Sooo... I know this lens has made a name for itself. I have a 70-200mm 2.8 IS and a 28-135 IS. I do family, wedding, senior, etc. I've been thinking of getting the 50mm 1.4mm- is it worth it? Do you think it'd be a good addition to my current collection? How good is lit in low light vs. the 70-200?
If bank account = money no issue,
then select 50 1.4, 35 1.4, 24 1.4, 85 1.2;
else select 50 1.8;
This is based on your question and current lenses.
My belief is when you have to ask, then you have to try it for yourself first. You should be able to determine what your needs are and you'll know what lens will fill that need.
i love my 50 1.4. when in the dressing room, i have my 16-35 on my 5D and the 50 on my 40D (makes it equal to an 80mm). it is way better in low light, plus the bokeh you get at 1.4 is great. i'm sure the 1.8 is also nice (esp at the price), but i've never owned it.
I highly recommend 50mm f1.8
for its price and image at f 1.8
however, its really a breakable lens.
I broke one and got another to replace it
still below the budget of the f1.4
But you gotta check a few piece before buying
Quality is really spotty which will show up as bad AF.
AF speed is same as the f1.4
(f1.4 is not proper USM, it micro USM ---god knows what that means )
the sigma 50 1.4 is probably the best bang for the buck. its very close to the canon 1.2 in image q...especially for the price difference. (and the front element doesnt fall off).
For me the 50 on full frame is no mans land...but on a crop sensor it becomes and 85, and is great for that range. Another great lens for the money is the 85 1.8...best 300 bucks you can spend in the canon line.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Tony, are you not suffering from the whole "unable to focus at distances greater than 10 feet" thing then ?
to what does this refer?
There is a focus shift phenomena with the 50 1.2 that occurs in the 4-6 ft range only...and has been acknowledged by canon...and experienced by me...(a real pia) for a 1300 dollar lens especially. But I havent heard of any +10' focus issues
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Tony, are you not suffering from the whole "unable to focus at distances greater than 10 feet" thing then ?
Yes Chris. It's more like 15 feet for me. However, I use the lens about 75% of the time at receptions and it is my sharpest lens and has the best contrast...keep in mind that I have like 7 L lenses. It's just great (except for the whole focus thing).
Considering its strengths, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens for less than $500.
I seldom shoot at f/1.4 (or 1.8), but prefer to stop down a hair to f/2.0 or smaller. Both the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and the bargain-priced f/1.8 (the "Nifty 50") are reasonably sharp at f/2, so if one hasn't used a 50 before and wants to see how a normal prime fits one's shooting style, the 1.8 makes a great "will I use it enough to jutsify it" lens...and can serve as a spare if one moves up to the 1.4 or an L lens later.
I haven't tried the Sigma 50mm prime, but have heard good things about it from others. I'll look into before I make a final decision.
BrianO wrote:
I haven't tried the Sigma 50mm prime, but have heard good things about it from others. I'll look into before I make a final decision.
From what I have read, the only AF 50 that beats it is the 1300 dollar 50L from canon. And then only by a litte, and not at all at certain distances....or if the front element falls off your 50L...
bb
BrianO wrote:
Both the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and the bargain-priced f/1.8 (the "Nifty 50") are reasonably sharp at f/2,
Hmmm... you are like the 3rd person I've seen call the 1.8 the "Nifty 50"... I always thought the 1.8 was the "thrifty 50" and the 1.4 was the "nifty" hahaha, oh well, I suppose it doesn't matter. They are both great lenses, the 1.8 for it's bargain basement price and the 1.4 for its solid build and IQ (especially the bokeh). I always figured that every Canon shooter had a 50 1.8 at some point. It is so cheap and at 1.8, a fast lens, that almost every Canon shooter I know has picked one up as the first or second lens owned after the kit lens... usually before a hot-shoe flash.
Tony Hoffer wrote:
Yes Chris. It's more like 15 feet for me. However, I use the lens about 75% of the time at receptions and it is my sharpest lens and has the best contrast...keep in mind that I have like 7 L lenses. It's just great (except for the whole focus thing).
I suppose if you know the limitations and you're only using it for limited DoF work I can see the appeal, I think I'd be mighty annoyed at paying £350 for something with such an obvious flaw that it's incredible (in the proper sense of the word) that no-one at Sigma picked up on it.
RichardLavigne wrote:
Hmmm... you are like the 3rd person I've seen call the 1.8 the "Nifty 50"... I always thought the 1.8 was the "thrifty 50" and the 1.4 was the "nifty" hahaha, oh well, I suppose it doesn't matter.
Well, let's all just call the 1.8 the "Plastic Fantastic" to avoid confusion.
