Which 50mm prime?

[unruled]

from what Ive read online in reviews about the canon 1.4 and the sigma 1.4, the sigma is clearly better, although not by a huge amount. slightly sharper wide open and better bokeh as well as AF. so are you guys really convinced that the canons are better? or is it a case of just better quality checks on the canon line?

I think there may be some design issues with the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. Roger Cicala (owner of lensrentals.com, and therefore someone who's seen many copies of a particular lens), states, "On full frame cameras and to a slight extent on crop frame cameras, the lens exhibits what I will term “schizophrenic autofocus”, i.e. when closer than 5 feet, it will front focus, further than 20 feet it will backfocus. This is not a calibration issue, it’s just how it is."

that sounds really bad. Does it just happen ocassionally or often? shame...

 

[Flake]

Perhaps you should read the Photozone review: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff

The new Sigma AF 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM showed pretty impressive results in our APS-C review. However, it's not quite as convincing on full format cameras. The center quality of the lens is certainly fine and even great from f/2 onwards. Unfortunately the border & corner performance is rather disappointing. It's downright soft at large apertures and never really better than good even at the very best setting (f/8). The amount of vignetting is quite heavy at f/1.4 but that's rather typical for such lenses. If you stop down to f/2.8 this will not be a real issue anymore though. The lens produces moderate barrel distortions which is a tad more than the standard in this lens class. Lateral CAs are very well controlled and not really field relevant. The bokeh is quite decent although not perfect either.
A real highlight of the lens is certainly its build quality. Unlike most 50mm f/1.4 it features a metal body and a good focus ring. The HSM AF drive is very fast and virtually silent. Unfortunately the lens suffers from residual spherical aberrations (focus shifts) when stopping down so accurate focusing can be tricky.

The focus shift is the main reason why this lens should be avoided especially for FF. I do wonder when people say that they have a good copy, or they cannot see a problem, if they are used to inspecting their (RAW) images at 100% and know what to look for?

 

[unruled]

Thanks for the link. That reading to me seems to suggest that the sigma would be fine for APS-C, however if you upgrade to fullframe later, you will have problems.

as I've decided only to get EF lenses from now on, exactly for the sake of upgradeability... I guess that means I should stick to the canon. Im not in a rush though.. wonder if canon will make any revisions to the 50mm primes.

 

[traveller]

.. wonder if canon will make any revisions to the 50mm primes.

I think a lot of people have been hoping for an upgrade to the EF 50mm f/1.4, but the latest rumours don't seem to be good:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/12/70-300l-more/

The difference between Canon and Nikon is that Canon has the 50L sales to protect, unlike Nikon who needed to release a new 50mm to maintain compatibility with their motor-less entry level cameras.

The dilemma for Canon, if they were to release an updated 50mm f1.4, would be how much to improve it. They could go the whole hog and give it ring type USM, aspherical elements, 8 rounded aperture blades and perhaps UD elements as well. But this would kill a load of 50L sales, as it would most likely make it a sharper and faster focussing lens. If they simply upgraded the AF motor and tweaked the optics, it would mean sinking a lot of investment developing a lens that would struggle to command a premium price and may not sell any better than the current model.

I am starting to wonder if Canon's f/1.2 primes are still an asset to the EOS system, or if they are starting to become a millstone. Nikon and Sigma have now both released f/1.4 lenses in the 50-85mm range that are faster to focus, cheaper and maybe sharper. Could it be time for Canon to replace the f/1.2Ls for new f1.4Ls in this focal range, like they did with the 50mm f/1.0L?

 

[Flake]

Canon appears to have 'issues' with non 'L' FF lenses so the possibility of a new 50mm f/1.4 seems remote.
The micro USM motor is not reliable, it's rumoured to be the most unreliable lens in Canons range, so it would be nice to see it replaced, but the 85mm has a ring type motor and doesn't seem to steal sales from the 'L' version so why should a revamped 50mm?

The 'L' 50mm has poor resolution at the borders & corners, it's a deliberate decentering to make the Bokeh more attractive, it's a specialised lens only really suitable for portraiture, the f/1.4 is much more suited as an all rounder.

Much as I'd like there to be a new 50mm I just can't see it happening.

 

[Admin US West]

Perhaps you should read the Photozone review: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff

Since he is getting it for a 5D MK II, you should refer him to the FF review on photozone rather than pointing him to the crop camera review.

On FF, the Canon lens is about the same sharpness as the Sigma in the center, but the corners and edges are much better. It clearly shines on a 5D MK II.

 

[alsoforum]

I recently got a Sigma 50mm after trying to decide for several months. I guess you could say I got a "good" copy, as I don't have any issues whatsoever with the focusing. My friend lent me his Canon 50 1.4 for two weeks to try, and, after using it, I was pretty disappointed, by its image quality, AF, and build quality. The only complaint I had with the Sigma was that the focusing ring was a bit stiff. Sandalerlooking forI sent it in to Sigma for calibration and I received it a week ago. The focus ring is now very smooth, almost matching the quality on my 16-35mk2. The lens is a bit soft wide open, but then again, so are all lenses. Overall, for the price, I would give the lens an 8.5/10.

I just wanted to thank you for posting this message about this and I hope it helps some of the others on the board as much as its helped me. Many thanks for the help!!!

 

[revup67]

Adorama article on which 50mm (1.8 or 1.4) just released and good reasons why this is not the same as just buying a zoom lens which covers the same 50mm range:

http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx?alias=50mm-lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14&utm_source=ET&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=EmailALC122910

 

[revup67]

If you want the highest possible resolution and nothing else, none of the 50's should even be considered.

I said the 24-70 as an example- You don't buy a standard zoom for bokeh and shallow depth and fast aperture. But that's why one normally buys a 1,4 prime. To buy a 50 to use at f4 because it gives best sharpness, for what? What type of things do you shoot? In studio with a plain background it makes sense, but then you would get a better lens.

Viggo - The 24-70 was a misleading example. The article (below) illustrates why one would want a 50mm prime instead of a "zoom". It also points out that yes, some people are sticklers and shoot the middle apertures for sharpness (it's just a preference the same way you may have unique preferences from everyone else in this forum) have you not heard of aperture priority?. By getting the zoom you recommend in your example you lose sharpness over the 50mm across the board and also must shoot at a smaller aperture to get anywhere near the crispness the 50mm shoots at a larger aperture. Get a better lens for what purpose? the LP/PW on the 50mm prime beat out some of the L series zooms with respect to sharpness. I suggest you go here for starters and learn more about primes vs. zooms.

http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx?alias=50mm-lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14&utm_source=ET&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=EmailALC122910

 

[BogdanSandulescu]

The Sigma version is mutch expensive than the Canon; the bokeh are ~ the same, focus speed are the same, so why you think at Sigma? I saw Sigma dropping the price recently for 70-200; if they drop the price for 50mm, maybe than...

 

[Camerafreak]

Some time ago I got Canon EF 50 1.8 II because it was just that cheap and I did not have anything against giving it a try. For this money this lens just shines, however I strived for a serious player and researched the net for what could become my 50mm prime.

I must say I didn't fluctuate long when I saw the Carl Zeiss 50mm Planar ZE 1.4, checked the pictures it makes, read about it in comparison to others etc. I do not tend anyone for this lens - it is just absolutely the best out there for me. Some claim it beats any 50mm prime available out there for Canon (except probably 50mm Distagon by the same Zeiss =) ). The build is rock solid and it's a pleasure to hold it in hands and work with it. It makes a very custom bokeh.

Subjective drawbacks: it's manual focus only so if you're an AF guy, look elsewhere. Focusing on APS-C is sometimes problematic also, you definitely need a FF here (focusing screen will make it even better). In video this lens absolutely shines. The focusing ring is just THAT smooth.

Also, fully open it produces somewhat soft image that I nevertheless like very much.

So give it a try - it is absolutely unique lens in all the aspects. To like it or not - up to you to decide.

 

[Admin US West]

Some time ago I got Canon EF 50 1.8 II because it was just that cheap and I did not have anything against giving it a try. For this money this lens just shines, however I strived for a serious player and researched the net for what could become my 50mm prime.

I must say I didn't fluctuate long when I saw the Carl Zeiss 50mm Planar ZE 1.4, checked the pictures it makes, read about it in comparison to others etc. I do not tend anyone for this lens - it is just absolutely the best out there for me. Some claim it beats any 50mm prime available out there for Canon (except probably 50mm Distagon by the same Zeiss =) ). The build is rock solid and it's a pleasure to hold it in hands and work with it. It makes a very custom bokeh.

Subjective drawbacks: it's manual focus only so if you're an AF guy, look elsewhere. Focusing on APS-C is sometimes problematic also, you definitely need a FF here (focusing screen will make it even better). In video this lens absolutely shines. The focusing ring is just THAT smooth.

Also, fully open it produces somewhat soft image that I nevertheless like very much.

So give it a try - it is absolutely unique lens in all the aspects. To like it or not - up to you to decide.

Post some of your photos, particularly low light ones, thats one of the areas where f/1.4 comes in handy.

 

[S P]

I picked up a 50/1.8II for my 5D2 and it's a nice little lens. Got it because I wasn't sure if the 1.4 or 1.2L were worth it for me, and as it turns out I just didn't like the 50mm FL as much on full-frame as I thought I would. I think I like 50mm better on an APS-C as a short tele more than I do as a normal lens on FF.

After taking a close look at the 35/1.4L and the 35/2, I decided to go with none of the above and picked up the tiny but absolutely excellent Voigtlander 40mm f/2 lens. It's manual focus, but has outstanding optics that are sharp across the full frame even at larger apertures. It's limited by your ability to accurately focus. Bokeh looks a little funny, but the way I use it I don't get a ton of bokeh. Zero coma, so it works great for astronomical and Christmas light type shots too. Love the tiny size too. Manual focus feel and precision are excellent, and fortunately my eye sight is good enough to get decent results manually focusing. AF sensors and confirmation beep still function so that helps too. Comes with a closeup adapter that gets you from about 1:7 repro down to 1:4 repro which is pretty nice. Overall a great lens and I like it quite a bit. A very nice alternative to the 50's and 35's out there if you wanted something just a little bit wider than 50 for a normal lens that also has outstanding optics and isn't super big and heavy.

 

[logaandm]

My 2 cents:

I have used the following on my 5DII:

Canon f1.8, Canon f1.4, Canon f1.2, Sigma f1.4, Zeiss f1.4, Nikon f1.4 AIS

Each has it's own character. Each (except the f1.8) is very sharp at f2.8 or smaller aperture and there are no significant differences.

Canon f1.2. Very nice and predictable bokeh. Still pretty sharp at f1.2. Nice contrast and colour. I debated with myself for three months to buy this lens. Simply amazing when used at night. I don't regret it. Hood sucks.

Sigma really more like 45mm. Lots of light fall off wide open and not as sharp wide open as the others. To my eye the best bokeh of the bunch. Good bokeh and lack of tack sharpness often go together. This lens has a very pleasing character. I prefer the Canons because they are brighter and sharper at f1.4., but compared to the f1.4 this wins easily in the bokeh department. I can see why people may prefer this to the Canon f1.4.

Canon f1.4. The only major difference between this and the f1.2 is the quality of the bokeh. The f1.2 is just nicer. Sharpness differences are minimal.

Zeiss 1.4. A very sharp lens especially at f2.8 and smaller. A "busy" type bokeh wide open. Excellent manual focus. This is probably a very good lens for doing video because of the manual focus.

Nikon f1.4 AIS. Very sharp. A distict bokeh which can be unpleasant at times. Less light fall off than the Sigma but a good, small, manual focus lens. Used with adapter.

Canon f1.8. Maybe my copy wasn't good. I didn't find it very sharp wide open. Can't recall the bokeh. It is inexpensive, however.

Just for giggles... Leica Sumilux f1.4 - beats them all for sharpness. Quality of bokeh is slightly better than the Canon 1.4 and slightly worse than the Canon f1.2.

Lenses matter more than cameras. Buy good lenses and you will be happier with your pictures and spend less time in Lightroom.