 |
|
|
ryan aguas
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: Philippines
Posts: 42
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $330.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp starting at f2.8, light and sturdy built, stealthy and unobstrusive
|
|
Cons:
|
f1.4 is useless, contrast is "so-so", micro-USM is not as fast nor as accurate as ring-type usm
|
|
|
This is the only non-L canon lens i own, and i'm selling it. I'm not satisfied with this lens for the following reasons:
1. the lens is advertised as f/1.4 when in fact, it is only usable (professionally) starting at f/2.8...At 1.4 the image is very soft even at the center, most apparent when used on subjects beyond 4 feet distance.
2. the af is very inaccurate and quite sluggish compared to my 17-40 f4 or 24-105 f4 zoom lenses
3. no weather sealing
4. hood is sold separately
5. IQ is not at par with canon L series prime lenses. (no wonder it doesn't have a red ring around it)
I'm planning to upgrade to the 50 1.2...as for my experience with L-series prime lenses, there are no compromises on image quality even when used at full aperture. I currently own the 35 1.4 L, 85 1.2 L-II, and the 135 2.0 L -- three of the most highly regarded canon L series prime lenses.
|
|
 Dec 7, 2006
|
|
Hans im Glueck
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 17
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, light ,bright, AF fast
|
|
Cons:
|
non if you got a good copy
|
|
|
If you are looking for a small affordable high quality lens in that range, try this one. Look for a good cpoy. Mine is perfect at 1.4 That of a friend needs to be stopped down at 2.0 to be that sharp.
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2006
|
|
Geisterfahrer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness; great colour rendition; small and lightweight; not expensive
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't think of any... Well, it could benefit from a Ring USM instead of the Micro USM, but that's really nitpicking in my opinion.
|
|
|
This is indeed a fine lens for its price. Images come out very sharp and detailed from about f/2.8 on, but even when taken at full aperture they don't look too fuzzy - especially in the centre and providing you get the focus right. Colors are rich and saturated; the lens yields neither cool nor warm casts of any sort. Pictures look also free from distortions. Weighing only 290g the lens is light, easy to carry and definitely not intimidating, making it a great choice for head-and-shoulder or full figure portraits, especially on a full-frame camera. Minimum focus distance is 45 cm, which is more than adequate for a lens giving this angle of view.
Yes, the Micro USM is not as fast as the Ring USM, and not as accurate (especially in low light), but it's still better than AFD; moreover, the lens allows full-time manual focusing if you feel the need of using it.
Of all the 50 mm Canon lenses, this is the one with the better quality-price ratio; I recommend this one over the f/1.8 because of the extra stop - more than once that 1.4 setting allowed me to take pictures where other lenses simply couldn't -, better build - the f/1.8 feels like a toy lens in comparison -, better focusing and better overall sharpness and colour rendition. Really a gem of a lens!
|
|
|
Dec 6, 2006
|
|
DLai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1130
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
f1.4, weight, size, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Non-L build, cheap whiny micro USM motor, hunts in low light
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2006
|
|
jirok12944
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, contrast, price
|
|
Cons:
|
many bad copies
|
|
|
With all its limitation it is still most usable lens in studio. I had it serviced to fix AF, and it is very sharp (maybe not as sharp as 100mm f/2.8). Yes, it hunts, AF is not too quick, you need to stop down (couple stops), and it has reputation of a lens with AF problems…. but still it would be an excellent value even to be 1.5 times more expensive.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006
|
|
Christopher-J
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 320
|
|
Review Date: Nov 18, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Leightweight, Fast AF, 90% sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
It is boring to use. The 50mm f1.8 MKII just as good IMO.
|
|
|
Chalk me up as a guy that only likes telephoto primes but I find that this lens is somewhat boring. It takes great pictures and are 90% sharp all the time but the focal length on a APS-C camera is just too long where you only can get head shots in a medium sized room. With that said I can't see myself keeping this lens for too much longer as my Nifty 50 (f1.8 MKII) does the same job and quality.
Do I recommend? No! Save yourself money and buy the 50mm f1.8 MKII.
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2006
|
|
Thomas Ware
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
AF-speed, sharpness, bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
Either this or its brother, the 85/1.8, will probaply offer most bang for the buck in current line up. The results are sharp, AF is quick and bokeh is very nice. Definetyly worth the price.
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2006
|
|
galaksi26
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 12, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $320.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap compare to 50 L and light
|
|
Cons:
|
Too soft
|
|
|
I have problem with this lens (50mm f1.4). I sent it to canon 7 times and couple times with my body. I still have the same problem with this lens. I also compare this lens with L series (24-105, 17-40, 70-200 f2.8 IS)and non L series (28-135). My 28-135 IS will give me sharper image than 50 mm with the same set up.
If I use f11, 1/1000 and flash, I will get pretty sharp picture. I will get soft/back focus for f2.8 and bigger opening with speed 1/80 or slower. I do not recommend to buy this lens if you want to use for low light with no flash. I wish I get a good copy of my lens.
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2006
|
|
Dave Indech
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at f/1.4, extraordinary at f/5.6, excellent bokeh, relatively quick AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Strong halation f/1.4-1.6, tentative build quality, AF is inconsistent in low light, some barrel distortion
|
|
|
This is my favorite Canon lens.
I use it primarily for portraits on a crop body, alongside a 100/2 and a 200/2.8.
It's not a head and shoulders lens. If you try that, the close perspective combined with barrel distortion will give everyone a bulbous head. Waist-up shots, though, are extraordinary.
Opitcs:
When I first bought it used, it was soft at f/1.4, decent at f/2.8, and sharp at f/5.6. It was also front focusing on my 300D. At one point, I dropped my camera about two inches to hardwood floors. The lens never hit the ground, but the rear element popped out.
I sent it to Canon with the body.
When I got it back, it was sharp at f/1.4, and extremely sharp from f/2.8 and up. But it was still front focusing. I sent it back again, for the third time, and they finally got it right. Now it's both sharp and accurate. And with DOF at close distance of less than inch, that's critical. It was my least favorite lens until it stopped front-focusing.
People say this lens is soft wide open, but that hasn't been my experience. It's very sharp indeed (in the center). What it doesn't have is contrast; f/1.4 and f/1.6 have a dreamy look caused by halation. It improves dramatically stopped down; by f/1.8, contrast is fine. Frankly, for portraits, the dreamy look is precisely what I want.
No problems with flare.
Build:
Heft is fine, but it feels like a metal wrapper around a pile of very delicate parts. My 100/2 is much better built, and the 200/2.8 is a tank.
Compared to the other two primes:
AF is similar across the range. The 100 and 200 are very fast. The 50 trails, but it's still not slow. Accuracy is stellar with the 200, followed by the 100, with the 50 in last by quite a lot.
Standing in my kitchen at night under moderate fluorescents, I can nail eyelashes from across the room with the 200 with no hunting. The 50 won't hunt either, but more often than not, it'll get it wrong. Calibration helps. An ST-E2 would help a lot more.
Optically, the advantage of the L is that I don't have to think to use it. Every aperture is about the same; f/2.8 looks like f/8.
The 50 isn't as consistent until it gets to f/2, but it is better than the 100 at every aperture. It's sharper at f/1.4 than the 100 is at f/2, though the latter improves dramatically at f/2.8.
As to contrast, they're all similar. Slight nod to the L, followed by the 50 and 100.
In sum, the 50/1.4 is an optically superlative, though slightly delicate and with AF not quite befitting a lens of this speed. Still, totally worthwhile.
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2006
|
|
Peter Wirtoft
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extreme quality for a good price. A unique lens with a lot of possibilities for experimental photography. AF is fast enough.
|
|
Cons:
|
Some CA at 1.4 -> 1.8 (almost none).
|
|
I don't care about the new 50 L f1.2 lens from Canon. I don't know what it can do that this lens don't.
But I haven't tried it yet.
This is possibly the best non L lens in the Canon collection.
I love using it at f2.0 ->f2.5. The images are sharp and with nice colors that you just get more and more in love with it.
I normally sell lenses that I'm not satisfied with. This one stays.
Otherwise I have "Sigma 150 EX", "TS-E 90", "300 L f4" and "70-300 IS" as my favourite lenses.
I like lenses not to heavy with sharp quality and that is what the "50 f1.4 usm" gives me.
See some normal full scale taken photos at.
http://www.wirtoft.com/foto/CanonEF50mmF14USM/index.html
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006
|
|
Simon Elwell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 10, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Oct 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
very sharp at f5.6 and up
quick, quiet
can work in low light
|
|
Cons:
|
depth of field scale missing (except f22)
soft below f2.8
|
|
|
I read the reviews here, bought the lens, and found that pretty much everyone is right.
It's soft below f2.8 but great above that and from f5.6 it's razor sharp.
Good colours; no vignetting I can discern and haven't found any colour cast yet although at f22 I experienced some flare which was resolved by a lens hood.
As I don't have the 1.8 I can't compare the two but this feels like money well spent
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2006
|
|
curiousgeorge
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 16, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp above f1.8, compact size, good colour & contrast, nice bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
Unusable at f1.4 due to CA and softness, AF not great
|
|
|
Shooting outdoors has revealled terrible IQ at f1.4. Bad CA (purple fringing) and an image that looks completely out of focus.
For many people this seems to be an inherent trait. But then it's not really meant to be used wide open outdoors.
When used indoors you still get the softness wide open, though not as bad as when outdoors. It might be me not being used to such shallow DOF and I might just need some practice, but I wouldn't use anything wider than f1.8 unless the light demanded it.
At f2.0 and above, sharpness, colours and contrast are very good. It makes an ideal portrait lens for me on my 350D and it fills the gap nicely between my 17-40 and 70-200.
Focus is a bit noisy and seems clumsy, but this is no L lens. Build quality seems fine and it's the perfect size for the 350D.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2006
|
|
Ian Sayers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 15, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 15, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
F1.4, Sharp, Light
|
|
Cons:
|
Bit plasticky
|
|
|
This has been my first prime lens and I have been shown what I have been missing up to now. I dont like the effects of flash photography (even with stofen softeners and bouncing off the cealing), and had been trying to use available light with f2.8 zooms for indor photography. Generally speaking the results had not been impresive.
The 50mm 1.4 allows me to take indoor shots, without flash, at shuter speeds fast enough to catch my rapidly moving family, and still be sharp. Stopped down the sharpness is frankly breathtaking. Also the small size allows me to take the lens and camera (20D) to resturants etc with out the attention you would get with a wide apperture zoom (eg sigma 2.8 24-70).
The down side, of course, is that it is a prime and I do find my self using the "Foot Zoom" quite a lot to frame subjects correctly. But that is just something I will have to get used to, and it is worth it for the results.
Build quality is what you expect from canon consumer lenses (ie a damm sight less impressive than sigma or tamron), and there is the usuall rip off over a lens hood.
None-the-less this is an excellent lens and comes highly recomended.
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2006
|
|
mbohunsky
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3668
|
|
Review Date: Oct 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $370.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, fast aperture, relatively cheap, super sharp from f/2, usable wide open, good bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality could be better, ring USM would be nice too.
|
|
|
I love using this lens because it's relatively inconspicuous mounted on a 20D sans grip. It's the ultimate candid lens for a mike night at a café. ISO 1600 and the fast aperture allows you to grab shots without a flash that would be out of the question with any zoom.
The image quality on my copy is very good wide open. Stopped down to f/2, I could not ask this lens to be any sharper. The bokeh this lens produces at close distances is beautiful to behold especially if this is your first fast prime.
The build quality isn't the greatest but it's not something I dwell on. The only wish i have for this lens is the inclusion of a ring-USM. This is a great lens in my opinion especially if you can get a good copy used.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2006
|
|
Nick De Marco
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Oct 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Very fast, good image quality. Shar as an L lens. Great value for money
|
|
Cons:
|
AF problems
|
|
I do like this lens. I bought it instead of the much cheaper 1.8 because of the superior build quality. I used it a few times on my 350D and found it to be probably my sharpest lens. However, I found it a bit too telephoto for a cropped sensor.
On my 5D it is ideal and sometimes makes a good walkabout lens. I only use L lenses on my 5D or this one, and this one is easily as sharp.
However, on problem: I tried it out on a second hand Canon eos 50e 35mm camera and it is good on that but the AF did not work. Then recently the AF stopped working on my 5D with this lens as well. Anyone else have this problem or know the soloution?
Here is a gallery of some photos I took with the 50mm 1.4
http://www.pbase.com/nickdemarco/50
|
|
|
Oct 9, 2006
|
|
cactusclay
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 839
|
|
Review Date: Oct 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $309.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Well, it's light, sharp and 1.4.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
Well, this is my second time around with the 1.4. The first one I got was picked out of three the store had and seemed to be the sharpest wide open. That was with a crop body. I sold it last year. Since I got a full frame body, I've been wanting to try another 50, so I ordered this online the other day and found it to be even sharper than the last one. It could be that FF makes a difference, but never the less I'm impressed. Here's a 1.4 shot. I did do a hint of sharpening, but out of habit, not necessity. It was sharp out of the camera. http://www.pbase.com/claystewart/image/67777975
|
|
|
Oct 2, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
380
|
1138956
|
May 8, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
92% of reviewers
|
$319.59
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.94
|
8.72
|
8.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
