Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4

[drjlo]

For things I shoot, f/2 is where the good stuff is.

Yup, and when wider than f/2 is needed at 50mm, 50 f/1.2 steps in. I mostly use the 50L from f/1.4 to f/1.8, where its color, contrast, and bokeh really are class-leading.

 

[JonAustin]

An early poster to this thread said he sold his 50/1.4 and bought the compact macro to replace it.

When I first came on the Canon SLR scene 10 years ago, I looked at the three then-available 50mm lenses, and chose the compact macro. I sill have it.

But I'm amazed at some of Canon's product development (or, at least, product release) choices. Why do they update already really decent ring USM primes (28mm comes to mind), and ignore the awful, fragile 50/1.4? Why do they have three standard L zooms (24-70/2.8, 24-105, 24-70/4 IS)?

I can only conclude that if Canon were to release a proper, non-L 50/1.4 or /1.8, with ring USM, sharp optics, accurate auto-focus, metal mount, round aperture -- possibly with IS -- they're scared to death that they'd never be able to keep up with demand!

 

[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!).

I love the images I've seen from the Sigma, colour and contrast to be specific. But it came out when I was still *very* wary of Sigma products and was still plenty happy with my Canon 1.4.

Justin, I agree with your decision...I bought my Sigma about 4 yrs ago..( when the press for the lens and the company was iffy at best).and let me tell you I knew that I was taking a chance..but it looked like the sharpness, build and bokeh "could" be there if I got a good copy. I did and I love what I have for the price that I paid considering what else was/is available. My question is...why is the frontier so bleak for a normal lens for the most popular cameras in the world???...no matter what price you pay?

 

[CharlieB]

I've been through three of the 50/1.4's. Bought my first one in the early 1990's.

The glass isn't bad, but none of the one's I've got gives any focusing consistancy whatsoever. All of the drift from the inner edge to the far edge of what the DOF would be at about f/2 - which means you lose it at f/1.4. Canon says to me... thats all you can expect.

Shooting longer distances, shooting stopped down.. . great results. But why get a 1.4 lens when you have to close it to 2.8 to get consistant focusing results?

There's a thread on the forum regarding Leica glass - using a .095 /50mm on the EOS-M with adapter. I cringe. I'm a Leica M shooter since the 1970's. You get better focusing with the Leica M than any EOS camera. Its just the way it is. Sure, you have to do it yourself, and its not as fast. But if you take your time with a Leica M, you will nail the focus every time. No matter what you do with the EF50/1.4 you're gonna get inconsistant and toss-away images in 20-30 percent of the wide open shots.

 

[verysimplejason]

Used this lens most of the time from my part-time job but I can't justify switching from my 50mm F1.8 II to this lens. Yeah, bokeh is better but I find the AF of my 1.8 more accurate even if it's slower. Maybe I've got a bad copy also. I love the 50mm focal length and will replace my 1.8 as soon as this lens is refreshed. Stopped down, the 1.8 can produce a lot of photos that are arguably almost at the same IQ level as this lens.

Taken with 500D + 50mm F.18 II @ F2.5 + some vignetting from LR...

500D + 50mm F1.8 II @ F5 + vignetting from LR

 

[ashmadux]

If the lens barely works, then it's just not a good lens. Period. How do you take something that works half of the time to a paid gig- heck, or any gig.

What's more sad is that it's a 20yr old piece of shiz design. Too many canon apologists over the years is probably the reason they have yet to produce a new version. I actually tried out my nifty fifty a few days ago, and no focus issues (never did have any).

But seriously...Twenty years old and they haven't even upgrade the build materials. That is beyond pathetic IMHO

 

[verysimplejason]

If the lens barely works, then it's just not a good lens. Period. How do you take something that works half of the time to a paid gig- heck, or any gig.

What's more sad is that it's a 20yr old piece of shiz design. Too many canon apologists over the years is probably the reason they have yet to produce a new version. I actually tried out my nifty fifty a few days ago, and no focus issues (never did have any).

But seriously...Twenty years old and they haven't even upgrade the build materials. That is beyond pathetic IMHO

At least Canon didn't degrade it as opposed to the 50mm F1.8. The mark I version is so much better.

 

[atrocious]

I will have to disagree with the reviewer about the weight issue. I understand his appreciation of the sturdiness, but 1.2 is twice the weight of the 1.4. I know it's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but walking around with the 1.4 is a pleasure for me.

 

[Marsu42]

I love the vignetting on this 50mm 1.4

...which you can also produce with a couple of mouse click in postprocessing

For your dime, this lens is the best value out there (imho).

Agreed, but this is simply due to the fact that 3rd party manufacturers have shied away to produce a competing lens yet - personally, my issue with the 50/1.4 is that it hasn't got a "real" ring usm but the horrible micro usm with the known issues which is only undercut by the 50/1.8 with no usm at all...

... and it's not like adding a real usm would be a large cost burden, it's just that Canon keeps making profit with this dinosaur version so why rock the boat and threaten the 50/1.2 sales?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

... and it's not like adding a real usm would be a large cost burden, it's just that Canon keeps making profit with this dinosaur version so why rock the boat and threaten the 50/1.2 sales?

+1

 

[verysimplejason]

... and it's not like adding a real usm would be a large cost burden, it's just that Canon keeps making profit with this dinosaur version so why rock the boat and threaten the 50/1.2 sales?

+1

+2. It's the AF that's only keeping it from being the best 50mm from Canon at least from the IQ perspective.

 

[Sith Zombie]

... and it's not like adding a real usm would be a large cost burden, it's just that Canon keeps making profit with this dinosaur version so why rock the boat and threaten the 50/1.2 sales?

+1

+2. It's the AF that's only keeping it from being the best 50mm from Canon at least from the IQ perspective.

+3 I hope Sigma rocks the boat so hard, it tips over!

 

[ashmadux]

I wish i knew all this AF fail issues before i bought the lens. Even with all my research, i still didn't come across this many real world instances of fail.

That Sigma 50mm cant come soon enough!

 

[ahsanford]

I wish i knew all this AF fail issues before i bought the lens. Even with all my research, i still didn't come across this many real world instances of fail.

That Sigma 50mm cant come soon enough!

Agree -- I'd love the Sigma 'Art' treatment in 50mm. But with next to zero chatter on that one coming, this may be the case where Canon fixes this before Sigma arrives.

It is highly, highly likely that we will get a 50mm lens from Canon that mimics all the (stellar!) upgrades we've seen on the non-L wide primes: proper USM AF, IS, internal focusing, IQ on par with the stopped down Ls, and a build quality in the same neighborhood as the 100L macro.

Just imagine this in a 50mm lens:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The big debate is what IS will cost on the aperture side to keep the lens fairly inexpensive, small and light. I don't know if we'll get F/1.4 IS, F/1.8 IS, or F/2 IS. Time will tell, but this 50mm lens is 100% coming, as is (one would imagine) on the similarly 20 year old 85 F/1.8 (which is soooo much better than the 50/1.4).

- A

 

[Gilbo65]

I have the 1.8 and 1.4

In my experience, the 1.4 is the better lens - just so long as it continues to work for a few more years. At the price though, I won't be heartbroken if it does and by then, who knows? Canon may have the long awaited replacement.

Used it on our tour of the Pacific North-West this summer. Perfect for low light shots with my 6D - got some low-light shots simply not possible with many other combinations (certainly not at the price point!)

Low-Light ISO 10,000 f/1.4
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22983840@N08/9725838260/?reuploaded=1

And shots for "pop"? - I'm pleased with this. Just love the contrast and colour straight from the shot without the need to post process:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22983840@N08/9661037319/

So yes, an old lens, but still a worthwhile addition - especially for those without a 50mm

 

[Marsu42]

I have the 1.8 and 1.4 In my experience, the 1.4 is the better lens

That doesn't mean much ... a piece of plastic cut from the bottom of a yoghourt can is a better lens than the 50/1.8 ... seriously, it's just so famed because it's so cheap for the f1.8 and it's the "plastic fantastic" legend by now. As for the f1.4 I'd just advise anybody to try the af before buying or keeping it, that's why I don't have it (and also never use my f1.8 btw).

 

[wickidwombat]

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???

couldn't agree with you more, I have found the 50 1.4 pretty unreliable on the 5Dmk3 but much more reliable on the older 5Dmk2 and 1Dmk3 bodies I have. I have the sigma 50 1.4 too which has good IQ IF it focuses correctly...
still waiting for a decent 50mm lens for canon bodies

 

[thgmuffin]

So from what I have been reading, I shouldn't have any focus problems with the 6D?

 

[ftico]

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???

I wish I found this post before... just got a 50mm 1.4 as a gift for my brother, but I started testing it before giving it to him (he is just starting)... and there i discovered the existence of focus shift. I only tried focus around the minimal focusing distance, and shift is pretty bad when stopping down to F2.8/F4. Since the lens will go on a rebel, no microadjustment to compensate at least for the most used aperture.

Love the bokeh, by the way. Thank you for sharing, Martin.

 

[Badger]

I know I'm late to the game, but I have a 50mm 1.8 that has a problem with my 6D that AFMA can't fix. Just bought the 85mm 1.8 (love it) and was considering a replacement for my 50mm 1.8. I thought it was going to be the 50mm 1.4 but after reading all this, I'm thinking I'm going to wait. Might buy the shorty 40 while I wait for Sigma to actually give us a price. If the new Sigma is as good as everyone thinks its going to be, and it costs under $800, I'm there.