Not too sure, Charlie. I've heard others say similar things. I don't have the 50 1.4 and have never been too keen to upgrade from the 50 1.8, partly because of all this talk about the lens being soft wide open.
How much do you have to stop it down to before it becomes acceptably sharp to you?
Sorry to answer you question with another question, but I'm curious about the differences wide open between the 50 1.8 and 1.4. I've had my 50 1.8 calibrated to my 300D and while it's no f/8, f/1.8 is decent and keeps me fairly happy in low light situations.
Charlie, it's less that the lens is soft wide open than that at f/1.4 the DOF is very thin so you need to focus very carefully exactly where you want focus, the near areas will then be soft and the backqround will have a nice bokeh. This is what makes the lens so desireable as are other fast primes .As you stop down the DOF increases proportionately and the sharp area becomes wider and wider. This is a very sharp lens. It is also very good for available light and low light. I like mine a lot.
Wide open, people get frustrated with the narrow DOF, but like anything else practice makes perfect.
Due the very narrow depth of field even the slightest movement of either the subject or shooter degrades the sharpness. Testing with a tripod shooting a staionary subject mine was actually pretty sharp. In view of the majority of comments of it's wide open softness, I may have had an exceptionally good copy.
I have to admit i find it amazingly sharp wide open, sure there's a narrow DOF but that's the whole point. Here's a quick test shot I did with mine with hardly any post processing. If yours is not as sharp as this then it's your lens. If yours is as sharp as this and you're not happy then it's you
Mine's not "so soft" wide open. Of course, it is even sharper stopped down, but it still looks quite good wide open. I only bought the lens in the first place because a "candid photographer" friend of mine urged me to; I've been surprised to find it one of my most used and favored lenses.
Mike Spinak wrote:
Mine's not "so soft" wide open. Of course, it is even sharper stopped down, but it still looks quite good wide open. I only bought the lens in the first place because a "candid photographer" friend of mine urged me to; I've been surprised to find it one of my most used and favored lenses.
--Mike
I agree. I love the results from it and it is now my walkabout lens.
Of course there is another point. If your camera has a 1.6 crop, the 50 in a sense is an 80, which is a little long sometimes. If you shoot wide open at f/1.4 with the inherent narrow DOF, you add to that the slightly long handle of 80mm and then to that a shutter speed less than 1/80s, you've got ideal conditions for shake and/or subject movement giving you motion blur that even so slight can look like soft or OOF. Eh?
If you raise your ISO to keep your shutter speed up you are back in the game. Do the simple monitor/TV focus test, and if the lens (camera?) pass, the finger is pointing at you.
These are factors that make fast primes hell for some people and heaven for those who master them. The 50 f/1.4 is the absolute classic lens and the revolving point for all others. Learn to use it well and all others will be much easier. ...except maybe the 85L... or the...
It becomes sharper at 4 or 5.6. But I do not feel that it is soft wide open to the extent that it's an issue to use the lens wide open. It's pretty sweet lens.
I agree with the other posters. This is really a great lens. The DOF needs to be watched though as I fell into this very trap when I first used the lens at f1.4. Once you realize what is going on it becomes easy to handle.
Greg.
Dec 21, 2004 at 11:49 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
My 50 1.4 tested 88 lp/mm center and 64 lp/mm edge, wide open, so I wouldn’t call it soft in the center. Yeh, edge maybe. It goes of the chart at f4 (112+lp/mm center and edge). It is the sharpest lens of the 37 lenses that I’ve owned, and is my favorite lens.
Based on my experience I wouldn't expect that the softness of 50mm 1.4 at 1.4 would matter if scaled down to Internet-sized pics. Still, I try to keep the aperture at f2 at least if possible. F2.8 already is excellent, judged from slides.
One problem with shooting at f1.4 is that at least 33V's viewfinder doesn't show the depth field differently from f2.8. I understand this is pretty common.
I'll attempt to put here a pic made with 50 1.4 at about f2.8, Velvia slide, and badly scanned at a local photo shop. Let's see if this works:
I only have experience with the 50 1.8. I sometimes find my lens soft wide open. I occasionally produce nice sharp pic when wide open: 50 1.8 gallery
I am suspecting that the softness may be caused by:
1. camera shake;
2. Most probably: shallow depth of field. I sometimes focus then recompose a pic. The distance between my camera and the subject might be slightly changed. I suspect that the shallow depth of field does not allow for this slight change
Edited by Zane Yau on Dec 22, 2004 at 11:37 AM GMT
someone on the forum said, when you get a new lens use only it for three weeks. i think this sound advice. (the 50 1.4 is probably the last lens i would ever sell). for the past month i've used a recently acquired 85 1.2 for almost everything, and it pays off. all these comments great advice.
wayne
