Canon 50mm f1.4 - first impressions

blam wrote in post #2128247
no worries, bro.

how is yours at f1.4?

It's worth a look...
I have some concert venue shots (200+) filed away...will check them out for any @ f1.4...If there are some, I'll return to this thread and post 'em later...

i think my copy is quite sharp. i like it alot.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

This is a concert venue photo, (just the guitarist) : South Side Johnny and the Asbury Jukes at Penn's Peak...

ISO 100, 1/40th, Canon 50mm 1.4 Lens @ f1.4

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Just wondering if many people are focusing and then recomposing? I found that switching to using the AF points with the 50 to be a major improvement, the DOF is so shallow it seems to make a difference, to me anyway. I have a whole raft of f/1.4 images that I've shot with my 50 that have made magazine covers.

As a matter of interest my Dad got a 50 f/1.4 and it also seems pretty good so I'm puzzled as to why so many people here are not happy with theirs. I've also tried another and that was good too, so on my random sampling I found consistantly good results.

BTW, John Stoy, curious why you didn't go for say ISO 400 and grab a faster shutter speed? Looks like your copy is pretty good too.

echo wrote in post #2128710
Just wondering if many people are focusing and then recomposing? I found that switching to using the AF points with the 50 to be a major improvement, the DOF is so shallow it seems to make a difference, to me anyway. I have a whole raft of f/1.4 images that I've shot with my 50 that have made magazine covers.

As a matter of interest my Dad got a 50 f/1.4 and it also seems pretty good so I'm puzzled as to why so many people here are not happy with theirs. I've also tried another and that was good too, so on my random sampling I found consistantly good results.

BTW, John Stoy, curious why you didn't go for say ISO 400 and grab a faster shutter speed? Looks like your copy is pretty good too.

No kidding! Why were you shooting a night concert at ISO 100?

The shots aren't bad but I'm sure they could have been better.

I can't get a far distance shot at 1.4 if my life depended on it...close range is not a problem

Argh, I can't stand it any more - the 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens I tell you

OK, I'm digging through my archives but here's one at f/2.8 that I think shows a decent result:

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

echo wrote in post #2128710
Just wondering if many people are focusing and then recomposing? I found that switching to using the AF points with the 50 to be a major improvement, the DOF is so shallow it seems to make a difference, to me anyway. I have a whole raft of f/1.4 images that I've shot with my 50 that have made magazine covers.

As a matter of interest my Dad got a 50 f/1.4 and it also seems pretty good so I'm puzzled as to why so many people here are not happy with theirs. I've also tried another and that was good too, so on my random sampling I found consistently good results.

BTW, John Stoy, curious why you didn't go for say ISO 400 and grab a faster shutter speed? Looks like your copy is pretty good too.

I had just gotten the DSLR 30D camera and a couple of Canon lenses the previous week...prior to it, I was using a Canon 35mm SLR with high speed film and a bumped up ASA/ISO on the camera dial...

In other words, I was just getting familiar with the 30D settings... since then, the photos are real sharp at ISO 1600 while in the dark concert venue...I think it's a great lens...

F2.8 and F1.4 are 2 different things

it IS a great lens though

Great theater venue shots are plentiful at ISO 1600 and F 3.5...
Check; Randy Travis in concert, out:
lots of great shots in the lower part of the thread...
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=213935

blam wrote in post #2128771
F2.8 and F1.4 are 2 different things

it IS a great lens though

Yeah it is...I second the motion or what ever...

Since I've adjusted my ISO the lens is great...previously At a real slow ISO, the lens was setting up at f1.4, and f1.6, 1.8, 2.0 to compensate for the very low lighting...

As a matter of interest, do any people here who have the 50 f/1.4 also have the 35 f/1.4 L - If so, how would you compare them? I only ask as I'm thinking about one, cough.

if you are flush w/ tons of cash, get the L.

otherwise, a good copy of the sigma 30 f/1.4 should fit the bill w/ far less damage to the wallet. i love mine.

disclaimer - i have never used a 35L.

But on a 5D I thought the Sigma wouldn't be any good?

you are correct; didn't see the 5D in the post, and didn't read yr sig file.