outlawyer wrote:
The assertion that a $1500 lens is "much better" than a $300 lens strains credulity
Back in the day--mid-90s--I bought the EF 50 1.4 USM for $425 from B&H. I bought the 50 1.2L from the same place for $1100 in early 2008. In terms of actually cost, they are a lot closer than they appear now. I don't know how much inflation we've had since the mid-90s but my incomes has tripled (same job) but I'm just as poor (!), my condo has tripled in value for tax assessment but nobody will buy it, my power bill is $225 a month compared to $50 during the 90s, I pay $4.25 a gallon for gas vs .75, et al. I'm guessing the $425 50 1.4 ain't so far from the current cost of the L optic.
What really stings is the EF 28-135 IS USM cost about $650 when it debuted in the 90s and I bought one...
50mm is my default FL loved the Sigma was never able to make it AF correctly at near distances. Never found the L $1000 better than the 1.4, the latter of which I now have a nice performer, but in the EF lineup the 2.5 CM is stellar within its Av limitations.
I think the Canon 50 f/1.4 will be a very good lens as soon as I learn to shoot it well...just haven't shot it enough to be competent with it yet...I'll work on that...
Will take it to Road Atlanta with me next month for a HSR classics event and give it a workout in the paddock for about 3 days...
My Canon 50 f1.4 is my most used lens, since it covers normal angle of view. If I recall, The Digital Picture showed it catching and surpassing the 50 1.2L at f2.8 or more closed. I am thinking my 50 1.4 is the finest single example Canon 50 f1.4 ever produced (by my bench marking it against my 5 Canon L prime lenses).
Here is a hand held snap with 5DII, Canon 50mm f1.4 at f2.2, ISO 1600. It was very dark inside and not good conditions for sharpness. It is a huge computer controlled LED light show in a brand new Buddhist temple in Wuxi, China. The dome you are looking at is about 200 feet in diameter.
Full image area, then 100% crop (at supposedly inferior f2.2)
the 50mm f/1.4 is pretty ideal for many people when it comes to shooting street (or walk-around) subjects within the limitations of shooting only a prime. I do this frequently when I do street and urban photography, though I usually also carry more than one prime and perhaps even a zoom.
If you are asking if limiting yourself to a single 50mm prime on a full frame camera is the best choice, you'll have to figure that one out for yourself. Even though I do this, I generally recommend that people who don't have some pretty specific reasons for doing so think instead about a much more flexible zoom lens.
If you are asking how important it is to spend the money on the 50mm f/1.2 L prime, for most people that is entirely unnecessary. There is no denying that the lens has some special virtues for certain types of rather specialized photography. However, for what you describe I don't see the value of the lens. It is much larger and heavier. You get only about a half stop more. (Perhaps a bit more if you are bothered by the halation of the f/1.4 at its largest aperture - though I find it quite usable there.) At f/1.2 you are contending with some very narrow DOF and some consequent focus challenges, which are made more critical by your tripod-less "walk around" use. The non-L 50mm lens is an excellent optical performer except as noted above.
I have the Canon lens book somewhere...I haven't read it for years but I recall it stating that the f1.4 50mm lens was the Canon 'reference lens' for colour rendition. My understanding of any reference item is that it is a comparator for designers to use as the desired standard.
My first 1.4 was the FD version, bought for my T90 (still have both) and was quite happy to buy and regularly use the EF version.
The only thing I would say is the lens can disappoint wide open...but I suspect it might be down to the camera and shutter lag. The DoF is so shallow that the slightest change in lens to subject distance can lose critical focus, so in the short time between the focus being acquired and the shutter activating the distance could change slightly.
Personally, I like using it at f4 so not a problem...pin sharp and beautiful colour.
Jefferson wrote:
I'm starting to like this lens...
...And I'm starting to get a feel for Pendergrass!
I think you'll like the 50/1.4. Sometimes I think 50 mm at f/1.2 is magic for certain subjects at a distance between 1 and 3 meters (call it 3 to 10 feet). Any closer and I never want it wide open, further and there's not going to be total subject isolation at any aperture, so it looks better at f/2 and beyond. I'm on the wrong computer to pull up examples, but you'll learn more from your own experiments anyway.
I regrettably sold my 1.4 when I got my 1.2L. I miss the flair and halation for those shots into the sun. I also feel the 1.4 focused more reliably. My 1.2L focuses better now with the 5D3, but still misses focus by a long shot on occasion and its frustrating.
Jefferson -- I really missed my EF 50/1.4 after I sold it to help finance the Zeiss ZE 50/1.4. That was my only true disappointment in a Zeiss lens, possibly sample variation. The Canon was much better, and matched the EF 50/2.5 macro in sharpness at non macro distances. Although the f/1.2 would be a great lens to own, in practical terms for general photography, you really aren't losing much (if anything) from about f/2.5 onward -- all three Canon lenses (not the f/1.8, that is a comparative mutt) are pretty great above that point.
I feel the EF 50/1.4 is really a pretty decent lens, with it's main deficiencies being low contrast at f/1.4 and a tendency to exhibit flare. The flair can be mildly annoying or artistically interesting, depending
on the image. Color performance is likely not as "popping" with saturation as the 50/1.2L, but it's
still pretty good.
The first image shows a bit of annoying flare near the guitarist's left hand.
The last image has some degree of veiling flare, but it works fine for me on this image.
I think the f/2.8 image shows good performance all around, and I would not expect
the 50/1.2L to do much better.
I would enjoy shooting with the L prime, but it's not a lens I feel the need to
sacrifice to purchase.
Agreed. It's a bit embarassing that Canon doesn't have a mechanically rock solid 50 under
one thousand dollars. The 85/1.8 and 100/2 are solid. The 50/1.4 could be improved
without going "full-L".
