I actually have found this lens to be a really good value. I love the focal length on both 1.3x and 1.6x crop cameras. It has been my observation that any lens under f/2 can become tricky to use. Not being a big pixel peeper, I can say that I have often found 1.4 to be useful, but there is a noticeable sweet spot around 2 or 2.2. In any case, the f/1.4 stuff can really vary depending on how steady you hands are and the light you're using.
Below you can see that even at a longer working distance, when shooting wide open, into backlight you can get a fairly soft image (though usable). The Girls is shot ISO 100 1/500 f/1.4 on a Mark2.
Past her is my son, which turned out better (sharper). ISO 100, 1/200, f/1.4 on a 40D.
In this case I was closer, but I think the off camera flash really helped.
My 50 1.4 is sharp at 1.4 and very sharp at f2. I would have absolutely no issues with shooting at f1.4 for portraits. The drop in quality is very minor if you ask me.
Agree, what you lose in sharpness you gain in being able to have a narrower depth of field and being able to use a faster shutter. It's a very acceptable trade off on this lens. Focus is way faster than the 1.8, I've not seen many shots from the 50 L further up the range. Wonder how that performs wide open, it's probably better but how much better can things get?
Ok, got a email from B&H saying the 50 was back in stock. Totally lost my mind and ordered one & a hood. Been a little crazy lately, just got a 17-40 last week and really like it. The 50 should be here by Wednesday, I'll let you folks know then. If it's as good as these examples the 1.8 goes in the 1D kit.
I don't shoot all that much at f/1.4 because the DoF is so damn small that is becomes a little useless. i found this on on my flickr though. No sharpening applied, it seems reasonably crisp:
Nope, He's a Shiba Inu...a close relative to the Akita. I have always wanted an Jap. Akita, but the temperament always turned me off....maybe one day though. Yours is beautiful BTW.
I don't shoot all that much at f/1.4 because the DoF is so damn small that is becomes a little useless. i found this on on my flickr though. No sharpening applied, it seems reasonably crisp:
I would say mine is sharp at f/1.4, but it does need more PP sharpening than would a similar shot taken that is stopped down. In the end I care more about final results than "out of the camera" results, so it makes little difference to me what aperture I shoot at so long as I can actually get the shot I wanted.
I tested 3 or 4 copies in the store when I bought mine, and found *noticeable* variation lens-to-lens. My copy is usable at 1.4, and starts to really sharpen up around 1.8 or 2. Its not in the same league as my 85L or 135L, but you can get eyelashes wide open, which is my standard.
There is a pretty wide range of quality for individual copies of this lens, and this accounts for a good bit of the controversy on this top.
Mine was originally sharp starting at 2.5 - kinda useless for what I bought it for. I sent it in to Canon NJ and it was recalibrated, though it still does not wow me. I'd say it's acceptable at 1.8. I do wish it were better wide open, and right now, I'm really hoping for a lot more from the recently-announced Sigma. I'll be picking one of those up once they are available, and if it's good at 1.4, it will replace my Canon. It may also reduce the likelyhood of my getting a 1.2L.
Problem with the 50 1.4 is that calibration can only be done by making changes to the hardware of the lens. This in comparison to calibration with "modern" lenses, which is done by using software and can be much more precise (depending on the lens). Canon Service couldn't set my 50 1.4 to "zero" tolerance. They would have to take the lens apart (and they were not willing to do so). If you have a copy that has no tolerance in the AF (= spot on) at 1.4 you are very lucky. Most 50 1.4 copies should be sharp at about f/1.8-f/2 (mine was until I dropped it - now it doesn't focus at all)
what are you guy's assessment of the background in edward's shot? This is what I always saw in my photos from the lens (though mine was fine sharpness-wise).
mh2000 wrote:
what are you guy's assessment of the background in edward's shot? This is what I always saw in my photos from the lens (though mine was fine sharpness-wise).
If one is looking for creamy smooth bokeh, I don't think the 50 1.4 is the best candidate. Although it doesn't bother me in this particular shot. IMO the 50 1.4 excels in capturing fine detail (when it becomes sharp), low distortion, good colors and edge to edge sharpness. I therefore really liked it for shooting landscapes (panoramas). I think the 50 1.4 gives more of a "square" look than a "round" look. It's a matter of taste and personal preference if you like that or not
