If you have a bit of spare time it would be interesting to see:

1. Wide open shots (yes, at different apertures).
2. Corner crops where all are in f/1.8.
3. Corner crops where all are wide open.

Nice comparison and nice to see the F1 in action.

One of my main issues is AF speed, what has been anyone's experience with AF using these lens'. Personally I find my 1.4 much quieter but am unsure if it is faster? Using it wide open it sure has less DOF which makes AF harder, but does it focus faster

Cheers

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 ?


I have not gotten the answer yet ?

Pondria wrote:
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 ?


I have not gotten the answer yet ?


Well one minor difference Charles noted was the the 1.0 is slightly longer than the others, so that could account for slightly less DOF on that lens.

Between the 1.4 and 1.8 is less obvious...

I have to wonder if the depth-of-field is much different, or is it the way that the lens renders bokeh. I'd love to see what an optical engineering type has to say on this subject.

In the meantime, I'll stand by and lust after that 50/1.0L.

Other than minor focal length (and actual vs. indicated aperture) variations there shouldn't be any differences in DOF.

Personally I think the f/1.8 comes off the big winner in this test and the f/1.0L the big loser. What's all that red around the L's highlights? Is that CA? Anyway, the bokeh of the f/1.4 looks very close to the L's, and the f/1.8 seems to win on sharpness and contrast.

My conclusion based on *this* test: If you want bokeh and build quality, get the f/1.4, if you want sharpness and an incredible bargain, get the f/1.8, if you really need apertures below f/1.4 or just have a terminal case of L-ephantiasis, get the f/1.0.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

John - re landscape shots with the 2.5 macro, I did limited testing with cheap adapters against 2 x Olys Zuiko and the Distagon 1.7, the Canon 50 macro was very very good wide open, now I have got better adapters for the Zuiko lenses I want to retry these, but the link below is the far right edge analsysis at very high pixel peeping on a 1DsII (ie the orange rectangle in full image shot)

test

I am not sure why the Macro lens results came out so blue when RAW conversion was identical. Come spring I intend to re run all my lens comparisons. The Distagon started to show it's strength from F8 with more zing and contrast, and yes the tests were done 1 week apart and light conditions constantly changed, (hence washing on the line in the Zuiko shot only!). The macro lens detail is amazing right throughout the aperture range, but the images appear flatter in contrast even accounting for the blue cast.

Mike

Agreed Nill-

But when you have both the 1.8 and 1.4 on the counter in the camera store, you realize why thhey are priced differently, and I think that the 1.4 is one of the greatest deals in Canon's lineup/ with a metal body and a red ring they could call it 50/1.4L and I would believe it!

I had the 1.8 and until my 17-40L it was my favorite lense my a country mile...until I dropped it and it shattered into a million fragments.

My NEXT 50mm will be the 1.4.

I find this test very valuable, thank you.

the optical formula for these lenses is apparently so simple that any difference in image quality would seem minimal .. in fact the 1.8 is the most pleasing to my eye.
cheers,
Mike

mickr7an wrote:
... jazz band in a smoky, dimly lit club ...

Hehe. You must have just seen Melanie Kipp's recent 85/1.2 photoshoot at ISO 3200 & 1/100s wide open on a 5D: http://www.pbase.com/melaniekipp/vince

I agree Ryan, the OP should take that 50/1.0 puppy someplace where it will shine. I wanna hear (or imagine) the giant sucking sound it was designed make, on even the slightest amount of light on the edges of a black hole.

charlesk wrote:
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.


Uhhhhhhhhhhh..................

Does. Not. Compute.

Does. Not. Compute.

Shrug. Look at the pictures. --c

Charles

Just how many lenses to you have

Laugh.. never bothered to count. Not nearly as many as some people here, but the number changes constantly so it seems like more.

I sent this 50/1.0L to my friend Gary (an FMer who is a total 50/1.0L freak!) This lens is similar to one he used to have. Here's a shot he took with it (f/1, 1/100s, 1Ds2)...

Speaking of the 50's, I shot some basketball tonight after a long layoff. I used the 50 f/1.4, and for the first time I was really struck by how slow it is to focus not only compared to the 85 f/1.8, but also compared to the 35 f/2. The 85 is ring USM and the 50 is not, right? What about the 35? The 85 and 35 (and of course the 135 and the 200 f/1.8) popped right into focus, but the 50 in comparison seemed to be lubed with molasses.

We really do need a new fast-AF'ing 50, preferably an f/1.2L.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

i don't think the 35/F2 is USM at all.

Huh... you're right, it's not. And subjectively at least, it seems to snap into focus much more quickly and positively than the 50 f/1.4, which *is* USM, but not, I believe, ring USM.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Edited by Nill Toulme on Dec 09, 2005 at 11:10 PM GMT

Surprised no one yet mentioned yet: The 1.4 crop is way more blurry than the 1.8 crop (and the 1.0). Or it may be mre CA in the 1.4. Either way, I am surprised because the 1.8 is wide open, and the1.4 is closed down a stop but still burrier!

charlesk wrote:
My observations...


#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"


Huh? Looks like the 1.8 has better contrast and handled the hot area better to me? What am I missing?

THANKS for the test, I was considering the 1.4, but this makes me consider the 1.8 instead, though I want the USM.

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


Which are? The USM?

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 ?


That may be so, but there is an obvious DOF difference to me comparing the images. Charles is right. Just look at the detailing on the white sheer curtain in the background on thr 1.8, mush more in focus to me. And the red can, If the 1.8 red can does not look more in the DOF to you than the others you need to get new glasses. Anyone explain it?

Pondria wrote:
I have not gotten the answer yet ?

Because it's not physically possible for three TRUE 50mm lenses that are TRULY at f/1.8 and TRULY focused at the same point to have different DOFs.

Here's a 50/1.0 shot at f/1.0 . . . at near the minimum focusing distance, too.

Can you say no DOF? Sure ya can.

DavidP wrote:
Pondria wrote:
I have not gotten the answer yet ?

Because it's not physically possible for three TRUE 50mm lenses that are TRULY at f/1.8 and TRULY focused at the same point to have different DOFs.


Yes, that's what I thought. But here I saw and heard something different.