Do all of canons 50 mm lens suck?

[dougfrommar]

I currently have the Canon 50mm f1.2 L and it is exceptional especially for family type shots or weddings. I have previously owned the Canon 50mm f1.8 as well as the Sigma 50mm f1.4. The Sigma was good but the Canon f1.2 is better. Top notch build quality. I have had no focus issues. I also own the Canon 24-105L and Canon 70-200f2.8L IS II. The Canon 50 is the lens that is on my camera most of the time.
I have owned many other lenses including Canon 135L, Canon 100L macro, Canon 200Lf2.8, Canon 16-35L II, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200f2.8 (non IS), Canon 28-70L. I can say that the 50mmf1.2 is very worthy of the "L" title.
(I use the Canon 5DmkII)

 

[wickidwombat]

I would happily pay $1000 for a new 50mm f1.4L similar size to the exisiting and L build same as the 100 f2.8L macro with similar sharpness etc circular apperture baldes etc engineering plastics to keep is small and light
which is one of the benefits of the fiddy.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The 50mm lenses use a optical formula from the stone age of cameras, and not just Canon. Then, they are cheaply made because they were intended as low cost mass produced items.

Its really too bad that there is not a upgrade. I use mine a lot, and its very good. I'd like excellent rather than good or very good. I'm thinking of selling it and just cropping from 35mm L or stepping back with 85mm f/1.8.

I'll take a look at the new 24-70mm L as well. If it is really good, I might limit my use of primes, since the 5D MK III does seem to be 1 stop + better. It also does not degrade as quickly at the really high ISO settings, noise increases more gradually. Correct exposure is absolutely critical though.

 

[wickidwombat]

The 50mm lenses use a optical formula from the stone age of cameras, and not just Canon. Then, they are cheaply made because they were intended as low cost mass produced items.

Its really too bad that there is not a upgrade. I use mine a lot, and its very good. I'd like excellent rather than good or very good. I'm thinking of selling it and just cropping from 35mm L or stepping back with 85mm f/1.8.

I'll take a look at the new 24-70mm L as well. If it is really good, I might limit my use of primes, since the 5D MK III does seem to be 1 stop + better. It also does not degrade as quickly at the really high ISO settings, noise increases more gradually. Correct exposure is absolutely critical though.

yep i'm hanging out to try this lens becasue i've been considering the 24 f1.4II or the 35 f1.4 too end of april apparently...

 

[Jettatore]

I've seen amazing results from the 50mm f/1.8

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1059085

would be cool to mod it so that it doesn't feel like just a toy

 

[pwp]

I've seen amazing results from the 50mm f/1.8

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1059085

would be cool to mod it so that it doesn't feel like just a toy

Mask it up and spray on a fine red line...ta-da! An instant L.

Paul Wright

 

[Jettatore]

That would be look and for some feel.

 

[BillyBean]

I've seen amazing results from the 50mm f/1.8 ... would be cool to mod it so that it doesn't feel like just a toy

Easy! Just buy a Canon 50mm /1.8 MARK 1 - available on eBay, usually for about the same price as the mark II is new, i.e. about £80 in the UK.

The mark 1 has (I understand) identical optics, but isn't built of belly button fluff. Seriously, it has a robust feel to it, and a proper, metal lens mount ring.

I had a friend whose mark II came apart - it really is made of total crap - the front part of the housing mounts to the back half with three or four 1/2 mm plastic welds that look like if you put it down hard they would come apart, so despite the optics, I could not recommend this mark II. Different story for the mark I...

 

[RLPhoto]

Heres How I Feel About the canon 50's

1. The 50mm 1.4 is A Superb Lens. Its Fast, Its Cheap and Its AF is sweet. I've used it for many, many portraits and LOW LIGHT Situations. Know its limitations also, Its not sharp wide open and is best from F2.8 and UP. Its Stupendously sharp at F/8 and Resolves alot of details that you might have to do alot of photoshop to your clients faces.

2. Unfortunately, I needed a FAST Lens but Also, Sharpness Wide Open. Enter the 50mm 1.2L...The Monster, The Beastly, The Manly, Hunk Of glass that makes other 50mm's Tremble at seeing its bold Red Ring. Its a AWESOME LENS! Its really sharp wide open and only gets to its best by 2.8. After that the 50mm 1.4 is actually alittle sharper but thats not the point.

The Point is that At Wide apertures is where the 50mm 1.2L Stands alone in SPEED and Sharpness and COLOR! Color is great on this lens!

Anyway, I Ditched the 50mm 1.4 for a USED 50 1.2L I saw on Craiglist. Best Decision EVERRRRRRRRR!!!!

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,647.60.html<------- here are some examples!

 

[bycostello]

i have the 50mm... fine for me.... i don't take pictures of lens targets though...

 

[MarkB]

I know the Canon f1.4 isn't sharp wide open, and I get a lot of missed pics with autofocus on it but...Some of the best shots I have are taken with this lens. The shots in the gallery below are taken around f1.6-f.2.0. The one with the present in it was taken at f4.0 and almost looks too sharp.

http://www.BenePict.com/p119494941

For the money its a great lens. I use it whenever I need to do portrait work. I have compared it extensively to the 24-105L and it wins every time in terms of image quality.

 

[Daniel Flather]

I find the AF of the 50L to be much better on my 5D3 than it was on my 50D. What body are you using? I have both the 1.4 and 1.2 and they are both great, but they need to be used with a little care wide open. The 50L is amazing when you hit it, and on full frame the bokeh and what I call 3D look are unique.

The dof at f1.2 is thin, so some shots are missed because of camera or subject movement, so shoot lots!

*please remove suck from the title, they don't suck.

 

[dichiaras]

I have had my 50 1.4 recalibrated every so often but sooner or later back to suck. Is the 1.2 version any better or should I just get the 35 1.4? It seems to be much better rated. I used it with an aps-h sensor anyway so is there any one that has used one or the other or both?

Why don't you use the f/1.8?
Its resolution is fantastic. Ok, it's not as fast as the 1.4 (or 1.2 for that matter), but it's sharper, lighter, and cheaper. For me it would be a no brainer. Following DxO mark, the 1.2 has definitely better resolution than the 1.4 (how it depends on the camera): just look at the field map to see that for different apertures.

 

[EvilTed]

"Tremble at seeing its bold Red Ring"

Makes me shudder to think too

 

[TrumpetPower!]

Can we maybe get a bit of love for the f/2.5 compact macro?

Sharp enough to perform brain surgery and distortion-free -- everything the tape-banknotes-to-the-wall measurebator crowd drools over, and simply unbeatable for fine art reproduction.

Oh, and it makes really nice pictures, too.

Cheers,

b&

 

[AnselA]

"The 50mm 1.4 is A superb lens." I will second that. I have had not had any problem in capturing great images in very poor light and also in well lit outdoors scenes. The color is amazing, it is fast and the bokeh lovely. You won't be sorry.

 

[Bosman]

The 50 F1.2. When its portraits time the 50 F1.2 is the go to. If i am pressed for time and can't move around the 24-70 also does well. The color, the sharpness, the out of focus blur, and the build, all epic. I have owned the 85 F1.2 but sold it for this lens. Is that to say the 85 isn't still king, no, but the 85 doesn't have a weather seal gasket and its slow, the 50 solves those issues and the out of focus blur doesn't really look that different in my opinion.

Here is one for fun Its not sharpened or processed at all and i know i could dazzle you with sharpening and processing applied. I took this out walking around because i had a shoot that weekend i decided to grab this for walk around for fun. This is my buddies daughter.
F1.4

 

[Bosman]

Here is another one. If you own an 85mm F1.2 I bet you wouldn't be able to spot the differences in Bokeh, maybe but doubt it.
F4

 

[Marsu42]

*please remove suck from the title, they don't suck.

... I had the 50/1.8 and for the build quality, bokeh and noisy/slow af "suck" is not a very elaborate, but fitting description :-o

Why don't you use the f/1.8? Its resolution is fantastic.

It's great that you like the lens, but the resolution is far from "fantastic" unless seriously stopped down - and then, I don't need a f/1.8 lens. I'd describe the 50/1.8 as "cheap", both positive and negative. But it's a nice emergency "shoot in the dark lens".

Can we maybe get a bit of love for the f/2.5 compact macro?

The problem with this one is that it isn't chipped and doesn't report subject distance - afaik very bad for flash w/o preflash.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I have had my 50 1.4 recalibrated every so often but sooner or later back to suck. Is the 1.2 version any better or should I just get the 35 1.4? It seems to be much better rated. I used it with an aps-h sensor anyway so is there any one that has used one or the other or both?

more or less they do, two have poor build and AF, if perfectly fine image quality for a basic 50mm-type design

i don't know too much about the 50 1.2, some say it's less sharp stopped down than the other two and has slow AF with focus shift