Me and the 50mm prime options

Been to an indoors event where I didn't want to use flash and I went by mostly fine with the 85mm f/1.8 and a 5d2 at high ISO. A little long of course and more light wouldn't hurt.

So I wanted to take advantage of Newegg having the 50mm f/1.4 for $339.

Unfortunately that didn't survive visiting the-digital-image and the test charts. What I see there from a sharpness standpoint from the 50mm f/1.4, f/1.2L and the Sigma is really not that great, and both Canons purple around, too. Closing down (in the test site) doesn't "fix" it either. Putting the 24-70 in there, too, I see that it has the sharpness I expect (with everyone at f/2.8). The 85mm f/1.8 also looks better (I like mine).

I have a 28-70 f/2.8 that I had also decided to sell. But now I'm not so sure. I mean I want f/1.4 for using it in low light but if I'm giving up sharpness even at f/2.8 what's the point?

I also have a 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar but I didn't get a focusing screen for the 5d2 yet. I used it on my 1d2 and I don't think it's that great compared to the 85mm f/1.8 either.


What's your take on the 50mm options?

Do I just have to live with the weaknesses if I want f/1.4 or what's going on?

In all honesty I am now using a 50 f1.4 and it's honestly a fine lens. I've had 4 copies of this lens over the years and 3 copies of the 50L. The 50L definitely has better bokeh, but it's significantly larger, heavier, and more expensive. I sold it and bought the 1.4 instead because I could use the extra cash. I don't feel that limited by the 1.4. I'd say go for it!

There is inherent copy variation with both the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma f/1.4. I've personally used both, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 was soft at f/1.4 and was tack sharp by f/2.0. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 I used was SHARP at f/1.4. It did get sharper stopped down, but now by much. I used a second Sigmalux some time later, and it was noticeable softer than my first Sigmalux, but not that bad. It was useable with a bit of PP at f/1.4

All that being said, I ended up with a 50L... sharpness falls a bit short of the first Sigma 50mm f/1.4 I used, but it's the other qualities of the lens that made me choose the L.

In any case, you don't need to live with a weak 50mm at f/1.4, there ARE copies out there perform at least acceptably at f/1.4. Otherwise, like you said, everybody would probably just end up using a f/2.8 zoom..

Yeah my early copy of the 50 f/1.4 was mediocre wide open and decent stopped down. I've been fortunate that the other copies I've tried were all very good (It was just me that was indecisive)

The copy I have right now is quite good wide open and excellent from f/2 onwards (where I use it most often anyways)

I did try a Sigma 50mm in between there and It was the most aggravating lens because it had such schizophrenic AF I could never get anything consistent. Even after 3 trips to Sigma for repair / calibration.

Basically what I'm saying is, Give the Canon 50mm 1.4 a chance. A good copy of this lens is a fine performer.

Well what the heck.

I rather try it now while it's $339. Done. Let's see how the lottery turns out.

good luck!

Nah. Didn't work out. Fringing hell. I mean it's really bad. I just cross-checked with my 85 1.8 and my 1.4 50mm Super Takumar and they are much better.

I will never mock the 85mm again

I don't think fringing is much of an individual lens thing, right? No point getting it adjusted or exchanged for the same lens? Would some piece of glass being misadjusted cause fringing but still give a sharp picture?

Sounds like it's time for pics.

Sorry to hear that it didn't work out. Have you thought about exchanging it to see if it's an anomaly?

I'll post after the shock wears off.

As I said I'm not sure whether fringing is an individual lens thing. Is there a chance another one might be better?

I just got the Sigma two weeks ago...I must say I am blown away. I actually spend less time in Lr as the colours are so vivid.

I guess it depends on your tolerance for fringing. Meaning, it could just be the lens or you could be picky . That's why I asked about a pic. With that I could get a better idea if it's the individual lens or if what you're seeing is normal and just not acceptable.

I just sold my 28-70 2.8 for a 35L. In reflection, that was not my best idea and I learned that quickly. I would caution you againist selling it unless you literally never use it. Took one portrait session to realize I had made a mistake in selling it.

I have both the 1.4 and the 1.2 and the 85L and 35L. In all honesty the 1.4 is an awesome lens. I think it is really quite sharp and you won't be disappointed. Here is a like to some pics I took all with the 1.4. As you can see the sharpness is quite good. These have no post so it is a real example with no sharpening etc in PP. I like the 1.4 better than the Sigma. I tried two copies and both had focus issues. Others seem to have gotten good copies but I wasn't so lucky. Then again I got a nice 1.4 with no focus issues and others report having failed motors which mine doesn't.
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1124588

I went from the Sigmalux to the Canon 50 1.4 and have not looked back. Some MA was needed, but I get shots I keep at f1.4. Yes, in specific conditions, I get fringing, but I rarely use it at f.14-f1.8 when I have lighting that will provide those highlights. The worst examples I had were some from a car show where chrome was providing a lot of extreme highlights.

Well I was upset and hence sloppy with the comparison shots between the lenses.

However, even in there non-cropped shots you can see that the planes of light and color just don't match. Purple in front, green in back.

All shots are with single-point AF right in the middle.