Which 50mm lens and why?

for me the Zeiss 50 MP/2 is the best, which is why i chose it.

To me, the best overall 50mm should produce great results, very often, in many situations, without too much effort. Certainly the a Leica 50 0.95 will excel in no light, a Nikon 58 1.2 will produce amazing night shots, etc.... But the goal is 'general' excellence.

The Zeiss 50 MP/2 ZE is Razor sharp at f2 frame wide on ff, zero focus shift, flat focal plane, no lat CA, low long CA, zero distortion, high local contrast, plus close focus capability, plus easy to focus. This, for me, makes it my ideal walkaround lens and general purpose 50mm.

I haven't bought it yet, but I will get the 50L or Nikkor 58 1.2 once my Wide and Tele primes are purchased, too fill my ultra-fast needs.

For a great multi-purpose 50mm the Zeiss 50 MP/2 is hard to beat though.

There are various comparison pages floating around the web that show the 50L as having rather blocky looking blur on background highlights, and the Sigma is clearly better here. Sure, I guess the 50L might beat it in other departments, maybe color rendering in bright light or contrast. But for me the 50mm f/1.4 spot is a spot held by a lens that I want to use in low light with no flash, and from samples the Sigma seems to do better. Of course the 50L let's in 36% more light so if it gets really dark you get what you pay for. But then a 50mm is also a walkaround lens and the lighter and cheaper Sigma might be handy here, too.

The Canon on-L is way too trashy for my taste.

I did not consider Zeiss because of MF. My experience tells me, no matter how good the lens optically is, you need to be able to nail the focus consistently, otherwise....what is the point

NatDeroxL7 wrote in post #15283554
for me the Zeiss 50 MP/2 is the best, which is why i chose it.

To me, the best overall 50mm should produce great results, very often, in many situations, without too much effort. Certainly the a Leica 50 0.95 will excel in no light, a Nikon 58 1.2 will produce amazing night shots, etc.... But the goal is 'general' excellence.

The Zeiss 50 MP/2 ZE is Razor sharp at f2 frame wide on ff, zero focus shift, flat focal plane, no lat CA, low long CA, zero distortion, high local contrast, plus close focus capability, plus easy to focus. This, for me, makes it my ideal walkaround lens and general purpose 50mm.

I haven't bought it yet, but I will get the 50L or Nikkor 58 1.2 once my Wide and Tele primes are purchased, too fill my ultra-fast needs.

For a great multi-purpose 50mm the Zeiss 50 MP/2 is hard to beat though.

The only problem with Sigma....it is not yet my experience....is that you never know whether you will get a good copy. I do not have a lot of time to send it back and see if a new one if better.

I had sigma and canon at the same time. Very small differences between the two. Canon has better AF. Sold Sigma as I am mainly using 35mm. My brand new 50mm f1.4 is up for sale.

Wouldn't the Canon 50 f1.0L be the best? Best bokeh and best at low light due to being only f1.0 wide open and an L lens......

Otherwise personally I'd just go with the Canon 85 1.8, better bokeh than the 50 1.4, focuses faster and has true USM compared to the 50 1.4, focuses faster than the 85 1.2L and possibly the 50 1.2L, has better compression than the 50mm, is also extremely good for how much you pay for it (around $350 new).

how would you know that you had a bad copy of the sigma?

im also stuck between getting the canon and the sigma. i dont really want to coin flip that ill get a good copy of the sigma. but from what ive heard so far, the sigma is a bit better in sharpness/color saturation and over all picture quality. a slight lead to the canon perhaps enough to make that purchase.

also, is the auto focus manual the same of the two? (mean, the canon is all time manual focus, and im guessing the sigma is the same there?)

Sovern wrote in post #15284864
Wouldn't the Canon 50 f1.0L be the best? Best bokeh and best at low light due to being only f1.0 wide open and an L lens......

Otherwise personally I'd just go with the Canon 85 1.8, better bokeh than the 50 1.4, focuses faster and has true USM compared to the 50 1.4, focuses faster than the 85 1.2L and possibly the 50 1.2L, has better compression than the 50mm, is also extremely good for how much you pay for it (around $350 new).

My impression is that the 50 f1.0 L was a shabby lens in its hey day and it's more like a collector's item than anything else these days.

I don't understand how folks can interchange a 50mm lens with a 35mm or 85mm lens. They are vastly different in their characteristics. For example, if you want to shoot tight portraits, you probably would want the 85mm instead of the 50mm precisely due to "better" compression. It's just a more flattering lens for that kind of shooting.

I'd say make a decision based on specific usage. For me, the Sigma 50 was a non-starter due to iffy focusing in low light. I had my battles with the 50L in the past, but I NEEDED a 50mm prime, so in the end, that's what I went with. A 35mm lens can never replace my need at 50mm. Same thing with the 85mm. I wouldn't dare shoot what I shoot at 85mm with a 50mm lens.

nicksan wrote in post #15285359
My impression is that the 50 f1.0 L was a shabby lens in its hey day and it's more like a collector's item than anything else these days.

I don't understand how folks can interchange a 50mm lens with a 35mm or 85mm lens. They are vastly different in their characteristics. For example, if you want to shoot tight portraits, you probably would want the 85mm instead of the 50mm precisely due to "better" compression. It's just a more flattering lens for that kind of shooting.

I'd say make a decision based on specific usage. For me, the Sigma 50 was a non-starter due to iffy focusing in low light. I had my battles with the 50L in the past, but I NEEDED a 50mm prime, so in the end, that's what I went with. A 35mm lens can never replace my need at 50mm. Same thing with the 85mm. I wouldn't dare shoot what I shoot at 85mm with a 50mm lens.

The thing is you can shoot "loose" environmental portraits also with the 85mm you just have to back up a little.....on crop body at least I don't see much of a point in 50mm as a 28mm(or 30mm)/85mm prime set up would be better.

What is the opinion and is there a consensus among people that tried hard over years to find a decent 50mm and tried many different lenses?
Any of them is a compromise? I think I only have one lens that is delivering astonishing results consistently - 70-200II. I do not even know what can be better about this lens...maybe 10 years from now they will have 70-200 III which is going to be lighter, more compact, even sharper, even better contrast and with ultra advanced IS. Today I do not think there is a better lens in this FL.

So what about 50mm, is L exactly this lens or it is not something that will make you wanna photograph with it over and over again?

davidc502 wrote in post #15282685
If money wasn't an object then I'd get a 50L.

Better bokeh, better auto-focus, and a much better build.

Get a 50L. Owned the others and the L is better. Not only rendering, bokeh, and build but the AF is still better in low light even with a good copy sigma. My L is sharper than the others I owned as well according to reiken focal charts using same settings/light

...

i like the 50 1.4 for the size (price factor places a huge part too) -- 50L if money was no object or if you're a professional photographer that photographs human beings

ninhja wrote in post #15285760
i like the 50 1.4 for the size (price factor places a huge part too) -- 50L if money was no object or if you're a professional photographer that photographs human beings

^^^ great shots with the 50 1.4

I chose the Canon 50 f1.4 as I could not justify the price of the 50 L given that my 50 is not used everyday and did not want the bulk and weight of the 50 L. My copy of the 50 f1.4 has proved to focus reliably although not as quickly as my L lenses and gives sharp results so I have been more than happy with it.

Neil