Canon 50 f/1.4 new life with 5D4

I am needing a small walk around lens for events and wedding receptions. With the DPAF on newer bodies like the 5DIV, do you think this lens could be a viable solution, since I could eliminate any focus issues? I realize the lens has older focus technology, but I just need the focus to be accurate, not as concerned about how fast it focuses.

Nah,

I'd get the 50 F1.8 STM if you want a cheap 50mm to walk around with, that is sharp, and accurate.

Otherwise, I'd roll a 35mm if you're into fixed focal length. If you wanted versatility, a simple 24-70 (even the F4L IS), or a 16-35 F4LIS or even old 17-40L would be great.

Still though, running a 5DIV, it just makes me wonder, why put bottom barrel stuff onto a 5DIV at someone's wedding reception?

Very best,

drmaxx wrote in post #18337760
The examples pictures you show don't require a new camera. However, if low light performance is key for you then get anything with a newer sensor. There is no necessity to switch to full format - especially, because for you the switch is a kind of expensive having a EF-S (and money being an issue). As you focus on groups of people (band) then the 15-85 is perfect and you don't really need larger apertures as well.

The 50mm f/1.4 is about 13 year old design, and (judged against more recent designs) some criticize its aperture shape, which is apparent only in out-of-focus blurred highlights at medium-to-small apertures. Frankly, I don't generally notice round vs. octagonal shapes in the out-of-focus blurred highlights, but I grew up in the film lens days where 6 or 7 blades not designed to make a 'round' aperture were the norm.
It has non-USM full time focus capability due to its age, making it silent and fast but not quite up to the standards of newer focus.
As is generally true of most 'fast normals' its wide-open contrast is not terrific, but in the days of film the concentration was on 'get the shot' even if contrast was not terrific; now with dSLR having 5-digit ISOs commonly supported, an ultrafast lens is not so much always an advantage.
Some have criticized the 50mm f/1.4 as 'horrible', but they need to voice precisely why such an harsh evaluation of the lens. Photozone.de review summarizes, "All-in-all a sound offer at a sane price."

I didn't realize the 50mm 1.4 was bottom barrel stuff. (I thought that was the 1.8 that you reccommended.) I used to own the 50mm 1.4, and liked everything about it except the focus accuracy. I was just wondering if the DPAF would help with that, and give me a small lens that I can use for capturing candids while walking around.

tim1970 wrote in post #18338966
I didn't realize the 50mm 1.4 was bottom barrel stuff. (I thought that was the 1.8 that you reccommended.)

Both are, in the context of a 5DIV at a wedding.

But if you're buying a 50mm and want it to be cheap, since you're not going for a 50ART or 50L (my assumption, could be wrong), choosing between the old 50 F1.4 and a newer 50 F1.8 STM, I'd get the STM.

Very best,

tim1970 wrote in post #18338966
I didn't realize the 50mm 1.4 was bottom barrel stuff. (I thought that was the 1.8 that you reccommended.) I used to own the 50mm 1.4, and liked everything about it except the focus accuracy. I was just wondering if the DPAF would help with that, and give me a small lens that I can use for capturing candids while walking around.

Yes, there have been some complaints, like "Focus is a 50% hit or miss thing, I was trying a few portrait shots today and that seems to be the case.: or 'erratic' or "AF on this lens isnt reliable... missing 3/5 images"

But I wonder if the problem with a very large aperture is the fact that folks might have been using center point AF and then the focus-recompose focus error induced by the user!

This seems to be reflected in one reply from someone, "Mine performs quite consistently well. Here's a test showing how it does
under static (tripod) conditions at various distances, as compared with the Sigma 50/1.4

http://www.pbase.com/t​swen/sig50af/ "

Overexpectations and poorly understood good use of the lens might account for some of the hate expressed. OTOH, there could indeed be issues with some lenses and not others, as one person wrote, "I had a new lens that literally focused randomly. Sometimes it was off by five feet. I sent it to Canon and they replaced the entire focus guts of the lens. It's worked like a champ ever since. " and then another response, "I had the same issue with my 50mm f/1.4 on a 7D - I sent it back to Canon for repair via the shop i bought it from and it's come back much, much better."

Do not buy the 50/1.4. The lens is crap even if it hadn't focusing issues.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18338996
Do not buy the 50/1.4. The lens is crap even if it hadn't focusing issues.

elaborate on the reasons for the opinion, please.
objective observations are concrete, subjective opinions are only someone's opinions without supporting observations...what are the reasons for the hate of this lens?

OBJECTIVE:

The 50 1.4 from Canon is poorly designed internally. Of course you can make sure you always store the lens fully retracted to mitigate the design flaw, but who wants that hassle? I have fixed around 4 or so of these lenses, and after tearing those apart, I will never suggest that to a potential buyer. I have never seen another lens with that design or that flaw either.

The weak point where the metal deflects and binds up AF.... This requires reshaping of the track (or a new unit), and possibly new nylon cam guides that get damaged due to the track deflection. There is also yet another AF issue in the actual motor itself, but I haven't had to repair/replace those parts. The image below is what a majority of AF issues come from.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18338957
Nah,

I'd get the 50 F1.8 STM if you want a cheap 50mm to walk around with, that is sharp, and accurate.


Very best,

Pretty much agree 100% with this. Had the 50mm f/1.4 for along time and although i didnt get too many focus errors it was never a lens i could use wide open without a lot of softness. f/2.2 seemed to be the start of sharp images. In fact this lens is the softest lens ive ever owned until stopped down quite a bit.

I got a 50mm f/1.8 STM recently as i was bored, and was knocked out by its sharpness, even wide open. Very much as usable as my 35mm f/2 IS, which is much more usable than my old f/1.4. The AF is a bit slow but its accurate and hasn't missed the spot yet. This is on my old 5D3 and current 5D4.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18339055
OBJECTIVE:

The 50 1.4 from Canon is poorly designed internally. Of course you can make sure you always store the lens fully retracted to mitigate the design flaw, but who wants that hassle? I have fixed around 4 or so of these lenses, and after tearing those apart, I will never suggest that to a potential buyer. I have never seen another lens with that design or that flaw either.

The weak point where the metal deflects and binds up AF.... This requires reshaping of the track (or a new unit), and possibly new nylon cam guides that get damaged due to the track deflection. There is also yet another AF issue in the actual motor itself, but I haven't had to repair/replace those parts. The image below is what a majority of AF issues come from.

Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=183​39055&i=i72722250
forum: Canon Lenses

SUBJECTIVE:

Also I find the bokeh to be "nervous", it has a strange rendering to OOF objects that have defined edges or lines.

One of each

Thx, valid reasons to rate the 50mm f/1.4 lower. OTOH I have seen photos of Canon 50mm f/1.2 broken in half from a fall to the floor from the seat of a car, too.
And many other lenses from lots of sources have poor bokeh as well; but I think boken itself has far too much 'visibility' than is warranted, having gotten attention 20 years ago.
(NOT defending the 50mm f/1.4, just sayin' in general...)

Wilt wrote in post #18339072
Thx, valid reasons to rate the 50mm f/1.4 lower. OTOH I have seen photos of Canon 50mm f/1.2 broken in half from a fall to the floor from the seat of a car, too.
And many other lenses from lots of sources have poor bokeh as well; but I think boken itself has far too much 'visibility' than is warranted, having gotten attention 20 years ago.
(NOT defending the 50mm f/1.4, just sayin' in general...)

Dropping a lens causing a repair is one thing. This lens can just be stored in a bag with the element fully out, and over time that AF track gets lopperjawed enough to prevent AF, or cause AF to bind. There are 2 pressure points on about 1/8" material (aluminum), and will twist that assembly. So knocking the lens or even storing it with the element out could cause issues at any time.

Take this design issue, and couple it with the other factors, and you quickly get a lens that seems overpriced at $300+. The 50 1.8 STM seems to get great reviews, and you can get 2-3 of those for the price of the f1.4.

As for bokeh differences, here is an image from my mini-review of the old Sigma 50 1.4 to the Canon. Top is Canon, bottom is the old Sigma 50 1.4 (pre-ART). There were enough of these as I tested the two, that I quickly decided I didn't like the Canon. The 100-400 (first gen) has some of the same renderings too.

However this is subjective, I had people in that mini review years back that said they preferred the Canon better. Years later, I still have that Sigma lens. I had Sigma calibrate it, and I haven't sold it since. I would suggest finding an old Sigma 50 1.4 over the Canon 1.4 if that is an option, if one had to have f1.4.

Sigma wide open, large sized: https://photos.smugmug​.com …59c696/X5/BIG_5​426-X5.jpg

Wilt wrote in post #18339036
elaborate on the reasons for the opinion, please.
objective observations are concrete, subjective opinions are only someone's opinions without supporting observations...what are the reasons for the hate of this lens?

I think others have already posted enough good reasons to stay away.

Let's recap:
- Prone to failure
- Ancient design with disappointing optical performance
- Unreliable focusing
- Crappy color rendering
- Cheap build

FWIW, there are some of us out here who love their 50 f/1.4.

And, for reasons too crazy to set forth here, I also have the STM.

I like the 50 f/1.4 much better.

I will say that when I bought the f/1.4 refurb from Canon a couple of years back, it did have focus issues. They fixed it for free (under warranty) returned it and it is a wonderfully sharp lens and my go to lens for group shots (I prefer it over my 24-70 f/2.8 II for that purpose - hands down).

tim1970 wrote in post #18338952
I am needing a small walk around lens for events and wedding receptions. With the DPAF on newer bodies like the 5DIV, do you think this lens could be a viable solution, since I could eliminate any focus issues? I realize the lens has older focus technology, but I just need the focus to be accurate, not as concerned about how fast it focuses.

Are you sure that the 50mm focal length will meet your needs? Its still too short for portraits, but not particularly wide. If you decide to go for something a bit wider, I would recommend the stellar 35mm f/2 IS USM. Its a terrific 35mm which is highly rated by DXOMark. On paper an f/2 lens will let in one stop of light less than an f/1.4 lens. In reality based on DXOMark light transmission tests, most f/1.4 lenses have a light transmission of 1.6 or 1.8 while the 35mm f/2 IS has a light transmission of 2.0. So the difference in light transmission is not 1 stop but rather only between 1/3 to 2/3 stop. And the 35mm f/2 IS has image stabilization which is very useful for static subjects in low light. It also is lightweight and compact and currently costs $549 USD.