Canon 50mm f1.4 - first impressions

f1.4 doesn't seem usable at all on your lens I have a 50 f/1.4 and find at f/1.4 is still very usable and my shots are not as soft as yours exhibit - reminds me when i brought a sigma lens and when used at max apperature f/2.8 it was very soft, so i just took it back for a refund and brought the tamron equilvavent instead. Will try and find some pictures i've taken to double check that i'm not talking 'bull'

It does look defective. It's possible that the AF isn't functioning properly OR it's just a bit out of focus, making it seem like it's soft.

Take a picture of a ruler or a newspaper at a very slight angle.

Choderboy wrote in post #2120143
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)

To me this looks like an OOF image - the background is too much in focus for an F1.4 shot if the focus point was the buoy...

I never can understand this?
My Canon 50mm f/1.4 is sharp at f/1.4, I honestly think its either you got a lens that needs calibration or you need to practice to focus with such little DOF (which can be hard).

curiousgeorge,
I saw you posted here Post your Canon 50/1.4 @ f/1.4 images!, didn't you see all the good quality shots @ f/1.4? (the ones you posted there weren't at that f/stop?).

Here is a page I have with some shots at f/1.4 along with 100% crops taken with a 5D and a 10D and of course a Canon 50mm @ f/1.4. Not all of us with that lens claim it's virtually unusable.

Some photos taken with a 50mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4 Click to see

I would send it in personally. I've got no problems getting a dud lens. It happens. But I couldn't stand having a lens that you can't shot 1.4 with. My 30 1.4 at 1.4, ISO 3200, neat image. Sometimes you just need, or want that minimal DOF. 50mm 1.4 still on the wish list!

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

hi, im happy with my 50 at 1.4 thats either user error of some sort or a bad copy.

AdamJL wrote in post #2120235
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.

I didn't buy it just because it was a 1.4.

I think that shot was focused on the background so it's not as bad as it looks.

That's absolutely not user error with the 50 1.4. They are notorious for yielding those results at 1.4. And don't think sending it in will entirely fix it. I just got mine back and although it isnt as bad, it's still noticable.

EDIT: OK, I just did some more test shots and it's still really bad.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #2120514
Take a picture of a ruler or a newspaper at a very slight angle.

I think this method has caused people unnecessary grief. The focus point is larger than what appears in the viewfinder so it might appear that it's back or front focussing when it could be fine. I've done a simple test with books on a shelf and I'm satisfied with the focusing. Anyway, that garden shot I took was at least 10m away.

yitbos1 wrote in post #2120627
That's absolutely not user error with the 50 1.4. They are notorious for yielding those results at 1.4. And don't think sending it in will entirely fix it. I just got mine back and although it isnt as bad, it's still noticable.

EDIT: OK, I just did some more test shots and it's still really bad.

I understand ( mostly from here ) that wide open lenses ,esp non L ones can be soft and have CA especially around the edges but less so in the centre. One of the images is possibly OOF and probably exposed towards the far side of the water ( esp if exposure was influenced by the focus point ) which would account for the problem . With the other ...thats much more extreme than i see with mine, i dont have anything to hand but will do a shot or two outside tommorrow morning and post.

Really what i was getting at , is that a good copy of that lens can do a lot better than that. If it was that crap as a rule it wouldnt be popular and my copy certainly isnt, il take a few test shots tommorrow ( again ) and will happilly eat my words if wrong ( its dark here in Spain ).

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2120625
I didn't buy it just because it was a 1.4.

I think that shot was focused on the background so it's not as bad as it looks.

NO! I did explain. This is a representative shot.

ONCE MORE: I bought the lens. Naturally I took some wide open shots. After some time without producing one good pic , I did some testing on various subjects. I tried focus charts , manual and auto focus.

THAT IS WHAT THE LENS PRODUCES WIDE OPEN. IT IS A FACT.

A friend has a 1DSMk2 and a 50 1.4. He describes his lens as "slightly better , but not much." He also owns a Pentax 85 1.4 , 50 1.4 , Canon 85 1.2.

We have exchanged lenses. I agree with his assesment.

IT IS NOT USER ERROR! I have 2 Pentax 50 1.4s. I used to own a Pentax 50 1.2. I HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH FAST 50mm ( and others)

I hate having to justify photography experience , but I have been an SLR owner / user for over 22 years. I am not a noob.

calm down dude!

aliflack wrote in post #2120530
To me this looks like an OOF image - the background is too much in focus for an F1.4 shot if the focus point was the buoy...

I agree that is what it looks like. It is misleading however. My friend I mentioned with 1D and 50 1.4 made the same comment. After he tested my lens on his body , he conceded that the example I posted is in fact representative of my lens. (And as allready mentioned , his is slightly better)

AdamJL wrote in post #2120776
calm down dude!

I'm

You should look at this wonderful sharpness test for the 50 f1.4 at www.slrgear.com. There is a huge difference between f1.4 and 2 and above which may explain the softness seen at f1.4.