I happen to have a friend's 50/1.8 for a few hours. He wanted me to see if it's any good. And I thought, I wonder……
This is, by no means, a thorough or meticulous test. Just a few quick shots to see how it behaves in real life shooting (i.e. no tripod). I decided to concentrate on sharpness (which, I think, is the most important parameter for most of us) and bokeh, which is constantly criticized in this lens.
Shot in RAW and converted to JPEG without any PP. Just one shot had sharpening applied. Sharpness crops are 100%. Bokeh crops are approximately the leftmost third of the pic and then resized.
ISO 200. Speeds ranged between 1/750 to 1/3000.
First two pictures: 50/1.8. The first untouched. The second after sharpening.
Forgot to add. I used AF (real life shooting...) and chose the rightmost AF spot. I did it both to make things a little more difficult (checking sharpness not in the middle, where most lenses are sharpest) and to leave more place for the bokeh.
These results mirror my own tests.
I just sold my 50mm f/1.8 last week. Since I bought a 17-55mm about a year ago, the 50mm f/1.8 was collecting dust - and because I always avoided using the 50mm below f/2.5~2.8 to achieve acceptable sharpness, selling it was really a no brainer (don't know why took me so long).
When (if) I decide to go full frame, then I'll probably buy a 85mm f/1.8 as I like the ~80mm angle of view of a 50mm on a crop body. But I'm sure I'll really miss my 17-55mm - it's just an amazing lens.
Maybe I didn't expressed myself correctly. My apologies about my bad English.
My 50mm f/1.8 was used only from about f/2.5~2.8 because the lens was soft at f/2.2~2/0 and really bad at f/1.8 (IMHO of course). At the same aperture I used most of the time on the 50mm (f/2.8) I'm able to get images with almost the same sharpness with my 17-55mm (at about 50mm) with the benefits of the IS and not needing to change lenses as frequently. After buying the 17-55mm, I never did find a use for the 50mm f/1.8. Thus, selling it was a no brainer really. What's the point of keeping a lens you never use?
Thing is I really like the 50mm FOV on a crop body, but both the cheaper 50mm Canon's lenses aren't too hot for me and I don't have the money for a 50mm f/1.2. It's sad that the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is being reported as problematic (AF wise) on Canon bodies because this could be the 50mm I would have in my bag now.
Oh, and by the way, I don't have any problem with big/heavy lenses. Small size isn't in my priorities list when I'm shopping for a lens.
Is the point that it's impressive that a non-L zoom can equal a 50mm prime in sharpness, or it's impressive that a cheap lens can equal an expensive one in sharpness?
Yup, that was what my results showed too... and the 35/2 is even better for sharpness... so I have the 2 cheap primes and the 24-70L is up on ebay... as I write this.
RobertLynn wrote:
I did a test between my 50 1.8 and my 24-70L at 50mm f/2.8
The prime did better than the zoom at 50mm and 2.8.
and for the record, I did think the 24-70L was overall, nicer than the 50/1.8 (even if not sharper)... but not enough to want carry the big aweful brute all day...
The zoom has achieved some really fine test results - take a look at slrgear.com for one example.
There are differences between the performance of the two lenses, but the differences (with the possible exception of the bokeh test) are going to be quite insignificant in prints, even at quite large sizes.
There are no real advantages in terms of versatility and functionality for the prime - though it is cheaper and it can produce a bit narrower DOF. With that in mind, I can certainly understand why the majority of photographers would fine it to be a more useful and productive lens than the prime in most cases.
(Note: I use zooms and primes and there are times when I would choose to use a prime.)
There are so many untested and unquestioned myths when it comes to photographic equipment. ("L" lenses are always "better" than non-L lenses. Everyone should own the 50mm f/1.8. Zooms cannot produce sharp images. A lens with a larger aperture is always better than one with a smaller aperture. And on, and on...) It is always good to actually check this stuff for yourself or at least pay careful attention to objective tests by reliable people - but keep in mind that they sometimes can test things that are irrelevant.
yea i did some test before and it showed that my 50 1.4 is slightly better than 70-200 2.8IS and much better than 16-35L version I (i compared the sharpness at 50m, 70mm & 35mm, at comparable aperture). However below aperture 2.2-2.0, the 50mm turned like a bit wash off (less contrasty & colour), but i guess its normal because its not L
kapytalyst wrote:
I'll take a shot at this: what Yakim's test shows is that for about $80 you can get image quality that rivals a lens costing over 10x that amount.
Exactly what I was trying to show.
dcains wrote:
So sharpness is the only thing to look for in a good lens Don't think so. . .
I don't think so as well. Please re-read the OP.
danmitchell wrote:
The zoom has achieved some really fine test results - take a look at slrgear.com for one example.
This zoom is indeed excellent. I traded an L for it (24-105) and I am selling another L (35/1.4) because it made it (for my type of use) redundant.
I guess I was impressed more with the 17-55 than the 50 1.8. This just confirms that for *my* use, my zooms can cover the apertures 2.8 and up. The magic of primes happens at apertures wider than 2.8, IMHO.
Don't think so. . .