Opinions: Is my 50 mm f/1.4L bad?

[tommykjensen]

I received different opinons about some test shots taken with this lens.

What do You think.

First test shot:
Raw file for download (http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/lenstest/IMG_6059.CR2)
Settings: Tripod, One Shot focus, Timer, MLU, f1.4, ISO 100, available light, with Hoya UV filter on lens, no postprocessing
Focused on the "2" in 28 using center focus

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/lenstest/50mm14test1.jpg

Same raw file with sharpening in raw converter applied
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/lenstest/50mm14test2.jpg

Second test shot:
Raw file for download (http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/lenstest/IMG_6060.CR2)
Settings: Tripod, One Shot focus, Timer, MLU, f1.4, ISO 100, available light, withOUT Hoya UV filter on lens, no postprocessing
Focused on the "2" in 28 using center focus
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/lenstest/50mm14test3.jpg

Same raw file with sharpening in raw converter applied
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/lenstest/50mm14test4.jpg

[skyphix]

That looks about like other test shots Ive seen with this lens, and certainly much nicer than my 50 1.8 at 1.8, but I'd be curious to see what others say as well.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It doesn't look OOF...
I don't know.. it's really not an "L" and it is not reported to be as sharp wide open as say... the 85mm or 135mm...

I wouldn't be too worried... just see how it works in real use.

[blue_max]

Can't acually see a problem as such. What is your concern?

Graham

[tommykjensen]

This real photo was also shot at 1.4.

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=harrishawkandtrainer.jpg

The reason I am asking is because I was trying to help out a danish user. He have had big trouble getting a copy of this lens he is satishfied with so I took some random testshots yesterday of various subjects all at 1.4. And a lot of users were almost insulting in the way they described the results (it was not great photos which I also clearly stated), they did not seem to understand the purpose of the test which was to see if 20D + 50 mm f/1.4 was able to focus well on 1.4.

The testshots I posted are these:

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/kalvebod50mm14_1.jpg
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/kalvebod50mm14_2.jpg
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/kalvebod50mm14_3.jpg
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/kalvebod50mm14_4.jpg

[CyberDyneSystems]

The first shot looks sharp where it should be.. there is a lot of CA at the edge of the flower.. but that is a symptom of conditions as well as lens... so no conclusion can really be drawn there.

[blue_max]

Is he hoping to find a 50mm 1.4 that is without fault, or just curious about it's performance in general? Usually stopping down improves quality. It depends on what you want to achieve – and how much effort you are prepared to put into it (tripod, mirror lock-up, reflectors, flash etc).

Sometimes it's ability to take a shot at all is all that is required :lol:

It's witching hour over this side of the pond and I can't download anything much, but it has a consistently good reputation. It really is not a very expensive lens by Canon's standards and punches well above it's weight.

Perhaps his expectations are too high to start with.

Graham

[mwj]

I received different opinons about some test shots taken with this lens.

What do You think.


My understanding is that it is generally accepted that the 50/1.4 isn't that sharp at 1.4. It's workable at 1.4 (as in your image), and the 1.4 helps with focusing, but it doesn't get really sharp 'til f/2.

mwj

[Dchemist]

I used DOFMaster (www.dofmaster.com) to calculate the accpetable focus distance for a subject 10 feet away using a 50mm lens at F/1.4 on a 20D. According to the calculation, the image is "in focus" from about 9.6 feet to 10.4 feet. So your bird image head is in focus and the trainer out of focus as it probably should be (assuming my 10 feet estimate is correct). I use this lens and find managment of the wide aperature capabilities a challenge. You do not have to be off much with the focus and your subect image reflects this and appears soft. I also find that, when the focus point is where you want it, the image is sharp.

[tim]

I'm not sure if my 1.4 is any better, you can see a test shot I did here (http://mrwild.co.nz/ExperimentalGallery/Tests/FocusTests/Set2/slides/Canon-50mm-f1.4.html). That's shot as JPG, tripod, mlu, etc, levels adjustment but no sharpening.

[I Simonius]

I received different opinons about some test shots taken with this lens.

What do You think.snip

Hi
all the shots you have shown so far , in the light you have taken them look fine to me.
I did lots of ttests with my 50f1.4 too
Here's what I learned:
Shots LOOK soft but the RESOLUTION is there, just sharpen to bring it out.
Lens will be softer at 1.4 than stopped down. This is normal of ALL fast lenses.
At 5.6 -8 you can pick the hairs off a gnats kneecaps at 100 paces (mirror locked up, tripod mounted ;-)
It does have quite high CA wide open on SOME sunjects (e.g. white shirt in full sunlight)
It seems to me that you need a higher shutter handheld speed with digital than with film to get the same apparent sharpness. This is an odd little foible that I have fathomed. I find the camera has to be REALLY STILL to get tack sharp shots with the 20D. Not a bad thing

I have a shot which illustrates some of the 50's qualities (esp.CA+sharpness)
here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=79069
You'll have to scroll down to my post ( I haven'sussed how to link spot on)
the second pic is a 100 crop of the original, so you can guess the crop of the first( hopefully). The violinists face is tack sharp, brought out with a little sharpening, although you cannot fully appreciate it from this jpeg converted for the web

[pierrot]

What I see in your examples is not surprising, as the DoF is very short which can be expected.
But kalvebod50mm14_4.jpg is raising questions: seems to be "hazy" due to some generally spread chromatic aberration.
What do others think?

[I Simonius]

What I see in your examples is not surprising, as the DoF is very short which can be expected.
But kalvebod50mm14_4.jpg is raising questions: seems to be "hazy" due to some generally spread chromatic aberration.
What do others think?

but that's only in the very OOF sections. The parts that are in focus seem fine

I really don't think the lighting/exposure is doing any favours to these examples

[tommykjensen]

Ok, I feel more reassured now.

Simon, You can link to a specific post like this

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=79069&p=600359

You can find the post number p=600359 by holding the mouse over the quick reply button at that specific post.

But yeah I miss a little icon with the direct link like the old forum software had.

[foxbat]

The first shot looks sharp where it should be.. there is a lot of CA at the edge of the flower.. but that is a symptom of conditions as well as lens... so no conclusion can really be drawn there.As well as the CA the bokeh has bright fringing effects like the old CZJ Tessar's. Is this normal for this lens?

[Tom W]

Tommy, the best that I can see is that everything that is in the actual plane of focus is in focus. You can see this especially with the sharpened versions of both images by looking along the top of the box on the right side. The front edge of the box is in front of the plane and has the hazy blurr that gradually thins to nothing right about where the stripe goes across the top of the box. It then starts to show again as you follow the edge rearward away from that tight plane.

This is normal - the shots have not only a very small depth-of-field, but also give a bit of a hazy/dreamy effect to even slightly out-of-focus portions of the image. This is a trait of this lens wide open.

It is known also to be a little less sharp wide open than many lenses, but it quickly becomes very sharp as you move your aperture from f/1.4 to 2 and to f/2.8.

[I Simonius]

Ok, I feel more reassured now.

Simon, You can link to a specific post like this

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=79069&p=600359

You can find the post number p=600359 by holding the mouse over the quick reply button at that specific post.

But yeah I miss a little icon with the direct link like the old forum software had.

I held the moose, I mean mouse, over the wee quick reply icon and all it did was say "quick reply to this message" no post number nor nuffin'.

Did I not get what you were saying? :confused:

[felix21685]

to me it looks like its sharper without the filter. which hoya filter do you have on there?

[tommykjensen]

I held the moose, I mean mouse, over the wee quick reply icon and all it did was say "quick reply to this message" no post number nor nuffin'.

Did I not get what you were saying? :confused:

Its this button I refer to. Then look in the status line where it show the entire url.

[I Simonius]

Its this button I refer to. Then look in the status line where it show the entire url.

Ahhh... confusion over..I had to try with internet Exploriatoire.. then reset Surfari because it didn't have the progress bar at the bottom unless I set it in preferences

So is there a way of copy/pasting it - as it dissapears when I take the cursor off the icon, or do you have to do it the old fashioned way (with a pen and paper then type it in?)

Thanks for your help :D