Canon 50mm f1.4 - first impressions

Hi Choder, Sorry i can see how my own post might have aggrevated you, it was a poor choice of words. Ill post some wide open for you tommorrow using my 5D.

I just checked DOFmaster.
Estimating distance to the buoy at 20m, DOF at F1.4 is 15.3m, so it really is not that shallow.

freefallu wrote in post #2120826
Hi Choder, Sorry i can see how my own post might have aggrevated you, it was a poor choice of words. Ill post some wide open for you tommorrow using my 5D.

It's all cool. Sorry if I have caused concern. I was just trying to establish that I'm not just making unsubstantiated statements. I really wanted this lens to be good (in my eyes) by F1.8.

freefallu wrote in post #2120592
hi, im happy with my 50 at 1.4 thats either user error of some sort or a bad copy.

I agree with this statement.

eek some of these images at 1.4 seem at odds with my experience of ownership, yeah it has some CA but that's easilly fixable in PP. The biggest problem i have with it is vignetting wide open. Sharpness wide open is quite reasonable.

It could well be a bad copy!

I got my 1.4 recently and noticed also at 1.4 i get focus issues... the bench picture i focussed on the head @ F1.8 the guage cluster was F1.4, seemed alright

I noticed more problems with the 50 1.8 though...

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

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

1.4 on my 50 is pretty soft too and the CA is pretty annoying.

It's useable in a pinch, but stopped down to 2.8 and its already sharper than my 50 1.8 was by 5.6.

F/1.4 is a bit softer on my 50 as well, but it's not horrible and is useful in low light or where the lighting is relatively subdued. Bright sunlight with very bright highlights are not the forte for this lens wide open, but generally, f/2.2 or so works well in those conditions.

I'm going to try some shots at 2.0+ tomorrow if I can find the time...

I havent got the itme lately to play with my new toy at all!! (working 7 days a week)

I would consider getting it calibrated..

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.

That's the thing. I shot a 50 f/1.4 that my camera dealer was trying to tempt me into buying and it was horrifying. I thought I was going blind from the CA. If I can't use it at 1.4, then I'm going to get a nice zoom instead.

My 28/1.8 is useable wide open, makes a very refreshing change. Just not impressed with Canon's 50mm offerings at all. The 50/1.8 found its way into my bag because it was *CHEAP*.

condyk wrote in post #2120209
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

I'm starting to believe there may be more credible offerings. Hear you loud and clear that the Pentax is good. What's your opinion of Zeiss/Contax glass, in particular their Planar 50 1.4 and 1.7 offerings? May be willing to tolerate the sacrifice of AF in ultra low light applications.

I just received my 50mm f1.4 yesterday and played with f1.4 a bit. This looks pretty decent to me

Only some PP levels, second one 100% crop. Handheld indoors no flash. And I had to save at 87% quality to get <100kb.


Olga

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

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

the CA is always an issue. but it disappears by f/2 - which is why i've read someone calling it an ef 50mm f/2 L.

Here are some of mine,testing it in the shop,not superb shots but good enogh for me to hand over the cash.

If the 50 f/1.2L is useable wide open without *ANY* CA, and reasonably sharp, then I feel it is truly deserving of its price tag. If not, it's just 1.4 with a markup.