The sharpest and most distortion free at all distances AF blessed 50 I've used is the EF 50 2.5 CM. The MF ring is a bit loose but is a lot smoother and fine geared than EF 50 1.4 MF. Plus it sorta has a built in hood, a real distance window, metal mount and a DOF scale.
+1 on the Sigma 1.4 if you need AF. I was hesistant from reading reviews on earlier copies having problems with focus issues, but mine worked really well... pleasantly surprised coming from canon L & Zeiss.
Most would agree though that Canon is way overdue for a 50mm revamp. In the meantime, as another member mentioned, there's many options if manual focus works for you:
Contax, Zeiss, Rokkor, Nikon, Oly, Leica R...
Current Zeiss ZE won't need adapters but the rest will, but not so bad at all.
if you need af, choices are obvious. i have the L, its beautiful. its also slower than the 1.4. my old 1.4 never felt that cheap. it was way better built than the 1.8. maybe yours was a bad build?
I don't want to sound rude, but why are you people complaining so much about the 50 1.4?
I've had this lens for 2 years (on the 5Dc and now on 5D II) and it's good lens...
You live in the US where the 50 1.4 is 340 $ at BH. Where I live, it's 522 $ (almost my monthly salary)..
I mean what do you expect from a 300 $ f1.4 AF lens? to perform like a 1200$ one?
for what it costs i think the EF 50 1.4 delivers really nice photos... even wide open.
For stationary shots , no moving objects...it's ok to go for a Zeiss or something else (manual focus) (assuming you have live view to aid).
But if you shoot a bit of action, what consistency would you have with a manual focus 50mm lens?
I've seen all the discussion on the sigma 50 1.4 and that it feels well build and bla bla bla..
Do you buy a lens for the build quality or for the IQ & AF performance?
Surely the front element moves,and it's noisy..and the focus ring is not that proper for manual focus (then again,why would you mf on the 50 1.4), but all of these really matter that much? or the actual final IQ ?
Perhaps i'm an ignorant and a fool and know nothing about photography,but why would I pay 800 $ on a Zeiss 50 1.4 ZE with manual focus instead of the 50 1.4 EF ?
Putting MF vs AF aside, is the zeiss TWICE as good?
All of this applies to photo. If you're shooting video,then there's a slightly different story and AF is not relevant..
I tend to believe the op was referring to photo,not video...
IQ was nice, that is right. But from time to time I NEED to be able to focus manualy. That is (for me) impossible with the 1.8 (that is in IQ a briliant lense for nearly no money). And really not much better with the 1.4.
I switched to sigma that was bought and calibrated fine within one day (service center was about 45 km away from my place). Out of the box it had a FF of 25 mm (I tested 5 - all the same). I bought it with the option to bring it back if Sigma could not fix it.
I use it since 2 years now and it is fine. But it went back to repair/calibration another two times. If I am able to, next time I would prefere to spend the 1200 € (instead of 500) and expect the thing will be no issue in know way for the future even this amount of money is my monthly salary from time to time, too. It is an investigation for years. The Sigma will not be.
I used (and still using!) the Canon 50/1.4 on my 5D II, but recently also upgraded to the 50/1.2 L. So far I can tell that the AF performance of the 50/1.2 is a lot better compared to the 50/1.4. In the past I used the 50/1.4 in 50% of my shots with it in MF mode since AF was not reliable enough.
IQ-wise, both lenses are similar, but the 50/1.2 behaves a lot better in dim light. It gets a lot more light in compared to the 50/1.4. The difference between both lenses is not the 1/3 faster aperture stop of the 50/1.2 L - it is its built style, the better AF, and most important the better light performance. Therefore you need to pay a much higer price for it unfortunately but I think it is worth it.
I am still keeping the 50/1.4 since it is a convenient light weight lens giving an excellent IQ, too. It is less noticeable, too.
adrianb wrote:
I don't want to sound rude, but why are you people complaining so much about the 50 1.4?
I've had this lens for 2 years (on the 5Dc and now on 5D II) and it's good lens...
You live in the US where the 50 1.4 is 340 $ at BH. Where I live, it's 522 $ (almost my monthly salary)..
I mean what do you expect from a 300 $ f1.4 AF lens? to perform like a 1200$ one?
for what it costs i think the EF 50 1.4 delivers really nice photos... even wide open.
For stationary shots , no moving objects...it's ok to go for a Zeiss or something else (manual focus) (assuming you have live view to aid).
But if you shoot a bit of action, what consistency would you have with a manual focus 50mm lens?
I've seen all the discussion on the sigma 50 1.4 and that it feels well build and bla bla bla..
Do you buy a lens for the build quality or for the IQ & AF performance?
Surely the front element moves,and it's noisy..and the focus ring is not that proper for manual focus (then again,why would you mf on the 50 1.4), but all of these really matter that much? or the actual final IQ ?
Perhaps i'm an ignorant and a fool and know nothing about photography,but why would I pay 800 $ on a Zeiss 50 1.4 ZE with manual focus instead of the 50 1.4 EF ?
Putting MF vs AF aside, is the zeiss TWICE as good?
All of this applies to photo. If you're shooting video,then there's a slightly different story and AF is not relevant..
I tend to believe the op was referring to photo,not video... ...Show more →
If you've had an 85/1.8, you know the difference immediately - and the 85/1.8 is only slightly more expensive. The 85's focusing is much faster and more robust by far. It is crazy that they have 3 reasonably priced 50mm lenses all of which use 20 year old focus motors, yet they have a 28/1.8 and 85/1.8 with ring USM.
atroester -- I went through similar route as you: had the 50/1.8II (awful IQ), sold it to buy the 50/1.4. I liked the 50/1.4 quite a lot, but foolishly sold it to help buy a Zeiss ZE 50/1.4 P, which was terrible due to focus shift.
Around the same time, I bought the EF 50/2.5 macro and love it -- even better IQ than the EF 50/1.4. I added a Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 (plus a Fotodiox plain adapter), which as turned out to be one of my best lenses ever. Along those lines, I've added the amazing Leica R 60/2.8 Macro (with adapter). I shoot very few moving subjects, but someday would like to own a fast AF 50mm like the f/1.2.
So, my vote is the EF 50/2.5 Macro and the Zeiss Contax 50/1.4.
I've tried ZE 50mm f/1.4 and can't say i was particularly impressed with it. ZE 50MP, on the other hand, is a superb lens and worth considering if you don't mind MF. If not then you might want to consider Sigma 50mm f/1.4. In the worst case you can always send it in to Sigma for calibration. But it definitely beats nifty fifty and Canon 50mm f/1.4 in IQ. Don't forget that Canon 50mm f/1.4 AF system is very fragile and I've had mine go bad twice on 2 different lenses.
@timbop: I know the 85 1.8 is solid lens (I only had the chance to shoot with it a few years ago with my old 30D). Probably the debate on 50 1.2 vs 1.4 is like the same with 85 1.2 vs 85 1.8
@faremax: how much of a difference in IQ is between Sigma 50 1.4 and the EF 50 1.4 ?
Considering the fact that one shots moving targets,not stationary and AF is pretty critical.
And all I've been reading that sigma doesn't quite excel at this department (AF)..
Personally, I'd rather have more keepers (photos in focus) and know that I can rely on the AF, than just have a slightly (not noticeable) better IQ but oof pictures..
I'd really consider the 50L but it's wayy too expensive (for me)
I can't judge somebody for picking a manual focus lens (such as Zeiss, Rokkor, Leica, etc) if he tends to shoot static....
But I'm really curious how often you can nail the shot at 1.4 with a 50mm if the subject is moving and it's not that close to you..
Sigma 50mm is one hell of a lens as long as you get a good copy. I only tried one and it was spot on. Last week I traded it for a 50L which otherwise wouldn't have left my bag. I am planning to get another one for my 7D.
adrianb wrote:
@faremax: how much of a difference in IQ is between Sigma 50 1.4 and the EF 50 1.4 ?
Well I don't own one and never did. But my friend does and I've had a chance to use it. Unfortunately I had a chance to use it only after selling my last Canon 50mm f/1.4 so i could not do side by side comparison. But only a blind man would not see a difference between 2 lenses. It was pretty significant. Sigma was very sharp wide open with much better contrast and CA control.
Thanks for all the imput, everyone. I'm leaning towards a Sigma 50 1.4 that I can have focus tested before I purchase it (from someone here on the boards, etc.) One of these days, I'm just going to pony up for the 50L and call it good.
Consider the 50mm F1.8 MK I
I found it better than the MKII in build (metal mount, tighter focusing barrel, and a better one at that...) and in IQ (more contrast at 1.8)...
....and typically $150 - $175
50 is my FL. Have a stellar 1.4, but its taken a while, but if I wanted to pay (hardly anything) for a EF 50 that I know would be perfct out of the box, it's the 2.5. Anyone who's used one knows.
