Canon 50mm f1.4 - first impressions

You get CA with the 85 1.8 wide open too. Not a big deal though. Generally you don't shoot things super wide open in sunny days.

And f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, etc very very shallow so if you miss your focus, you are screwed.

Lightstream wrote in post #2122085
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.

it had better be, if not no one's gonna pay.

I've just done a few more tests and it seems much better at 1.4, even though 1.6 or more is needed for a far more acceptable image.

I was convinced it can't be a focus problem but I'm starting to believe that it will take some practice to learn to focus properly at such large apertures.

i will post my shots soon, but it strikes me looking at this thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=139085
that at worst this is a bad copy and at best the lens is weak when confonted with this configuration. That being would you likely be using this lens at 1.4 in daylight where the CA is so obvious ? I had to play with the numbers as in shutter speed of about 2K i believe to get this exposed correctly. Since this would not be the way one would use the lens ordinarily , its an odd first impression and certainly not one that does it justice. So while im to an extent eating my words , the weakness in the lens is not one im too worried about , as i wouldnt be coming across it unless i was really trying. Use the lens naturally and i bet you wont see those problems and could in fact say this is close to an L .

F1.4

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

I hardly ever shoot with my 50 1.4 at 1.4. I haven't made any comparisons, but shooting outdoors mostly, I set the dial at P and let the camera decide most of the time. But the fact remains, it's the best lens I have for indoors without a flash and I just have to make due with the terrible colors if the walls are yellow, for instance. Still, the lens provides sharp pictures. Can't shoot a large group, though, too much brokeh.

I've just got a 1.4 aswell, these tests are really intresting as I haven't got a chance to try mine out yet. Lovely cat photos.

freefallu - that's bad.

I'm definitely holding out on till that planar comes out. It's hope it's worth the 600 bucks.

I took a couple shots yesterday just to fool around with the 1.4. pretty much every shot I took at 1.4 from a distance (to capture the entire car) turned out soft or off focus. I do find however, shooting CLOSE to the object, the softness and focus is not as bad.

I wish I took some with a smaller Fstop, but I was in a rush and didn't have time to sit around taking pictures of a guys car.

it makes me glad to see that it's typical of the lens and not just me, but also dissappointed to see that it is almost unusable at 1.4

Freefallu, those do look soft (the f/1.4 shot looks very soft), but the 50/1.4 does have some CA wide open. It doesn't do well with very bright situations. Get that lens indoors where you will need f/1.4.

Here's the full image at f/1.4 - The DOF is very shallow so that the top portion of the "Ohio State" insignia is already starting to blur at 100%:

I get similar results to what Tom has posted at f/1.4 (slightly more noticeable softness at f/1.4 on a Large print). The images freefallu posted look like either the lens or the camera is faulty.

I looked at some images I took of my kids at f/1.4 and can't see any difference in softness unless I view them at full size on my computer.

i dont get super soft results like freefallu at 1.4, but hte focus is almost always off.

I bought this lens for portrait- on my crop body it is equiv 85mm portrait lens, it performs well in low light which is where i would only use f1.4-

in good light i would only come close to using 1.4 for portraits where i want a good bokeh background blur(this where the 1.4 out performs the 1.8)-

why would you use 1.4 for taking a picture of a subject while trying to keep the background sharp?

I find if i shoot something like a carnival scene f5.6 produces excellent results.

Tom , looks like you have a good lens there. Centre of focus looks to be in front of the red band - good detail of the weave of the brim of the hat.
Have these been processed at all? Any in camera sharpness?

freefallu - agree with your point about shooting wide open in bright light.
I think doing so shows a combination of CA and softness. Tom's example is probably ideal.

My first dissapointment with my 50 1.4 was extreme low light - I had some success at an aquarium taking pics of fish with my 5D and 17-40L. F4 at ISO 1600, usually manually setting shutter speed to 1/60. I'd get the occassional keeper Thought the 50 1.4 was going to really excell at this - found the 17-40 is actually better. I have to stop the 1.4 down so much I might as well take advantage of the better focusing of the 17-40L.
Next aquarium visit I'll resort to my 50 1.8 at F2.5, knowing that AF is going to be my biggest problem.

Dave, I threw the shots together quickly, so in-camera sharpening was applied. Just shot RAW in "standard" picture style on the 5D. I did tweak the white balance a bit by selecting a white point just to get the colors the most natural. Nothing major.

Converted in DPP and resized in Photoshop Elements 3.

I've got a couple of outdoor bright-sunlight shots but no time to process them. Suffice to say that very bright highlights exhibit some "clouding" haziness and some CA at f/1.4. That gradually disappears as you stop down. F/2.2 is good, f/2.8 is excellent.

My 50/1.4 struggled to AF in very low light on my old 10D, but it has worked well on the 1D II, 30D, and 5D. I think that the 10D's AF system was weak in low-light. I've heard word that the 50/1.4 and 20D combination has some occasional mis-focusing problems, but I haven't seen that with the 3 bodies I've used since the 10D. Could be a DOF/movement issue as well. It's easy to move 1/2 inch and throw things out.

Thanks Tom.
Judging by your test shots I'd call your lens "useable" at 1.8. (If anyone else wants to call it useable at 1.4 , no argument )
Can clearly see the limits of DOF , looks about 2 1/2 inches ( should be 2.4 if you were 48 inches away according to DOFmaster) and 100% crop detail of the straw shows good detail.