1.8. But stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower it's sharp as the dickens.

- A