Robert -- I don't know that any fast lenses are "sharp" wide open. Too many effects of spherical and chromatic aberration to deal with. I think the 50/1.4 meets reasonable expectations wide open, but it's not like a super-tele wide open (200/2L for example). The 50L suffers too, but the aberrations have been rolled into part of its charm and rendering, making it acceptable and even sought after!
Note: You are correct that the focus motor is the Achilles's Heel of the 50/1.4. It is a "micro USM" motor, as opposed to the ring USM design on almost every other USM lens. Probably it is just too small for the lens design, and fail frequently. The 50L has a much more robust and proven motor.
Anyway, glad you got what you were looking for in the 35/1.4L.
I just took this mild composite of two frames (about 85% overlap -- just added a little elbow room) with the 50L on 1D3 at 1.2, ISO 50. I took a whole series of various available subjects, and so many seemed "magic". It's hard to describe, but hits me when I see the images on computer.
OntheRez wrote:
I've owned 2 50mm f/1.4 and both suffered from the same problems. First at 1.4 the sharpness just isn't there. You'll note that those who like the lens in this thread often mention stopping down and things are great. So what's the point of paying for aperture you can't use?
I'd also disagree with that, the 1.2 is far from 'sharp' wide open and you pay some serious buck for that extra 1/3 stop! Add to that just how cheap the 50mm 1.4 is, just how much sharper and better the bokeh is at f1.8 compared to the plastic fantastic and I think that that argument is false. With all these fast lenses you pay just to get the faster aperture and so that stopped down even a bit the results are far better than the slower lens. If you're talking about lenses failing for no reason, I've had a Mamiya 80mm D and an 80mm Schneider LS both fail on me for no reason, used only on a copy stand. Both of those make a 50L look like pocket change .
Another wide open, actually pretty sharp at 100%, you can't tell anything from a tiny jpg. Just made a print of this one for my wall.
OntheRez wrote:
I've owned 2 50mm f/1.4 and both suffered from the same problems. First at 1.4 the sharpness just isn't there. You'll note that those who like the lens in this thread often mention stopping down and things are great. So what's the point of paying for aperture you can't use? Second, the 50mm f/1.4s are the only Canon lenses I've had fail for no apparent reason. If you check around you'll learn that it uses a non-USM motor system (ring or some such) that seems to be the source of most of the problems. I had to have both repaired one on my dime (actually $105 USD) and the other under warranty. Finally, I've found focus to be slow or lazy particularly in lower light - by which I mean situations that require ISO 3200 to get a Tv=1/500. The "generally accepted wisdom" is that if/when you can get a Sigma it is more robust and sharper wide open. The 50L remains the enigmatic star. It can obviously do amazing things wide open but there is more than a little yammering about focus shift. This might be user related. Don't know as I've never used it.
I picked up a 35mm f/1.4L to use instead of the the 50mm f/1.4 and it answers all of my problems with the 50mm. My only problem now is that for its major use (baseline or near court shooting on a 1DIV) it is really too wide. Maybe I'll sell the 35mm and get the 50L. I like 50mm but have never been happy with what's available. (And no, manual focus won't work for the type of shooting I do.)
As usual YMMV and all other disclaimers apply to one person's experience.
I think this is why it's so important to find the right 50mm for you. For me the Canon 50/1.4 was sharp enough wide open but I can't justify buying a lens that may unexpectedly turn into a paperweight. I have no doubt canon's next 1.4 will fill the role as an ideal 50/1.4 (accurate autofocus, sharp enough wide open and hella sharp stopped down and robust enough to feel comfortable using it in public). The question is, when will that be released?
Johnny B Goode wrote:
Been saying "this is the year!" for 8 years now. It's as old as dirt. Thought for sure Sigma's release would finall prod Canon, but no.
