Canon 50mm f1.4 - first impressions

Surprisngly well to be honest - I expected the 35/1.4 to murder it, but I can already see a good number of keepers for the B&G to choose from using the 50/1.4.

Any CA is so tiny as to be negligible, and these shots are all out of camera with no PP yet done.

Am I missing something

We buy a f/1.4 lens so that we can use it at that. If we then have to stop it down to f/1.8 why not just buy the f/1.8. OR do we buy these wide open lenses so that we know we will get a sharp picture a stop lower?

Personally, with just about any lens I accept that it'll be a little softer wide open than stopped down a little. The same goes for the 50/1.4. Thus, the 50/1.4 is likely to be sharper at f1.8 than the 50/1.8 at 1.8.

for those mentioning the 350 is bad with fast lenses vs. the 30D, I have a 400D with this lens and it doesn't seem to focus any better than some of the bad examples here.

I will be taking mine in sometime this week to see if I can get an exchange.

but again, having said that, at distance shooting, it can't focus worth poop, but close ups haven't proved to be much of a problem yet, but these rainy days haven't left me with much time to go for a shoot....

i believe the 1.4 has a better bokeh ( more blades ) , but yes it does seem stupid to market a lens that doesnt really perform , although some seem fortunate in getting a good copy , something clearly is not right from the QC point of viewor somewhere along the line.

freefallu, have you tried shots at closer range? I will take some later today on my lunch break and post my results.

Blam,

This is f1.4 no PP at 100% crop. Close up is quite good.

Thanks Radiohead for the 35 info. I'm going to wait and see how the 50L performs before I pick up a 35.

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

that looks fine to me....now try one at a distance...say....20'

Also, note that CA does not show up in all situations. For a long time I shot the 17-85, which has horrifying CA on branches against a backlit sky, and never noticed - because I never shot branches! It was only when someone tipped me off that I needed to do exactly that to see how bad the CA was, that I noticed.

The 50/1.4 on the other hand, at least the sample I tried at my dealer, produced copious amounts of CA without even trying. I thought I was hallucinating, it was so bad.

here is a couple I just snapped
2.8 vs. 1.4

not too bad on 1.4, a touch of CA though.

no pp other than a crop to reduce file size.

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

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

F3.5 with some handshake. I was rushing my photos

edit:
I could have picked a better subject, the lettering on the can has a fuzzy outline...so it looks sioft because it is in real life as well. lol

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

Here is an example of the 50mm 1.4 lens at work, at a theater venue with only stage lighting from 50-60 feet away, the images were trimed and some are slightly sharpened...all shots at f4.0, ISO 1600.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=227883

johnstoy, the issue is at F1.4 here. F4 works fine for everyone lol.

blam wrote in post #2128206
johnstoy, the issue is at F1.4 here. F4 works fine for everyone lol.

Thanks for the heads up...I went only by the title of the thread, and read just a few of the responses, my mistake...

no worries, bro.

how is yours at f1.4?