Not one 50mm I want to buy

So as a bit of a rant....

I've never really thought much about 50mm lenses, I don't use that FL length much, but over the last year there are been a few times when the 85 is too long and a reasonably fast 50mm (f2 or faster) would be nice. And I haven't bought a lens for 6 months so I thought I'd take a more serious look at the 50's out there.

So I started actually seriously looking and realized that if I want nice bokeh and something that focuses consistently/quickly I'm looking at $1500.

Bollocks!

Makes me realize what good value the 135L is. I don't mind spending money of good glass that I'm going to use a lot, but I'd rather put that $1500 to an 85L and lose the sigma.

Of course I could just get the sigma 50, but I already have a love-hate relationship with the S-85 (somewhat frustrating AF to use, but always come away with really nice images).

Not sure I'm prepared for messing with the sigma or the bokeh of the Canon 1.4 (been looking at samples). Not sure if the Canon would handle indoor sports like basketball either. If I do get the Canon 1.4 it will be feeling like a lens I'm forced into buying rather than one I really wanted.

Really, shouldn't this be the easiest FL to design and produce something reasonable? No decent 50 1.8 even? I had one on my A-1 that was OK as far as I could tell - at least it was built well.

/rant.

Anyone else bought a lens that they needed but were not really excited about getting?

What's wrong with the 50mm 1.4 Canon lens? I have the 50 1.8 and the images it can produce are pretty amazing for such a cheap lens. The bokeh is good too, granted any lights look hexagonal rather than round.

dredwings3119 wrote in post #16056021
What's wrong with the 50mm 1.4 Canon lens? I have the 50 1.8 and the images it can produce are pretty amazing for such a cheap lens. The bokeh is good too, granted any lights look hexagonal rather than round.

I think you mean pentagonal. I believe I would be much happier if my f/1.8 OOF lights were hexagonal.

The f/1.4 at least is octagonal and almost a circle. It needs an updating on the focus mechanism. Slight sharpness improvement would also be nice.

I'll keep my 50CM (unfortunately it is only f/2.5 and 50mm f/1.8 MKI (at least it has a good build). It would be nice if Canon comes up with an update, or Sigma with an 50mm ART.

I'm surprised that Canon has allowed this focal length to stagnate. A middle of the road 50 should have been released years ago to take over for the mediocre 1.4. Now I imagine the next one will be an IS-equipped, sticker shocking, albeit optically great 50 that polarizes folks due to the price tag.

I totally agree and after trying 2 copies of the Canon 1.4 on my original 5D, neither of which focused accurately wide open and both of which had halos, and after trying 2 copies of the 50CM, both of which were fuzzy in one corner to f/8, and having owned a nifty mki and hating Chrysler style bokeh, and feeling that it was ridiculous to pay for and have to carry the 1.2 when all I want is a decent 1.4 or 1.8, I now have a Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro, a CZ Contax 50mm f/1.7 and a 40mm Pancake, no one of which does everything I want it to, but each with an attribute or two that makes it indespensable with what each of the others lack. I always carry the Pancake plus usually one of the other two depending what I expect to do that day. Total price paid for the 3 lenses was $500, which I would have happily paid for a single Canon 50mm 1.4 lens that worked properly and was actually usable at 1.4. I don't think that will ever happen now with the prices Canon is putting on its updated lenses. The most likely eventual solution will be if Sigma updates their 1.4 with a dock adjustable version, if the dock gives some assurance of compatability with future Canon bodies, but that is a big if.

I think your rant is completely reasonable.

I wonder if I could get away with a 2.8. Problem is it would be on my 7D where I don't have the luxury of cranking up the ISO. Does the pancake focus quickly - i.e could follow indoor soccer/basketball? Didn't think about that lens. I'll have to look at it. Didn't know Sigma had a 50mm 2.8 either.

Also wondering now if I can get away with using a 35mm instead - on the 7D at least. The new sigma sounds great, not sure how fast the AF is, but I think it's going to be a bit wide for what I want though.

I agree that a 50mm update will be welcomed. I have the 30/1.4 and I would think the 35 option would be too wide for indoor sports on a 7D. I think the Canon 50/1.4 would get you by for now though, but think of it as an f1.8 or 2.0 lens. That is still faster than any zoom of that length.

On the other hand, if you think 2.8 is fast enough, you could sell your 24-105 and buy a 24-70 II for about $1500 invested and gain a zoom advantage useful for sports.

If you can handle MF there is a whole world of wonderful 50's out there that can be easily adapted to work on your Canon. Look at my gear list. Gene

While I am surprised like many others that Canon hasn't released a newer version of the 50mm yet, my 50 f/1.4 has been razor sharp and never had focusing problems.

However I would like them to update the 50 f/1.4 and the 50 f/1.2 though by installing a true USM motor in the f/1.4 plus add IS to the f/1.2.

Thorrulz wrote in post #16056714
While I am surprised like many others that Canon hasn't released a newer version of the 50mm yet, my 50 f/1.4 has been razor sharp and never had focusing problems.

However I would like them to update the 50 f/1.4 and the 50 f/1.2 though by installing a true USM motor in the f/1.4 plus add IS to the f/1.2.

My last canon 50 1.4 as well, which I just sold to a friend last week, was razor sharp and AF was surprisingly very good. This is compared to my previous canon 50 1.4 which seems to be like "average" sharpness and hunted in low light where my 35 and 85 didn't.

I sold it, because in high contrast afternoon sun, the "signature" halo-ing and harsh highlights in the OOF areas caused a busier bokeh than my 85 or 35. However, in all other situations, the canon 50 1.4 produces very great images like we expect a 50mm should. I'm talking at f1.4 too.

The sigma 50 was my solution, it's bokeh is very good in all situation. However the af is just ok and the sharpness is a few tad softer than my latest sold canon 1.4 at f1.4. Because of that, I mostly just use my 85 and 35 unless I can bring only one prime with me.

It seems like the 50mm is a hard focal length to get both, great bokeh and reliable AF. It make me wonder too about my previously owned canon 50s. The sharper the copy, the more harsh is the bokeh. I didn't do a scientific direct compare, but it was noticeable difference after shooting a few sessions with my last copy.

Whoever makes the next 50mm 1.4 on par with the 85 and 35 will make a mint. As we all know, the 50mm is a very desirable focal length. I have already prepared for the high price tag simply because company's know it will sell like hot cakes. However, my wish is to have both sigma, tamron and canon to come out with their better 50mm at the same time.

Thorrulz wrote in post #16056714
While I am surprised like many others that Canon hasn't released a newer version of the 50mm yet, my 50 f/1.4 has been razor sharp and never had focusing problems.

However I would like them to update the 50 f/1.4 and the 50 f/1.2 though by installing a true USM motor in the f/1.4 plus add IS to the f/1.2.

I'd hate to see the price of a 50mm f/1.2 L IS -- probably at least $2,500 based on Canon's current pricing of new lenses.

I am quite happy with my existing 50L, and have no need for IS based on what I use the lens for.

I had the same opinion as the OP until I finally just bought the 50L. The 50L is an excellent lens, and while the price is high, having a 50mm prime is important to me and the lens does what I need.

I found the focus performance of the 50/1.8 to be unnacceptable, and while the 50/1.4 works well in good light it begins to hunt and miss in the lowest of light levels. The number one reason I have the 50L is because it focuses well.

i kind of feel the same way with the 35mm, i'd like it to be faster than 2.8. i don't have the cash to fork over for the sigma or the L for as little as i use it. FWIW the 50 1.4 isnt bad but it is getting old and you know when the new one comes out its going to and $700-800.

I can understand sigmas variance in lens quality, but I can't understand why one canon 1.4 is going to be different from the next.

Germans seem to be the best at quality control.

I agree with Jeffrey, try out a 50L, you might be surprised! I absolutely love that lens, AF is quick and hardly ever hunts, sharpness is good not razor sharp, but usable. Just recently re-acquired an 85 1.8 and it hunts a whole lot more than my 50 ever has, really surprised me.
If you didn't need AF, I'd look at the Zeiss 1,4 or 50mp or even old ones with an adapter. I used to have a Sigma 50, which is a nice lens once you find a good copy, hopefully Sigma will Come out with an Art version soon.