This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Which 50?
p.4 #1Which 50?
I love my Canon 50 f/1.4. No desires to pick up the Sigma. I've used my 50 f/1.4 on my Rebel XT, 30D, 40D, 5D, will use it on my next camera, and have used it on a couple other Canon bodies both film and digital. I don't know if I'm one of the "lucky" 1's, but both f/1.4's that I've "had" have been great. I would love to see an update however!!! (Hello Canon
)
I do aspire to the f/1.2 and quite possibly a copy of the f/1.0 sometime a little later, but my f/1.4 will continue to get USED !!! I have the f/1.8 Mk I also, and it plugs away really nicely also.
)I do aspire to the f/1.2 and quite possibly a copy of the f/1.0 sometime a little later, but my f/1.4 will continue to get USED !!! I have the f/1.8 Mk I also, and it plugs away really nicely also.
May 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM
p.4 #2Which 50?
I have a UY01 date code 50L. It exhibits the same characteristics that some people have been very vocal about: It has measurable focus shift between f/2.2 and f/4 and it suffers from a resolution decrease when shooting white open close to MFD.
So I seriously doubt Canon applied a silent "fix" to this lens in 2010 or if they did, they did it after January
.
That said, I've owned the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4 (and many alternative 50's) and I would not want to go back to either of them. After some practice, I find it quite easy to work around the weaknesses of the 50L for my style of shooting (which I cannot say for the 50/1.4) - this lens reliably produces stunning results for me.
So I seriously doubt Canon applied a silent "fix" to this lens in 2010 or if they did, they did it after January
.That said, I've owned the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4 (and many alternative 50's) and I would not want to go back to either of them. After some practice, I find it quite easy to work around the weaknesses of the 50L for my style of shooting (which I cannot say for the 50/1.4) - this lens reliably produces stunning results for me.
May 17, 2010 at 10:17 AM
p.4 #3Which 50?
No, you don't use 50's because *you* are incapable of doing anything that isn't boring with one... at least you recognize that. Everyone should use what works for them...
Daan B wrote:
+1
50 = boringDon't blame the tool, blame the user.Hey, I don't use 50s, BECAUSE they are boring
Daan B wrote:
n0b0 wrote
Daan B wrote
RobertLynn wrote
I hate 50mm FL50 = boring
May 17, 2010 at 11:21 AM
p.4 #4Which 50?
So you would hate shooting the 85L on your 5D I guess... yup, terrible FL.
RobertLynn wrote:
On APS-C, APS-H or FF? I've not been wowed by it on APS-C or H, and truthfully haven't tried mine on my 5D.
RobertLynn wrote:
Zara wrote
RobertLynn wrote
I hate 50mm FLMay 17, 2010 at 11:24 AM
p.4 #5Which 50?
>>Xmas is here...Sigma 50
see, those sliced onion blurred highlights kind of distract me badly... so it comes down to pentagons, brightlines or onions from all but the 50L... pick your poison. The 50/1.8 doesn't produce pentagons wide open or nearly so... so at least you have a partial solution to the OOF highlights with it.
Personally, I try to avoid distant highlights... even an 85L looks ugly most often when handling them...
see, those sliced onion blurred highlights kind of distract me badly... so it comes down to pentagons, brightlines or onions from all but the 50L... pick your poison. The 50/1.8 doesn't produce pentagons wide open or nearly so... so at least you have a partial solution to the OOF highlights with it.
Personally, I try to avoid distant highlights... even an 85L looks ugly most often when handling them...
May 17, 2010 at 11:29 AM
p.4 #6Which 50?
mh2000 wrote:
So you would hate shooting the 85L on your 5D I guess... yup, terrible FL.
On APS-C, APS-H or FF? I've not been wowed by it on APS-C or H, and truthfully haven't tried mine on my 5D.
I'm guessing by your post, you're being cynical. I can't get the "undertones" since there's no way to tell if you're sarcastic or not, but I get the impression that you are.
FWIW, I used to own the 85 1.8 lens, I liked it, but not enough to keep it. I used it on FF cameras for senior portraits, and I didn't like it. I like longer than 100mm for portraits when I have the room, and if I'm on crop, I almost like it a little longer.
As I said above and clarified, I dislike a 50mm prime lens, as it's an "awkward" FL for me. It's either too damn long or not long enough. I try to get closer but can't I try to backup and there's a wall.
I do find thought hat my 24-70 I use it either at the beginning, middle or end points of the lens.
Image quality wasn't the issue because I never had a problem with it on my 50 1.8.
So you would hate shooting the 85L on your 5D I guess... yup, terrible FL.
RobertLynn wrote
Zara wrote
RobertLynn wrote
I hate 50mm FLI'm guessing by your post, you're being cynical. I can't get the "undertones" since there's no way to tell if you're sarcastic or not, but I get the impression that you are.
FWIW, I used to own the 85 1.8 lens, I liked it, but not enough to keep it. I used it on FF cameras for senior portraits, and I didn't like it. I like longer than 100mm for portraits when I have the room, and if I'm on crop, I almost like it a little longer.
As I said above and clarified, I dislike a 50mm prime lens, as it's an "awkward" FL for me. It's either too damn long or not long enough. I try to get closer but can't I try to backup and there's a wall.
I do find thought hat my 24-70 I use it either at the beginning, middle or end points of the lens.
Image quality wasn't the issue because I never had a problem with it on my 50 1.8.
May 17, 2010 at 11:29 AM
p.4 #7Which 50?
deepbluejh wrote
The plain fact of the matter is that the current 50/1.2L was a very carefully designed lens. Compromises were obviously made (in stark contrast to the 50/1.0 in which no compromises were made) and the results reflect that. Even with these compromises the 50/1.2L is the best fast aperture 50mm lens that money can buy today. The only reason people make such a big deal about it is that expectations are so low for the other 50s (they're cheap, so it's ok if they suck).
What I find weird is that if it was so carefully designed, then why is it softer than the Canon FDn 50/1.2L? Why does it have focus shift, which the FDn does not. And so on. I get the EF 1.0 is a compromise, because it's more of an experiment/PR-thing. However, what boggles my mind is EF 1.2L being worse than the FDn in pretty much all ways (except the AF part :P).
Time between the introductions is 27 years, going backwards instead of improving or at least being able to keep on the same level makes me sad. I like the focal length, but currently there just is no good AF 50mm lens for Canon.
The plain fact of the matter is that the current 50/1.2L was a very carefully designed lens. Compromises were obviously made (in stark contrast to the 50/1.0 in which no compromises were made) and the results reflect that. Even with these compromises the 50/1.2L is the best fast aperture 50mm lens that money can buy today. The only reason people make such a big deal about it is that expectations are so low for the other 50s (they're cheap, so it's ok if they suck).
What I find weird is that if it was so carefully designed, then why is it softer than the Canon FDn 50/1.2L? Why does it have focus shift, which the FDn does not. And so on. I get the EF 1.0 is a compromise, because it's more of an experiment/PR-thing. However, what boggles my mind is EF 1.2L being worse than the FDn in pretty much all ways (except the AF part :P).
Time between the introductions is 27 years, going backwards instead of improving or at least being able to keep on the same level makes me sad. I like the focal length, but currently there just is no good AF 50mm lens for Canon.
May 17, 2010 at 11:44 AM
p.4 #8Which 50?
Shuko wrote:
What I find weird is that if it was so carefully designed, then why is it softer than the Canon FDn 50/1.2L? Why does it have focus shift, which the FDn does not. And so on. I get the EF 1.0 is a compromise, because it's more of an experiment/PR-thing. However, what boggles my mind is EF 1.2L being worse than the FDn in pretty much all ways (except the AF part :P).
Time between the introductions is 27 years, going backwards instead of improving or at least being able to keep on the same level makes me sad. I like...Show more →
No idea. I've never seen any controlled samples comparing the two lenses.
deepbluejh wrote
The plain fact of the matter is that the current 50/1.2L was a very carefully designed lens. Compromises were obviously made (in stark contrast to the 50/1.0 in which no compromises were made) and the results reflect that. Even with these compromises the 50/1.2L is the best fast aperture 50mm lens that money can buy today. The only reason people make such a big deal about it is that expectations are so low for the other 50s (they're cheap, so it's ok if they suck).Time between the introductions is 27 years, going backwards instead of improving or at least being able to keep on the same level makes me sad. I like...Show more →
No idea. I've never seen any controlled samples comparing the two lenses.
May 17, 2010 at 11:59 AM
p.4 #9Which 50?
I wish I had an FDn modded for EF. Unfortunately I dont, so I can't provide images of my own, but here are one example of crops I saved from some comparison. I can't remember where, might have been on this forum actually.
All 3 are Canon lenses, anyone want to take a guess looking at sharpness, contrast, CA etc?
All 3 are Canon lenses, anyone want to take a guess looking at sharpness, contrast, CA etc?
 |
||
| http://derfel.org/temp/50canoncomp.jpg | ||
|
May 17, 2010 at 01:02 PM
p.4 #11Which 50?
Far left I think is the 50 1.8.
I think middle is 1.4
Far right is maybe the 1.0 or 1.2
This is assuming all three are current EF lenses.
I think middle is 1.4
Far right is maybe the 1.0 or 1.2
This is assuming all three are current EF lenses.
May 17, 2010 at 01:08 PM
p.4 #12Which 50?
I'm going to guess the first is from the 50/1.8 because I like the background in it the best.
The last one looks too "dreamy" for me... except for special uses.
The middle one kind of "blah."
The last one looks too "dreamy" for me... except for special uses.
The middle one kind of "blah."
May 17, 2010 at 05:30 PM
p.4 #13Which 50?
mh2000 wroteThe middle one kind of "blah."
Grr :P Middle one is the sharpest, least CA and none of that annoying glow stuff.
Left EF 1.4, middle FDn 1.2, right EF 1.2
Crops were taken from this
Grr :P Middle one is the sharpest, least CA and none of that annoying glow stuff.
Left EF 1.4, middle FDn 1.2, right EF 1.2
Crops were taken from this
May 17, 2010 at 09:55 PM
p.4 #14Which 50?
hahaha! And in the years I owned the EF 1.4 I never liked it that much.
Just goes to show you can't go with just one photo to assess a lens... especially for bokeh.
I agree about the sharpness and contrast from the FNn 1.2, but in this sample the 1.4 seems to hold its own... I was just keying off the background mostly.
Shuko wrote:
Grr :P Middle one is the sharpest, least CA and none of that annoying glow stuff.
Left EF 1.4, middle FDn 1.2, right EF 1.2
Crops were taken from this
Just goes to show you can't go with just one photo to assess a lens... especially for bokeh.
I agree about the sharpness and contrast from the FNn 1.2, but in this sample the 1.4 seems to hold its own... I was just keying off the background mostly.
Shuko wrote:
mh2000 wrote
The middle one kind of "blah."Left EF 1.4, middle FDn 1.2, right EF 1.2
Crops were taken from this
May 17, 2010 at 10:57 PM
p.4 #15Which 50?
Yeah I was going to say none of those could be the f/1.8, the bokeh in all 3 cases was very nice. My first guess was they were all f/1.2's.
May 18, 2010 at 12:10 AM
p.4 #16Which 50?
Shuko wrote:
What I find weird is that if it was so carefully designed, then why is it softer than the Canon FDn 50/1.2L? Why does it have focus shift, which the FDn does not. And so on. I get the EF 1.0 is a compromise, because it's more of an experiment/PR-thing. However, what boggles my mind is EF 1.2L being worse than the FDn in pretty much all ways (except the AF part :P).
Time between the introductions is 27 years, going backwards instead of improving or at least being able to keep on the same level makes me sad. I like...Show more →
The major difference between the two (other than AF) is that the FDn has a floating element. Hence no focus shift and likely is sharper (no haloing) at closer focusing distances. So, if you're looking for a more clinically sharp image, which the sample crop illustrates, then the FDn is 'better'. But look at the background rendition difference between it and the EF 50L. The EF is slightly smoother and general rendition is a bit more dreamy. I guess some don't like that look much, but that's fine, maybe that's why there are so many different 50s on the market.
Someone else also posted that the EF 50L has an AF issue. It doesn't. It has focus shift that is inherent in the design decision made by Canon. The focus shift is troublesome due to the fact that AF systems focus wide open rather than at the actual shooting aperture. If they focused stopped down, then the focus shift wouldn't be an issue. Overall I find the 50L to AF much more consistently than the EF 50 1.4.
And someone stated that it's not sharp even by f/4. I disagree. I find it's very good in the center by f/2. It seems to hold its own against other 50s: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon50f12/canon50f12_jt.htm
deepbluejh wrote
The plain fact of the matter is that the current 50/1.2L was a very carefully designed lens. Compromises were obviously made (in stark contrast to the 50/1.0 in which no compromises were made) and the results reflect that. Even with these compromises the 50/1.2L is the best fast aperture 50mm lens that money can buy today. The only reason people make such a big deal about it is that expectations are so low for the other 50s (they're cheap, so it's ok if they suck).Time between the introductions is 27 years, going backwards instead of improving or at least being able to keep on the same level makes me sad. I like...Show more →
The major difference between the two (other than AF) is that the FDn has a floating element. Hence no focus shift and likely is sharper (no haloing) at closer focusing distances. So, if you're looking for a more clinically sharp image, which the sample crop illustrates, then the FDn is 'better'. But look at the background rendition difference between it and the EF 50L. The EF is slightly smoother and general rendition is a bit more dreamy. I guess some don't like that look much, but that's fine, maybe that's why there are so many different 50s on the market.
Someone else also posted that the EF 50L has an AF issue. It doesn't. It has focus shift that is inherent in the design decision made by Canon. The focus shift is troublesome due to the fact that AF systems focus wide open rather than at the actual shooting aperture. If they focused stopped down, then the focus shift wouldn't be an issue. Overall I find the 50L to AF much more consistently than the EF 50 1.4.
And someone stated that it's not sharp even by f/4. I disagree. I find it's very good in the center by f/2. It seems to hold its own against other 50s: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/zproducts/canon50f12/canon50f12_jt.htm
May 18, 2010 at 01:12 AM
p.4 #17Which 50?
Shuko wrote:
Grr :P Middle one is the sharpest, least CA and none of that annoying glow stuff.
Left EF 1.4, middle FDn 1.2, right EF 1.2
Crops were taken from this
Great examples, thank you. They highlight why I never liked the 50/1.4 (bokeh) and why I appreciate my 50 1.2L (bokeh).
The performance of the FDn is very interesting. As Ron stated above, it shows the close focus correction provided by the floating element. At the same time, you can also see that the bokeh is not as smooth as with the newer 50L.
I'm fairly certain that this was a conscious design decision on Canon's part. For their new 50L, they wanted to create the creamiest background blur possible, even if that meant to sacrifice clinical sharpness at close focus distances. For my shooting this works well, for others apparently not.
My 50L btw does not produce this "glow" wide open when focused beyond around 1m (3'). It starts to get pixel peeping (though maybe not critically) sharp at those distances, which is where I use it 80%+ of the time. In the "danger zone" (<1m), stopping down one stop (f/1.8) takes care of any glow or sharpness issues without focus shift becoming a problem.
mh2000 wrote
The middle one kind of "blah."Left EF 1.4, middle FDn 1.2, right EF 1.2
Crops were taken from this
Great examples, thank you. They highlight why I never liked the 50/1.4 (bokeh) and why I appreciate my 50 1.2L (bokeh).
The performance of the FDn is very interesting. As Ron stated above, it shows the close focus correction provided by the floating element. At the same time, you can also see that the bokeh is not as smooth as with the newer 50L.
I'm fairly certain that this was a conscious design decision on Canon's part. For their new 50L, they wanted to create the creamiest background blur possible, even if that meant to sacrifice clinical sharpness at close focus distances. For my shooting this works well, for others apparently not.
My 50L btw does not produce this "glow" wide open when focused beyond around 1m (3'). It starts to get pixel peeping (though maybe not critically) sharp at those distances, which is where I use it 80%+ of the time. In the "danger zone" (<1m), stopping down one stop (f/1.8) takes care of any glow or sharpness issues without focus shift becoming a problem.
May 18, 2010 at 02:16 AM
p.4 #18Which 50?
mh2000 wrote:
No, you don't use 50's because *you* are incapable of doing anything that isn't boring with one... at least you recognize that. Everyone should use what works for them...
Granted, I should have used "IMO"... but this should be pretty obvious. After all, I can't decide what works for people or not.
Again, I know how to use a 50. I have done so. Clients didn't say the pics taken with it looked boring.
I just don't find the 50s FOV inspirational. I'd rather use a 35mm or 85mm. I really don't need a 50 for its FOV. My last 50 died in an accident. I haven't bothered to buy one back with the insurance money.
YMMV
No, you don't use 50's because *you* are incapable of doing anything that isn't boring with one... at least you recognize that. Everyone should use what works for them...
Granted, I should have used "IMO"... but this should be pretty obvious. After all, I can't decide what works for people or not.
Again, I know how to use a 50. I have done so. Clients didn't say the pics taken with it looked boring.
I just don't find the 50s FOV inspirational. I'd rather use a 35mm or 85mm. I really don't need a 50 for its FOV. My last 50 died in an accident. I haven't bothered to buy one back with the insurance money.
YMMV
May 18, 2010 at 02:28 AM
p.4 #19Which 50?
Yep, FDn can have more busier bokeh, but I'd rather work with/around that than annoying focus shift and that glow/greasy look that covers whole image.
I agree, I never had any problems with AF on EF 50L.
I agree, I never had any problems with AF on EF 50L.
May 18, 2010 at 02:47 AM
p.4 #20Which 50?
Ok, I find the 50mm FL very non-intrusive to use... so that is where I'm coming from... and I hear this a lot...
But how do you find certain FL's "inspirational"?
Personally, I find a 35mm FL (on FF) to be the worst possible compromise for general people/shooting... but it's not from lack of inspiration, but more from having problems with the perspective distortion and FOV...
My most inspired photos have all been shot with a 50... and yet, there is nothing at all about 50mm that leads to the inspiration... just that it doesn't get in the way...
Daan B wrote:
Granted, I should have used "IMO"... but this should be pretty obvious. After all, I can't decide what works for people or not.
Again, I know how to use a 50. I have done so. Clients didn't say the pics taken with it looked boring.
I just don't find the 50s FOV inspirational. I'd rather use a 35mm or 85mm. I really don't need a 50 for its FOV. My last 50 died in an accident. I haven't bothered to buy one back with the insurance money.
YMMV
But how do you find certain FL's "inspirational"?
Personally, I find a 35mm FL (on FF) to be the worst possible compromise for general people/shooting... but it's not from lack of inspiration, but more from having problems with the perspective distortion and FOV...
My most inspired photos have all been shot with a 50... and yet, there is nothing at all about 50mm that leads to the inspiration... just that it doesn't get in the way...
Daan B wrote:
mh2000 wrote
No, you don't use 50's because *you* are incapable of doing anything that isn't boring with one... at least you recognize that. Everyone should use what works for them...Again, I know how to use a 50. I have done so. Clients didn't say the pics taken with it looked boring.
I just don't find the 50s FOV inspirational. I'd rather use a 35mm or 85mm. I really don't need a 50 for its FOV. My last 50 died in an accident. I haven't bothered to buy one back with the insurance money.
YMMV
May 18, 2010 at 08:08 AM