Which 50mm lens and why?

Sovern wrote in post #15285539
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.

Yeah, but it'll still look like a photo taken with a 85mm lens. On a crop body, a 28mm is still a 28mm lens. FOV equivalent might be close to 45mm or so but it will still have all the characteristics of a 28mm. Same thing with a 50mm on a cropper. You have 80mm FOV equivalent but it's still less flattering than a 85mm on a crop for tight portraits.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15285667
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?

I've tried the 50 1.8, Canon & Sigma 50 1.4, 50L f1.2 and they are all compromises. The 50 1.8 is a cheap toy-like lens. I wouldn't use it in any serious situation. So you are really down to 3 choices. If you don't care about low light focusing, then the Canon or Sigma 50 1.4 are good choices. I'd probably go with the Sigma between the 2 of them.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15283960
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

Your ability to manual focus doesn't make the lens better or worst. As a matter of fact many choose manual focusing for critical situations where you cannot rely on af.
You need a good screen, a lens that allows you to focus smoothly and practice with mf... people did this for many many years.
On topic, I think that it is difficult to choose a best overall 50.
If you are on a budget and need af the 50 1.8
If you you can afford a little more, the canon 1.4
If you are willing to gamble, the sigma 1.4
If you are going to work in low light and need the af, 50L - not only because of the extra aperture but because of the af consistency. You have to learn about focus shift, an inherent problem in the design of this (and many other) lenses.
If you want the best IQ, period, the makro-planar.
I will let the more knowledgeable talk about alternative glass that fits in between this main stream lenses, but the CZ 50 1.7, the zuiko 50 f2, the rokkors are some of the best out there.
So, the best lens depends on your budget, your need for af, auto aperture, aperture, specific type of bokeh, maximum magnification, size and weight, and then some other things like sharpness, microcontrast, resistance to flare, weather sealing, shape of bursting stars, chromatic aberrations, performance wide open vs stopped down, not to mention the body that you shoot with ( crop vs full frame), size of the mirror...
Pick two or three things that are paramount for your need and it will be easier to decide which is the best lens- for you.
I have owned at least 2 copies of the lenses in the poll and recently moved to a ZE... I am now learning AF.

The journey with MF is over for me....well, maybe till the time I will decide that I need Leica, but with 5D MKIII you cannot change screens (officially, produced by Canon where they compensate metering). I have one MF lens with superb IQ...it is as good as nothing when I do not get shots in focus.
Talking situations where you need MF- how many are those in a life of a people photographer where you always strive to find the best light possible?

juanpafer wrote in post #15287052
Your ability to manual focus doesn't make the lens better or worst. As a matter of fact many choose manual focusing for critical situations where you cannot rely on af.
You need a good screen, a lens that allows you to focus smoothly and practice with mf... people did this for many many years.
On topic, I think that it is difficult to choose a best overall 50.
If you are on a budget and need af the 50 1.8
If you you can afford a little more, the canon 1.4
If you are willing to gamble, the sigma 1.4
If you are going to work in low light and need the af, 50L - not only because of the extra aperture but because of the af consistency. You have to learn about focus shift, an inherent problem in the design of this (and many other) lenses.
If you want the best IQ, period, the makro-planar.
I will let the more knowledgeable talk about alternative glass that fits in between this main stream lenses, but the CZ 50 1.7, the zuiko 50 f2, the rokkors are some of the best out there.
So, the best lens depends on your budget, your need for af, auto aperture, aperture, specific type of bokeh, maximum magnification, size and weight, and then some other things like sharpness, microcontrast, resistance to flare, weather sealing, shape of bursting stars, chromatic aberrations, performance wide open vs stopped down, not to mention the body that you shoot with ( crop vs full frame), size of the mirror...
Pick two or three things that are paramount for your need and it will be easier to decide which is the best lens- for you.
I have owned at least 2 copies of the lenses in the poll and recently moved to a ZE... I am now learning AF.

I never had any AF issues in my testing canon 50mm f1.4. This on 5dmk3. Sigma 50mm was little worse AF wise just a tad better in overall pictures. I didn't MA either. Was able to sell sigma quikcly after listing here on POTN and the buyer is super happy using it on his 5dc. Canon is still sitting for sale, guess nobody wants to pick a brand new one.

Canon 50 f1.4 is a good all rounder at a reasonable price. Mine gives good results compared to my friends Sigma and build quality is great. Not sure the L is three times better quality although it is three time the cost. You can also pick up little used second hand at good prices. Hope this helps!

nicksan wrote in post #15286964
Yeah, but it'll still look like a photo taken with a 85mm lens. On a crop body, a 28mm is still a 28mm lens. FOV equivalent might be close to 45mm or so but it will still have all the characteristics of a 28mm. Same thing with a 50mm on a cropper. You have 80mm FOV equivalent but it's still less flattering than a 50mm on a crop for tight portraits.

Yea I already know these things....perspective distortion whether it be compression or wide angle will be the same no manner the body as the only thing that changes is how much of the lens the camera actually "sees" which determines a equiv. focal range when compared to crop (meaning you have to back up with the crop body to get the same image the full frame would get with the same lens at a set distance).

I don't know why you think that a 50mm on a crop is more flattering than an 85 mm on a crop....85m has better compression distortion and better bokeh, true USM, and FTM compared to the 50 1.4 and they're both priced around the same amount.

Sovern wrote in post #15287427
I don't know why you think that a 50mm on a crop is more flattering than an 85 mm on a crop....85m has better compression distortion and better bokeh, true USM, and FTM compared to the 50 1.4 and they're both priced around the same amount.

My mistake. I fixed my original quote. Quite obviously, I meant to say that 50mm on a cropper won't make a 50mm lens any more flattering since we are just talking FOV. 85mm will be the more flattering lens regardless of crop factor.

The 85 1.8 is indeed a bargain lens. I used to own it. Very fast AF. Very good IQ. Just not 85L good. Depends on what you need it for. I don't need very fast AF for tight portraits so decided on the 85L MKII.

jerbear00 wrote in post #15285785
^^^ great shots with the 50 1.4

Thanks dude! As a fellow socal potn'er lets meet up to shoot sometime -- that 24 TSE could do some serious damage to the eastern sierras :P

back to the 50mm's -- great focal length once you acquainted to it

Lets sum this thread and all other 50mm threads up.... Ok here goes:

You can't really go wrong with all 3 of the listed options.. All are great. Personally, I love 50mm as its my most used FL and therefore I owned them all and kept the 50L. I could just as easily argue for the other 2 too.

jerbear00 wrote in post #15287631
Lets sum this thread and all other 50mm threads up.... Ok here goes:

You can't really go wrong with all 3 of the listed options.. All are great. Personally, I love 50mm as its my most used FL and therefore I owned them all and kept the 50L. I could just as easily argue for the other 2 too.

Actually, I see it differently. Unlike with other lenses.... there is no easy consensus on the 50mm for Canon. There is not a single lens that is very-very good. That's why you say you can't got wrong...because all of them are good, but none is stunning

I have owned all three of the Canon 50mm lenses, but never tried the Sigma. I voted for the 50L, as this is what I settled on.

The AF performance of the f/1.8 was terrible on my first two dSLR's (Rebel XT and 40D), so I gave up on it. The f/1.4 had better AF, but still was not good compared with my real USM lenses. The 50L beats them both easily in this department, and its color rendition and bokeh are both excellent. It's a pricey lens, but I use this prime focal length more than any other on a full frame body, so I decided not to compromise.

Okie, another option for you. I heard that Leica 50 1.4 Summilux rules all. Of course you can't use it on Canon DSLR but it is possible to use the Summilux in a Canon-EOS M with an adapter

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15287664
Actually, I see it differently. Unlike with other lenses.... there is no easy consensus on the 50mm for Canon. There is not a single lens that is very-very good. That's why you say you can't got wrong...because all of them are good, but none is stunning

I'd agree. Your best case is to reach some grudging level of acceptance.

I have the 50L. It's a good lens, but not worth the price.

I had the 50/1.4. It's a compromised lens that irritated me due to its focus performance. With ring-USM (like the 85/1.8) it would be a deal. Any updated version will cost over twice the current price.

ed rader wrote in post #15283516
this questions gets asked all the time...

This is the first thing that came into my mind. It's amazing how as time passes, so many of the questions (and answers) are the same.

I voted for the 50L. I have always felt that from f/1.2 to f/2 it has similar characteristics of the 85L, but with the added benefit of being able to shoot up close. Beyond f/2 I prefer the Zeiss 50mm f/2.