Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4

[Martin]

I not talking about AF issues in general (of course it is not perfect), but about focus shift at close focusing distance while shooting at ie. f3,5 or f4.0. It just cant be a body problem as at f 1.4 there is not problem at all. Stopping down the lens has completely no influence on AF as it being stopped down while pressing shutter, not all the time. As I said, seven different 50 1.4 from different supplies, not at the same time, adjusted when necessary with AFMA at 1.4. All of them behave in the same way. In my opinion it just can't be body failure (it hits a 1.4). How is that possible that no one experienced it?

 

[ahsanford]

Here are a few hits and misses with this F/1.4 lens. All of these were F/2 to F/3.2 on my 5D3. Most were straight JPGs for one reason or another (I usually shoot RAW + JPG and use RAW for the keepers only).

Some of the errors were of necessity due to lighting, others were in execution, but I like these shots nonetheless. I am clearly not a pro.

- A

 

[mackguyver]

I always found f/2 to be the sweet spot with this lens and loved it on my crop, but not as much on my full frame. It always seemed too short for portraits, and too long for much else. Just not my favorite focal length, to the point of selling my 50 f/1.2 recently.

I can't remember if I asked this after the 50 f/1.2 review, but why would you show bokeh at f/7.1? It seems like maximum aperture or the common aperture of f/1.8 would have made more sense. Most people looking for great bokeh aren't shooting at f/5.6 or higher, but maybe there's some logic behind this such as showing the shape of the bokeh when stopped down.

 

[Blaze]

I not talking about AF issues in general (of course it is not perfect), but about focus shift at close focusing distance while shooting at ie. f3,5 or f4.0. It just cant be a body problem as at f 1.4 there is not problem at all. Stopping down the lens has completely no influence on AF as it being stopped down while pressing shutter, not all the time. As I said, seven different 50 1.4 from different supplies, not at the same time, adjusted when necessary with AFMA at 1.4. All of them behave in the same way. In my opinion it just can't be body failure (it hits a 1.4). How is that possible that no one experienced it?

It's not just you. I only have one copy of the lens, but the AF shifting really is a problem. It's pretty soft wide open too. Even though I like the 50mm focal length, I find myself reaching for my 85mm f/1.2 L II instead almost every time.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

a few extras:

1. although most reports suggest that outside of the very center of the frame, and perhaps even in the center once stopped down, the 50L might actually be less sharp, granted wide-open and near center frame may matter most to 50L users and it might have richer color and contrast on a large scale perhaps, maybe it fights off PF a bit more, not sure, but I haven't heard or seen a lot of evidence that the L is really sharper and overall it sounds like it is less sharp, if anything.

2. more weight for L might be a negative for many not a plus

THE BIG ONE:
3. although he suggested that maybe the build quality is worse, it is not just a surmise based upon look and weight, the build quality is arguably the worst of any Canon lens, maybe of just about any AF lens by anyone in that it has a true design flaw of such a degree that it should have been re-called by Canon years ago as well as a more minor but also real design flaw.

A. It is the only AF lens ever made to offer a clutched non-USM FTM. Ever wonder why Canon never tried that on any other non-USM lens? Because the clutches are very prone to stick and catch and break. Virtually everyone I personally know who has had this lens has had it break, often more than once. Sometimes Canon even fixes it for free years out of warranty because I think some employees feel bad about it. And if not, they have a special flat fixed rate for it (pretty curious if it is not something that happens so often that it basically stems from a design flaw). I once saw a copy break in less than 60 seconds out of the box new. (That said if you have a copy that hasn't broken after the first few years, apparently it is likely to continue lasting, so perhaps it is possible to use the design and not have it break, but it has to be machined perfectly.)

B. It uses a very low-precision AF engine (since it produces erratic focus, prone to way under and over-shooting) AND low accuracy (since it can't be adjusted in any fine grained manner internally and tends to need adjustments at all sorts of different focal distances, which it doesn't allow for). And the AF seems to vary in quality a fair amount copy to copy, some copies, the best, had hit rates 2-3 times better than the worst (scary thing is that the hit rates of the best were quite bad, that was tested back in the 20D days though). Neither of those are good in an f/1.4 lens! That said it does slightly better on 1 and 5 series than on other bodies and on the 5D3 and 1DX, in particular, you almost begin to think you could semi-trust it at times at f/1.4.

All that said, as far the optics, I once compared it to an adapted Zeiss Contax 50mm 1.4 and I couldn't tell the difference at any aperture (some say the Zeiss EF mount versions are better than the old Contax ones though) and it seems to fair very well compared to almost any 50mm corner to corner on FF once stopped down (certainly for sharpness) although some new fancier non-double G type designs such as the sigma and so on do better at f/1.4 and those $$$ Leica 50mm I hear are better (although I've never gotten to use one myself).

I don't get why Canon didn't just replace the AF motor with ring USM ages ago, or at least just give it a higher-quality regular old micromotor AF system.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Hi,

I just read 50 1.4 review and completely have no idea why NOONE mentions about its huge problems with AF. I have a 5D3 and tested 7(yes-seven) samples of 50 1.4. First one I just sold after servicing as I thought it's a lens problem or camera, next one I serviced 3 times with my camera. Thought it might be something with calibration, adjustments etc. Then I checked with my local shop another samples so...every 50 1.4 has the same issue!!

Why nobody check this lens AF with different distance??? it has HUGE focusshift at close distance and it is almost unuseble in some circumstances when stopped down. To be more detailed:

When focusing at close distance ie. up to 1m ie. 60 or 70 cm (if u set AFMA perfectly @ F1.4) the lens hits the target Checked and adjusted with LensCal. Now check the lens at f3.5 or f4.0 at the same close distance. No way u achieve the proper focus. It far away for your desired focus point. Backfocus is really bad. Point "0" is completely out of focus and blurred, the sharpest point is "2" or "3" at the scale.

The lens is completely unusable stopped down at close distance, 1.4 is very soft therefore there is now way the get really sharp photos or desired details. Lens spec. mentions 0,45m as minimum focus distance. Checked it with ie. f3,5 and watch where is focus, sharpness and where is the whole DOF-behind the focus point!

Now do the same with LV-perfect focus, razor sharp, completely different DOF position.

Another problem is focusing in incadescent light-try this with this lens-results are really different from daylight.

Tested a lot of 50 1.4 (seven) from diffrent sources, not is the same time, and all have the same problem. Why nobody mention about such a issue???

+1

and I guess we both just did ;D

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I just read 50 1.4 review and completely have no idea why NOONE mentions about its huge problems with AF.

I've never had this issue, at least not that I know of (also using a 5D3)... but I also don't necessarily do focus calibration tests. I take photographs of subjects, and if they're "off" I adjust (I've done this with my Sigma 35 1.4 slightly).

Anyone else have this issue?

Nope. Used same lens/body combo for about 6 months before finding the 1.2L for a bargain.

I suspect I can answer why no one else mentions this huge issue: Nobody else is having the same issue as the poster asking the question. Let's see: 1 body, 7 copies of the same lens. What are the common denominators here?

No that poster is hardly alone. Search the forums and you will find more AF complaints about the 50mm 1.4 than just about any other lens and for sure the most about lens breakage.

 

[Joynt Inspirations]

This was the first additional lens I bought for my kit many years ago, it's served me exceptionally well in all that time. I absolutely love going out and just playing with this little gem.

 

[infared]

Good, balanced review from Justin as usual!!
For my money...I bought the Sigma f/1.4 for my 5DIII.....(mine focuses just fine...I know some don't)..I think its a better lens than the Canon, but I know that topic is a hornet's nest. Just MY opinion, put my money where my mouth is and enjoy the results, every time.
Now...If Sigma would just make an new ART Series 50mm f/1.4..we may all be happy! (well, almost. LOL!).

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Thanks for another nice review, Justin. I have own multiple copies of the lens and it isn't in my kit now...for two reasons. One of those was highlighted ironically in my favorite picture in the review: the lovely lady with the cool temperature blossoms in the background. The photo is great on all technical merits save one thing beyond your control; the very nervous lining on the bokeh of the blossoms. In this the lens behaves more like a wider angle fast lens, nothing like the much softer bokeh rendering of even, say the 85mm f/1.8 and certainly nothing like the 100L or the 135L. Secondly, I find that the image quality can't beat my old lenses in the focal length, like, say, a Helios 44-2 (LOVE!) or SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4. The 40mm pancake also fills the void, too.

I will continue to use other options at this focal length until someone releases a 50mm prime with fewer compromises. I know it can be done; there are great 50mm primes that are 50 years old. I have faith that we will see one from someone in the next year or so.

P.S. I will confess that I am also one of those oddballs that likes a 35mm focal length better than a 50mm. I didn't hate the 50mm f/1.4; it just didn't get out of my bag all that often.

 

[MichaelHodges]

The 50 1.8 II is the superior and more reliable lens.

 

[digitalride]

I have read too many internet forums and now it seems there are no good 50mm lenses for canon. I appreciate some of the positive comments and examples, but its consistency that I'm looking for.

I had a 50mm f/1.8 and it was ok but it always seemed to miss focus on the 1 or 2 shots I got with a good smile from my kids. I also was bothered a little bit by the pentagonal bokeh. I gave it to my cousin who just had a baby, and I was planning on getting the canon 50mm f/1.4 the next time I saw a deal, but there are so many complaints about the autofocus on the f/1.4 too. The f/1.2 is out of my price range, and anytime a third party brand is mentioned autofocus problems are mentioned immediately.

I used the 50mm for portraits (indoor and outdoor, usually at f/2.0) and macro at f/16 with a set of kenko tubes. I'm using a 60D, so not having af micro adjust makes things more problematic. Now I'm wondering if I should just go back to the nifty fifty until there is a significantly better option.

 

[EOBeav]

Agree with most of the points, but there is one that is missing: The serious design flaw of the internal focus barrel. It's very fragile. If you are extended out to infinity, and the lens gets banged at all, you're almost sure to have some problems. You'll find that the lens stops focusing (manual or AF) and the ring will only turn a very short amount. What has happened is that the end of the focus barrel has been bent slightly, and the pin that travels through the guide can't make its way back and forth. It's happened to me. You can try to fix it yourself or pay somebody to do it, but either way you've got problems.

All that said, this lens has been a workhorse for me. I recommend that everybody have one. Just store it with the focus in the middle, and you should be fine.

 

[ahsanford]

a few extras:
... [long section pulled] ...
I don't get why Canon didn't just replace the AF motor with ring USM ages ago, or at least just give it a higher-quality regular old micromotor AF system.

Great summary, appreciated!

Agree that the AF (and many other reasons) make this a no-brainer lens to upgrade. It is a super popular focal length that has clear deficiencies even for the low price point. I cannot wait for Canon to finally do the right thing here (or possibly have Sigma go Art-y here with something like the 35 F/1.4).

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Good, balanced review from Justin as usual!!
For my money...I bought the Sigma f/1.4 for my 5DIII.....(mine focuses just fine...I know some don't)..I think its a better lens than the Canon, but I know that topic is a hornet's nest. Just MY opinion, put my money where my mouth is and enjoy the results, every time.
Now...If Sigma would just make an new ART Series 50mm f/1.4..we may all be happy! (well, almost. LOL!).

+1, no, +5

 

[ahsanford]

The 50 1.8 II is the superior and more reliable lens.

I would hazard a guess that you are in a minority with that position. The 50 F/1.8 is sharp and a stellar value, but it lacks virtually everything else.

As much maligned as the 50 F/1.4 is, the 50 F/1.8 has greater issues. Pentagonal bokeh, cheap build and a comically slow (and noisy!) focusing plague this lens.

It's a great starter lens in getting use to primes, using larger apertures, etc. but unless you are shooting non-moving objects at stopped down apertures, I'd choose the F/1.4 ten times out of ten over the F/1.8.

- A

 

[MichaelHodges]

The 50 1.8 II is the superior and more reliable lens.

I would hazard a guess that you are in a minority with that position. The 50 F/1.8 is sharp and a stellar value, but it lacks virtually everything else.

As much maligned as the 50 F/1.4 is, the 50 F/1.8 has greater issues. Pentagonal bokeh, cheap build and a comically slow (and noisy!) focusing plague this lens.

It's a great starter lens in getting use to primes, using larger apertures, etc. but unless you are shooting non-moving objects at stopped down apertures, I'd choose the F/1.4 ten times out of ten over the F/1.8.

- A

I've owned both lenses. The 50 1.4, is, quite frankly, a piece of garbage. The 50 1.8 II has a deceivingly better build in real world use, IMHO. the 50 1.8 II is actually sharper to boot, and I found the focus to be more reliable.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Canon 50mm F1.4 was my first prime lens, and I still have today. It's embarrassing when friends ask me what I think about it ... ??? I reply that I never use the F1.4 aperture, but only from F1.8. :-\ Then they wonder why I have not bought the model F1.8, and I say that only has good image from F2.5 or more closed diaphragm. And I say with regret that there is no reliable 50mm, sharp and durable for canon. But, the model "L" is not good? ??? I answer that it is good, but only from F1.4, and not worth the price at all. :-[ After hearing my explanation, they look at me with dismay, and I say to try to 40mm, or wait for a decent refresh 50mm.

 

[EOBeav]

the 50 1.8 II is actually sharper to boot,

Care to back that up with some data and/or real-world examples? That's a pretty big claim.

 

[ahsanford]

the 50 1.8 II is actually sharper to boot,

Care to back that up with some data and/or real-world examples? That's a pretty big claim.

I'm not the one who claimed that, but after F/4 or so, I believe the F/1.8 is as good as the F/1.4 for sharpness. But there are so many other limitations with that lens, as I have previously enumerated.

- A