Canon 50 f/1.4 sharp wideopen???

Is there such a thing?

Reading the FM reviews a good 80% (speculation) says f/1.8 to f/2.2 is noticeably sharp.

My plastic nifty 50 was excellent at f/2 to f/2.2. I guess if your critical, the bokeh was not asounding by any means.

The Canon 50 f/1.4 has been well known for soft wideopen performance with CA. HOW do most owners use this lens?? f/1.8 to f/2.8????

My 50f/1.4 copy with 5D appears to have no front/back focus issues however at f/1.6 its "acceptably" sharp. At f/1.8 its what I would expect this lens should perform at f/1.4. (Sorry NO PICS)

I do find this lens to be sharper on the XTI so I'm assuming its the shallower DOF of the 5D (my part in handshake and moving subject) that is also contributing to the softness. Eyelash detail is my pixel peeping object.

My new copy has time for a swap at the local camera store. I've just heard people having several new copy swaps with identical peformance wideopen.

Is this just the way it is?? I still cant pull a trigger on a Sigma 50 f/1.4. Mind you in most cases f/2, f/2.2 (or higher) will probably give many a higher keeper rate on moving subjects.

Realistically is this nature of the product? By reading reviews its the way it is.

thanks!

I had a copy, 'twas soft at f/1.4. I've used a couple of other people's copies and found them to be equal. My 1.8 was sharper wide open, the 1.4 was equal to the 1.8 at 1.8 however.

Yeah, it's not the best wide open. It's been over a year since I've owned one, but remember using it at 1.8 most of the time. I still think it's usable at 1.4, but much better stopped down.

The sigma 50 f/1.4 is pretty much the same in that regard, right?

The Sigma 50 that I tried at B&H was sharp wide open. Thing with Sigma is finding a copy that focuses correctly.

AlanU wrote in post #7486886
Is there such a thing?

Reading the FM reviews a good 80% (speculation) says f/1.8 to f/2.2 is noticeably sharp.

My plastic nifty 50 was excellent at f/2 to f/2.2. I guess if your critical, the bokeh was not asounding by any means.

The Canon 50 f/1.4 has been well known for soft wideopen performance with CA. HOW do most owners use this lens?? f/1.8 to f/2.8????

My 50f/1.4 copy with 5D appears to have no front/back focus issues however at f/1.6 its "acceptably" sharp. At f/1.8 its what I would expect this lens should perform at f/1.4. (Sorry NO PICS)

I do find this lens to be sharper on the XTI so I'm assuming its the shallower DOF of the 5D (my part in handshake and moving subject) that is also contributing to the softness. Eyelash detail is my pixel peeping object.

My new copy has time for a swap at the local camera store. I've just heard people having several new copy swaps with identical peformance wideopen.

Is this just the way it is?? I still cant pull a trigger on a Sigma 50 f/1.4. Mind you in most cases f/2, f/2.2 (or higher) will probably give many a higher keeper rate on moving subjects.

Realistically is this nature of the product? By reading reviews its the way it is.

thanks!

i almost always stop down any lens when possible except for my 70-200L f4 IS. i try to use the 50 1.4 @ f2 but will use it wide open if left with no choice.

it shouldn't come as any shock that canon's least expensive f1.4 lens is soft wide open, should it ?

that said, i've owned four different 50 1.4s and two were better wide open than my 35L 1.4 or the 35L 1.4 that i rented. okay i do know that copy variation could play into this .

here's a sample with my FF 1ds mark III shot wide open.....

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

so monkey nuts they are?? Thanks for reasuring that I am not an obsessive Pixel peeper. My copy shows no front/back focus at least. So I guess I have the "typical" Canon 50 f/1.4. On print I guess its definitely useable at widopen.

Putting on my 85 f/1.8 (wideopen) on my 5D makes me think the Canon 50f/1.4 is a shame at wideopen.

I am praying Canon will make a long awaited 50 f/1.4 mkII.

If I had micro adjust I'd buy the Sigma version. Just wont pull the trigger just yet. The 50L scares me aswell.

So you really are paying 3x more for the build quality.
I guess you have the option to shoot at 1.4 but if the photos come out soft, what's the point?

Am I asking for too much if I expect a lens with 1.4 maximum aperture to actually produce reasonably sharp photos at 1.4???

yeah yeah, more blades, better bokeh, and micro USM, but the MAIN advantage of the 1.4 vs the 1.8 should be the f/1.4 not build quality!
If the 1.8 had a metal mount and $20 more, I bet the 1.4 would be quite unpopular... at least until they fix the softness issue at 1.4 - 2.0.

The 50mm 1.4 should be called the 50mm 1.8 mkIII, because most say that it doesn't even become useful until stopped down to at least 1.8
The reason the 1.4 is so popular is because Canon is running a bait and switch scheme!

Ed,

The Canon 50f/1.4 is $400 CDN new. I find my copy sharp when I take photos of books, cell phone, pens etc etc. When I start taking photos of my daughter I find at f/1.4 and f/1.6 acceptably useable. When she's not moving so much I can get excellent eyelash detail at f/1.8.


So I'm assuming f/2.0 , 2.2+ is what I should be using. Certainly a shame for a fast prime. My brick gives me almost the same separation bokeh but with versatility.

I guess it is what it is.

AlanU wrote in post #7487076
Ed,

The Canon 50f/1.4 is $400 CDN new. I find my copy sharp when I take photos of books, cell phone, pens etc etc. When I start taking photos of my daughter I find at f/1.4 and f/1.6 acceptably useable. When she's not moving so much I can get excellent eyelash detail at f/1.8.


So I'm assuming f/2.0 , 2.2+ is what I should be using. Certainly a shame for a fast prime. My brick gives me almost the same separation bokeh but with versatility.

I guess it is what it is.

yep. the only canon non-L prime that i think is "sharp" wide open is the 100 f2 but it is an exceptional lens and it does noticeably improve when stopped down.

i couldn't get this guy to stop moving either and it was very dark (50 1.4 @ 1.4) .

Ed,

Looks like he's scared of the guy behind the camera

excellent capture by the way!!!

I guess I have a mediocre typical 50 f/1.4. I'm debating if I should even try another copy. I'll do more testing I guess.

BTW, i do agree that canon needs a moderately priced 50mm prime with ring USM. this fact hasn't been lost on sigma either .

of all the shorter primes i've used i'd say they are f2 lenses if you are concerned about sharpness. the 28 1.8 is an f2.2 lens and is horrible wide open.

ed rader

AlanU wrote in post #7487142
Ed,

Looks like he's scared of the guy behind the camera

excellent capture by the way!!!

I guess I have a mediocre typical 50 f/1.4. I'm debating if I should even try another copy. I'll do more testing I guess.

Alan -- i've owned four copies. the one i have now is the best or at least tied with the best. one was unusable wide open.

what i would do is buy used copies when you see excellent deals and keep the one that's the best.

i use the 50 1.4 rarely and the price and performance are about right for me .

ed rader

My "normal" crop Sigma 30mm is unbelievably sharp wideopen. Its 98% of the time spot on focus with my XTI. That lens was a flukey find for "good" accuracy. That lens definitely puts that Canon 50 f/1.4 to severe shame on my 5d.

AlanU wrote in post #7487197
My "normal" crop Sigma 30mm is unbelievably sharp wideopen. Its 98% of the time spot on focus with my XTI. That lens was a flukey find for "good" accuracy. That lens definitely puts that Canon 50 f/1.4 to severe shame on my 5d.

the 30 1.4 doesn't work on either of my cameras so that ain't computing for me .

ed rader