Always wanted to do this. Preliminary test of an indoor subject, looking at sharpness, contrast and bokeh. All shots on the 5D, f/1.8, 1/180s, ISO 100, AF.

First, the whole shots, so you can see how they look subjectively.

Canon 50mm f/1.8 II:

My observations...

#1. The 50/1.8 II has much more DOF than the other two lenses at the same aperture. This probably helps with its reputation as being very sharp for its size and cost. Overall it held up VERY well compared to its more expensive brethren.

#2. Because of the vaguaries of AF at low apertures I have to call the crop comparison close to a draw. What is most noticeable to me is the much greater contrast on the f/1.0L. Also notice how much better it handled the hot area near the letters "TE" in "INTERCOM"

#3. The bokeh comparison surprised me, as the cheapest lens had the roundest highlights.

#4. The L lens seems to be longer than the other two. --c

first of all thank you for doing the test.

Second of all... I think I could buy a 50mm 1.4 and be quite happy.

C,

Man, you were focused on your work. 13 missed calls. Did you forget to pick up the phone?

Interesting comparison. When I opened the thread, at first I though it was another baby monitor. . The little bargain held it's own, but I think most of us knew that already. But good comparison, nontheless.

-Ed

Now that your selling your 1.0...I'll take off yours hands! This is a great post! The missed calls is hilarious! How representative of the mind set of a photographer engrossed with his equipment!

charlesk wrote:
My observations...


#3. The bokeh comparison surprised me, as the cheapest lens had the roundest highlights.
--c

This shouldn't surprise you. The 50 f/1.8 was wide open. The diaphram wasn't shut at all...of course it will produce the roundest highlights.

The 50 f/1.0L had to be stopped down the most.


I think you should dump your 50 f/1.4 and 50 f/1.0L (cheap) and keep your 50 f/1.8!

BTW: I will offer to help you, and I will pick up that f/1.0 lens (of course the price should indicate that it is in the same league optically as the f/1.8!)

Wouldn't the 50/1.8 have the roundest bokeh since it's wide open? The other two lenses are stopped down and the number and shape of the aperture blades play a role in the shape of the bokeh. Wide open there is no effect from the blades. I suspect that if we were examining the bokeh at say f2.0-2.8 the results might be different.

Nice test though. Makes me wonder if I should have given up my 50/1.8 Mk1 for the 50/1.4.

Thanks for posting this.
Cal

This shouldn't surprise you. The 50 f/1.8 was wide open. The diaphram wasn't shut at all...of course it will produce the roundest highlights.

Of course. Makes sense. (Serves me right for trying to think at this hour. )

I have to admit, the 13 phone calls weren't during the test. My phone is stupid and thinks a call is "missed" if you pick it up on a different extension.

I think the 1.0 actually performed very well in this test, given that people say it is less sharp than the others. I also think the 1.4 is the 'sweet spot' in the range; it has advantages over the 1.8 that go beyond image quality. --c

c

charlesk wrote:


#3. The bokeh comparison surprised me, as the cheapest lens had the roundest highlights.

But, the 1.0L had the smoothest OOF discs by far. The 1.8 had some hard edges to its OOF disks. BTW, the roundness was achieved because the 50/1.8 was wide open, meaning that the aperture blades were fully retracted and not within the light path. I can see the value of the 1.0L.

I agree with 10DFT. While the highlights you cropped look good on the f/1.8 M2, you'll notice that they have quite well defined edges. This was one of my biggest turn-offs with this lens, the bokeh was very distracting!

Not only that.. but look in the full shots, in the 1.8 background you can make out the pattern in the drapes, but not in the other two. It has more apparent DOF at the same aperture. --c

All I know is that I want the 50/1.0. I hope that tomorrow morning, I don't still want it.

The 50 f/1.8 looks very slightly underexposed in comparison with the other two 50s. If you combine this with the fact that more is in focus, it makes you wonder if it is truly f/1.8.

I wish the 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro could be thrown into this mix to see how it holds up. Of course you'd have to increase all of them to f/2.5, but I'd still love to see that comparison.

Brian, it was f/1.8 -- and the point made earlier about the bokeh would seem to confirm it. Could just be a slight amount of "rounding error" in that f-stops are discrete increments while the lenses themselves obviously are not exact in how much light they let in.

Matthew, that's one lens I haven't gotten my hands on yet.

Just for fun... --c

after reading this test, think i will get out and buy a couple more of f1.8 just to satisfy myself what a splendid bargain i have )

From the picture, 50/1.0L has more CA than its two brothers. As I know, the 1.0L has bad reputation at large aperture.

Thanks Charles !
Let me double check. All 3 shots on the top thread were taken @ f/1.8. And yet, the DOF varies among them ?

I'm not a fan of tests like this. I carry out real world tests on my lenses. I think there is very little to be learned about these lenses from these photos - although I'm obviously in the minority here. Pictures of people's telephones, lens boxes or newspapers are fine if that 's what you want to take photos of. But for, example, if you the kind of photographer that would take a shot of a jazz band in a smoky, dimly lit club these photos won't show how beautifully rendered the scene will be with the 50L or even the f/1.4 compared to the f/1.8. A dreary plastic phone in poor home lighting would look pretty much the same photographed with a cheap zoom.

mickr7an wrote:
..., if you the kind of photographer that would take a shot of a jazz band in a smoky, dimly lit club these photos won't show how beautifully rendered the scene will be with the 50L or even the f/1.4 compared to the f/1.8.....

Do you have shots to support this claim ?

... shot of a jazz band in a smoky, dimly lit club ...

Well, see...

This is Vermont. We don't have any of those here.

Seriously, this was just a quickie test I did because that's what I had around. But I don't think it is all that unrepresentative. When I use my 50/1.4, I use it because the light is low, and in that situation I use it mainly for indoor stuff and usually at close range. A jazz club would be a neat place to take shots but it would be hard to do a controlled test there. --c

Yeah, I'm waiting for one of our propeller-headed friends to take a crack at that.

Pondria wrote:
Thanks Charles !
Let me double check. All 3 shots on the top thread were taken @ f/1.8. And yet, the DOF varies among them ?

charlesk wrote:

... shot of a jazz band in a smoky, dimly lit club ...

Well, see...

This is Vermont. We don't have any of those here.

--c

You can't have looked hard enough. If I can find one here in Shanghai then I'm sure you dig one up somewhere in Vermont. )

The Canon 50/1.4 is one of those lenses you love to hate. I tested the 50/1.4 against a bunch of Zeiss lenses and it did quite well. It's optics aren't bad at all, it's the build quality which makes it feel cheap. The Canon 50mm F2.5 macro is supposed to be a landscape monster on FF.

I find the 1.4 crushes the 2.5 in build quality