Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 23 Jan 2013 (Wednesday) 07:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Looking for a 50mm f1.4. Are there any good ones?

 
frankwite
Senior Member
Avatar
400 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Jan 23, 2013 20:35 |  #31

nothsa wrote in post #15525290 (external link)
I'd rather have too much detail and blur it than trying to reclaim detail from the blurry sections ;)

I hear that however if you capture a blurry shot with the sharpest lens out there it's still a hosed photot no matter what you do to it. My statement works only if you get it right in camera.;)

cdifoto wrote in post #15525492 (external link)
I agree with the general notion that a great photo isn't a great photo just because it's crazy sharp BUT here's a little bit of shocking information for you: Not everyone shoots people portraits 99% of the time.

Here's another little bit of shocking information for you: Skin retouching is far superior to sharpening detail that isn't there, if you know what you're doing.


Give me a sharp lens and let me decide what to do with the results. The days of Vaseline on the lens are long gone. Perhaps one day they'll return but so far that day has not come.

No not shocking at all even though I was talking to the OP! But who buys at 1.2 or 1.4 lens to shoot landscapes, birds or zoo animals. THINK FIRST before you type!

What is shocking is that from your statement about skin retouching you don't have a clue. A good retoucher never wants a lens that's so sharp that you can see the hair growing out of the pores. Absurd...This is probably very shocking to you as it seems that you're one of many that needs the sharpest lens out there to make up for lack of skill. Sad...

As for the old vaseline on lens trick well I wasn't born in the 30's so I'll let you keep that old urban legend. Way before my time man and I don't think it's coming back so all the old timers can take that method with them on the way out.

This may be shocking news to you but talking about old photography tricks that old timers were using in the year of BC really reveals your age. Checkmate


5D ll | 5D | SL1 | Lumix LX7 | 24-105L| 70-200L| 135L| 85 1.8| 50 1.4| 28 1.8| 50 1.8 ll| 40 2.8 STM| 35 2.0|75-300 lll|18-55 STM| 28-75 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jan 23, 2013 20:41 |  #32

frankwite wrote in post #15526271 (external link)
I hear that however if you capture a blurry shot with the sharpest lens out there it's still a hosed photot no matter what you do to it. My statement works only if you get it right in camera.;)

No not shocking at all even though I was talking to the OP! But who buys at 1.2 or 1.4 lens to shoot landscapes, birds or zoo animals. THINK FIRST before you type!

What is shocking is that from your statement about skin retouching you don't have a clue. A good retoucher never wants a lens that's so sharp that you can see the hair growing out of the pores. Absurd...This is probably very shocking to you as it seems that you're one of many that needs the sharpest lens out there to make up for lack of skill. Sad...

As for the old vaseline on lens trick well I wasn't born in the 30's so I'll let you keep that old urban legend. Way before my time man and I don't think it's coming back so all the old timers can take that method with them on the way out.

This may be shocking news to you but talking about old photography tricks that old timers were using in the year of BC really reveals your age. Checkmate

Really? I'm 31...

I think you should read before you type. I don't know any legitimate retoucher who says "Do you have another, perhaps softer photo...this one has pores with hair growing out of them and I just can't work with that."


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JakAHearts
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,698 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 1214
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD
     
Jan 23, 2013 20:43 |  #33

cdifoto wrote in post #15526295 (external link)
Really? I'm 31...

Im 29 you old man! ;) Want to swap stories of ol'?


Shane
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jan 23, 2013 20:44 |  #34

JakAHearts wrote in post #15526302 (external link)
Im 29 you old man! ;) Want to swap stories of ol'?

Pssht. You're just a baby.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frankwite
Senior Member
Avatar
400 posts
Joined May 2008
     
Jan 23, 2013 21:00 |  #35

cdifoto wrote in post #15526295 (external link)
Really? I'm 31...

I think you should read before you type. I don't know any legitimate retoucher who says "Do you have another, perhaps softer photo...this one has pores with hair growing out of them and I just can't work with that."

The real question is do you know any legit retoucher's>>probably not. And I guess I have to believe that you're actually 31 judging from your last statement. SMH!!! Maybe since you were quoting old tricks from your history book it made me think that you were just old. Sadly it didn't make me feel that you were wise. I've spoken and moved on!


5D ll | 5D | SL1 | Lumix LX7 | 24-105L| 70-200L| 135L| 85 1.8| 50 1.4| 28 1.8| 50 1.8 ll| 40 2.8 STM| 35 2.0|75-300 lll|18-55 STM| 28-75 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
n1as
Goldmember
2,330 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Salem, OR
     
Jan 23, 2013 21:02 |  #36

OP - I've had 3 50 f/1.4 lenses; Canon, Sigma and Zeiss.

All are good, none are great.

The Sigma had AF issues, was big and expensive. Bokeh wide open was great but degraded as you stop it down.

The Canon was much better with AF and was sharper at f/2 than the Sigma.

The Zeiss was soft wide open but was crazy sharp by f/5.6. At f/2.8, I get images that sometimes have a 3D look to them very much unlike the Sigma that produced very 2D (flat) looking images. Bokeh of the Zeiss was irritating wide open but improved as you stopped it down. By f/2.8 it was as good as the Sigma.

In the end, the Canon emerged as the best price/performance ratio for me. I use it for indoor basketball so AF is of prime importance.


- Keith
http://darwinphoto.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vspector
Member
Avatar
180 posts
Joined Jun 2012
     
Jan 23, 2013 21:03 |  #37

Sirrith wrote in post #15525977 (external link)
The 1.8 is perfectly capable of producing stunning images, and it doesn't require any additional effort or skill over the more expensive versions to do so. Comments like these make you sound ignorant and as though you think gear makes the photographer.

"stunning" is all subjective :)
if you cannot see glaring the shortcomings of the 50 1.8 then you might be the ignorant one.


550D | Tamron 17-50 | Speedlite 600 RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tickerguy
Senior Member
595 posts
Joined Dec 2012
     
Jan 23, 2013 21:21 |  #38

I have a 50 f/1.4 and like it. It front-focused like a SOB out of the box but nulling it out with MFA was easy and now it's fine.

What's not to like about this sort of result?

IMAGE: http://www.denninger.net/pics/IMG_0364.jpg

Canon 7D & 5d3, EF-S 15-85, 24-105L, 70-200L f/4 IS, 100mm Macro/L, EF 50 f/1.4 and more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,132 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 451
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jan 23, 2013 21:26 |  #39

cdifoto wrote in post #15526295 (external link)
Really? I'm 31...

I think you should read before you type. I don't know any legitimate retoucher who says "Do you have another, perhaps softer photo...this one has pores with hair growing out of them and I just can't work with that."

you probably got that tip from reading penthouse when you were seven :D!


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jan 23, 2013 21:31 |  #40

ed rader wrote in post #15526465 (external link)
you probably got that tip from reading penthouse when you were seven :D!

Nobody reads Penthouse.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sirrith
Cream of the Crop
10,545 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 36
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Hong Kong
     
Jan 23, 2013 21:41 |  #41

vspector wrote in post #15526371 (external link)
"stunning" is all subjective :)
if you cannot see glaring the shortcomings of the 50 1.8 then you might be the ignorant one.

Build quality obviously is not great. However, build quality has no impact on a photo. IQ-wise the 50/1.8 is pretty much as good as the more expensive versions, and though the AF is slower, it is more than good enough. You don't use a fast 50 to shoot sports or birds in flight. The rest is down to the photographer.

http://www.adorama.com …lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14 (external link)


-Tom
Flickr (external link)
F-Stop Guru review | RRS BH-40 review

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ilovetheleafs
Raising uninteresting to new levels
907 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Jul 2011
     
Jan 23, 2013 22:34 |  #42

try out both see which one you find performs better :)


Canon Rebel XS gripped, Canon 18 - 55mm, Sigma 18 - 200mm f3.5 - f6.3 DC OS HSM,Sigma 50mm f1.4 Olympus TG-810 Tough, LowePro Classified 160AW, Canon 430EX II Flash, Kata E-702

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
norbelthomas
Member
146 posts
Joined Oct 2008
     
Jan 23, 2013 23:03 |  #43

Definitely the Sigma 50mm, just run the focus test before purchasing


http://www.flickr.com/​photos/norbelthomas/ (external link)
My Gear: 450D Canon 18-55 kit+50mm F/1.8 Canon 70-200/F4 L USM Canon 580EXII speedlight
Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG EX HSM E-P1+M14-42 kit lens

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SoCalTiger
Goldmember
Avatar
1,748 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Jul 2012
Location: SoCal
     
Jan 23, 2013 23:14 |  #44

I have both the Sigma and Canon 50 1.4s right now (one for each of my two bodies). I have no problems with either and they are my favorite 2 lenses to use. The Sigma has much better bokeh, though. The Sigma front-focuses on my body without MA (fine at F/2.8 but not usable F/2.0 or wider) but as luck would have it, it is dead-on on my body that has MA. MA is really just luck of the draw due to the tolerances on bodies.

My Sigma copy is also sharp by F/1.6. I love it.

If I could only choose one, I'd go with the Sigma. Your 50D has MA so it is relatively safe for you to go this route.


Laurence (external link) :: 6D + Lens

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,997 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5826
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jan 24, 2013 06:34 |  #45

frankwite wrote in post #15524052 (external link)
When I'm inside the canon 1.4 is my absolute most used lens. It stays glued to my camera and I have not had any problems ever shooting at 1.4 which is why I bought the lens. As for this lens being soft well I never understood that argument.

I shoot people portraits 99% of the time and I never understood why people would want skin sharpened where you can see their pores. If the eyes aren't as sharp as I want them to be then that's why I invested in pp software. I can then sharpen only what needs to be sharpen and skin isn't one of them. Futhermore I love the softness that the canon provides for portraits.

If you shoot in raw (which I do) every photo will need some sort of sharpening in post if you're looking for razor sharp images. A simple USM will do the trick.

As for sigma lenses well I've had a 70-200 2.8 when I was shooting with sony alpha and it was an awesome lens BUT when I moved to canon I purchased the sigma 30 1.4 lens it had front focusing issues so I returned it. At that very moment I decided that I would always just save the money for canon or just do without. The good thing however about sigma and tamron they have way better warranties, but who wants to keep sending a lens in over and over.

1) The Sigma 50mm is built better than the Canon.
2) The Sigma has better bokeh (somewhat subjective, but it is definitely different) than the Canon.

You don't have to send the lens in over and over, you send it once with enough data for Sigma to do the adjustment. It is not rocket science. You buy a lens, see how it behaves, send it to Sigma, they adjust it, and you are good to go. WIth the Canon, you might get a sharp copy (they vary quite a bit), you might use it for a couple of years, and bam, your AF hangs up. You are out of luck, no warranty.

I choose the better built, longer warranty, better bokeh lens, and don't have to worry about no warranty later. I have fixed too many Canon 1.4 lenses, and have given up on them.

Also, I won't dig into your other disrespectful replies, cdifoto can take care of himself, but you really need to think a bit broader about the varied needs of photographers, gear, and post processing. It makes perfect sense to make sure you can get the absolute best image you can optically, and you can then introduce "defects" during post. If your lens produces inferior optical results, there is little you can do to really bring a great photo technically out of that result.

To the OP: click my mini-reviews link below where I ran my calibrated Sigma against a run of the mill Canon 50mm side by side. Sure some Canon 50mm are better than the one I had, but it is just as much a lottery as getting a Sigma that needs calibrated.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,142 views & 0 likes for this thread
Looking for a 50mm f1.4. Are there any good ones?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Panzer90
1094 guests, 335 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.