How about Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HS

[Flake]

Careful of the Sigma, it's noted for focus shift, where the focus point changes when the lens stops down. It won't be noticed if you shoot wide open or if there's enough DoF, but if you're stopping down to say f/2 then it could be a problem. Those people who don't report issues could be forgetting where they placed the focus point! It all depends on how you shoot as to whether this lens will suit you, but bear in mind that the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a very good lens despite its elderly design.

 

[skitron]

Careful of the Sigma, it's noted for focus shift, where the focus point changes when the lens stops down. It won't be noticed if you shoot wide open or if there's enough DoF, but if you're stopping down to say f/2 then it could be a problem. !

I read all the internet chatter about this as well before I bought mine and decided to take a chance after they'd been out for a while and bottom line is shift was much more pronounced in the early models. Testing a recent one will verify that they don't exhibit anywhere near the shift of the early ones had...mine shows about the same amount of shift as the sigma 85 tested on the photozone.de writeup, which is to say it's present but not much of an issue. Definitely less shift than the Canon 50 1.2....

 

[woodsiefromtant]

I got mine about a year ago, then I read about focus problems etc etc (oh no, what have I done?) But I had no problems on my 500D, with my 5D III it is just awesome, very accurate, easily my sharpest lens (over 24-105 f4 & 16-35 f2.8) Beautiful bokeh.

 

[drjlo]

My EF 50 f/1.4 went to eBay and was replaced with the highly rated Sigma 50 f/1.4.
In hindsight it was largely a wasted exercise, the only real difference is more weight & bulk in my bag. The Sigma is big.

I borrowed a friend's Sigma 50 f/1.4 and did some side-by-side with my Canon 50 f/1.4, and there really wasn't a significant difference worth writing about. However, the Canon is much lighter and smaller Canon really just needs to release their 50mm f/1.4 MkII with more/rounder aperture blades IMO. And none of this adding IS on short primes and jacking up price business, either.

 

[unkbob]

My EF 50 f/1.4 went to eBay and was replaced with the highly rated Sigma 50 f/1.4.
In hindsight it was largely a wasted exercise, the only real difference is more weight & bulk in my bag. The Sigma is big.

I borrowed a friend's Sigma 50 f/1.4 and did some side-by-side with my Canon 50 f/1.4, and there really wasn't a significant difference worth writing about. However, the Canon is much lighter and smaller Canon really just needs to release their 50mm f/1.4 MkII with more/rounder aperture blades IMO. And none of this adding IS on short primes and jacking up price business, either.

What kind of tests did you do? The Canon's bokeh is much sharper.

And the Sigma is not exactly heavy. In fact it may be my lightest / smallest Canon-fit lens. Being well-built is a plus, for me.

 

[Marsu42]

The Canon's bokeh is much sharper.

If this wasn't a typo: For my lenses, I'd like the bokeh to be blurry, not sharp ... but concerning the 50/1.8 you are actually correct: due to the few blades the lens shows sharp "artistic" artifacts in the background.

 

[unkbob]

The Canon's bokeh is much sharper.

If this wasn't a typo: For my lenses, I'd like the bokeh to be blurry, not sharp ... but concerning the 50/1.8 you are actually correct: due to the few blades the lens shows sharp "artistic" artifacts in the background.

Not a typo. I chose the Sigma because the bokeh is softer on the edges, it's like a painting. Canon's 1.4 bokeh is nasty - although not as cheap-looking as the 1.8.

 

[sweetcancer]

I still like the unedited raw straight from the camera more on a 5d3 than an unedited raw from d800. Sure, with the d800 you have more room for pp, but with 5d3, you don't need to do much pp.