You would buy now Canon 50/1.4?

Hello,
now a lot of interesting Prime Lens , for example Canon 50/1.8 STM ,Canon 24/2.4 STM
you would buy now Canon 50/1.4?

i would as i like the focal length on a full frame camera. what do you intend to shoot with it?

If you aren't purchasing it new. Check that the focus works as the 50/1.4 is known for eventual failure. It's a decent lens.

.

Oleg2010 wrote in post #18775158
Would you now buy the Canon 50/1.4?

.
No. . The 50mm focal length doesn't fit the way I want to shoot at all. . If I had a 50mm lens, I would never use it because I don't like to frame shots that way.

So no, I wouldn't buy the Canon 50mm f1.4, nor any other 50mm lens (unless it were a true 1:1 macro in a native EF mount with autofocus and I could get it for, like, $100).


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18775430
.

.
No. . The 50mm focal length doesn't fit the way I want to shoot at all. . If I had a 50mm lens, I would never use it because I don't like to frame shots that way.

So no, I wouldn't buy the Canon 50mm f1.4, nor any other 50mm lens (unless it were a true 1:1 macro in a native EF mount with autofocus and I could get it for, like, $100).


.

I don't think a 1:1 50mm lens, in any mount for the 35mm format, is going to be a particularly useable. At 1:1 the working distance for a 50mm lens is going to be tiny. Pretty much every 50mm macro lens that I have ever seen has been limited to 1:2 magnification. I still think that a 50mm ƒ/2.8 2:1 macro lens for the 35mm format is a nice option. The falt field would make it a great copy lens for flat subjects.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18775617
I don't think a 1:1 50mm lens, in any mount for the 35mm format, is going to be a particularly useable. At 1:1 the working distance for a 50mm lens is going to be tiny. Pretty much every 50mm macro lens that I have ever seen has been limited to 2:1 magnification. I still think that a 50mm ƒ/2.8 2:1 macro lens for the 35mm format is a nice option. The falt field would make it a great copy lens for flat subjects.

Alan

2:1 or 1:2?

Oleg2010 wrote in post #18775158
Hello,
now a lot of interesting Prime Lens , for example Canon 50/1.8 STM ,Canon 24/2.4 STM
you would buy now Canon 50/1.4?

Oleg. Based on my history with the 50 1.4 I would recommend against buying it. I found the image quality a little underwhelming and the focus was not so great. Mine had to go to Canon for service a couple of times too. The reputation of the 50 1.4 being fragile seems well deserved. I didn't like the other options @ 50mm so I went 35 & 85. Hope that help you out.

The only reasons why I might buy one today would be because it's not very expensive, but has fairly decent optical quality, and it's small and light. The Sigma Art, for example, while optically better, costs much more, is much larger, and weighs nearly 3 times as much as the diminutive EF 50mm f/1.4. That counts for something! My 50mm f/1.4 is very sharp and focuses quickly. It's a handy lens to have. I don't think it's lacking anything in the sharpness department, but I'm shooting it on an old 12.8 mp 5D. What do I know?

But would I buy it now? With all the other excellent options out there? If I had the cash to pick whatever I wanted? No, I wouldn't. If I were cash strapped? I'd look very long and hard at the 50mm f/1.8 STM. That's an excellent lens, especially for the money.

for the price it cant be beat, imo.

Archibald wrote in post #18775653
2:1 or 1:2?

Oops, fixed it now.

Alan

I have the Canon 50F1.4 and the 50F1.8 STM. The AF is faster and more reliable on the F1.4 model, but I think that my 50STM is sharper once you get to at least F2. I don’t even try to use the STM lens at F1.8 because of excessive vignetting. It works fine at F2.

If you are OK with F2, I would get the STM for image quality. The contrast is pretty good. If you need faster than this, and want to shoot at say F1.6, then I would get the F1.4 lens. I always use the Canon hoods on these lenses and store them with the hoods in place. This has protected the moving front element groups from getting bumped.

I have the 50mm f/1.4 and, while I don't use it a lot at all, when I do it produces razor sharp results.

I'm quite happy with mine...

No. Bokeh is not very good and AF is unreliable. At least on the two copies I have tried it was very hit and miss, especially at large apertures. Sharpness is not very good until f2-f2.5. Unfortunately the options for good 50mm are limited (basically the cheap STM or the 1.2L). The sigmas can have AF issues too.

I ended up opting for the Tamron 45 and selling my 50 1.4. The Tamron suits my needs, AF is reasonably accurate (~90%) but not particularly snappy (still faster than the 50 STM which I also have), and much sharper than the 50 STM.

The tamron 45 is $200 off now so only $100 more than the Canon 1.4. Although I do like my EF 50/1.4, I would have to go the tamron route if I were in the market today.

Lol Tamron gets autocorrected as Tampon on my phone now. That would have changed the post a bit.

50 1.8 stm is what I have now. I loved the 50 1.4 but double tapping to make sure one was in focus was not my cup of tea.