Canon 50mm f1.4 - first impressions

I decided to go for the 1.4 over the 1.8 in the end, and first impressions are good.

Without pixel peeping, I can say that for my copy IQ is best between f2.2 and f8.

f1.4 and f1.8 are virtually unusable, especially f1.4 which is extremely soft with significant CA.

1/1000, f2.8, IS400, no post processing apart from jpg compression

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Here's another.

1/1600, f2.8, IS400, no post processing apart from jpg compression

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I would also describe my 50 1.4 unuseable at 1.4. (I've just never heard anyone else say it..)

Most lenses perform best stopped down a little. My 50mm f/1.8 II is acceptable at f/1.8 , but I don't like the extremely limited dof you get with close ups, and I've never had the opportunity or desire to do much portrait stuff, so it has little value to me as a low light lens.

On the whole I am not that fond of 50mm focal length on a crop camera but love it on full-frame. for that reason I decided to stick with the thrifty version!

One thing I didn't really get from your post - are you happy with this lens? sounds like you are maybe a little disappointed. Perhaps you should have it calibrated, surely the f/1.4 and 1.8 apertures should be acceptable.

Out of interest, could you post a full size, then crop of a photo taken at f1.4?

Nice cat!

steved110 wrote in post #2120107
are you happy with this lens? sounds like you are maybe a little disappointed. Perhaps you should have it calibrated, surely the f/1.4 and 1.8 apertures should be acceptable.

Yes, I'm happy! Almost everyone else has said the same about it performing badly at 1.4 so I don't expect calibration to help. Canon would just say it's focusing normally according to rheir tests, and the focus does seem to be accurate.

I don't mind stopping down to 2.2 and maybe 1.8 if the light demands it.

I got this because my 17-40 is soft at 40mm and my 70-200 is too long for portraits.

And contrary to what other people say I think the focal length is good for portraits on a crop body.

This is my 50 1.4.
I post this as a good example to represent the lens's performance (not as conclusive proof)
This was one of many pics I took soon after purchasing the 50 1.4 and finding no pics wide open or close to acceptable)

At 2.5:

I'm glad you are happy. So long as you don't mind using it stopped down some, that's the main thing.

I would agree that the 50 is ideal for portraits on a crop body - I just don't do much of them, I prefer landscape and environmental portraiture. I do most of my people pics outside, and find the 70-200 f/4 perfect for that, though I am also very pleased with the 50 's outdoor performance too.

Here's an example of a soft image at f1.4. Focus was on the white bar above the window.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

And a vast improvement at f1.8.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Ewww

That's bad. My 50/1.8 is pretty sharp wide open.

I am waiting for the zeiss to release their 50/1.4 again. Should knock the canon version right out.

Man, that CA sucks. I like my two Pentax 50mm's of all the 50mm's I tried. Both fine and usable wide open at 1.4 and 1.7 respectively, tho get even better stopped a tad or two. Of course, no AF

God almighty.. what's the point of buying a 1.4 if it can't even take semi-decent shots at 1.4
That Sydney Harbour pic is appalling.

Thanks both of you for the examples at f1.4. Seems much better at 2.5.

Still, useable for very low light if needed I suppose!