Canon 50 f/1.4 sharp wideopen???

I find the 50mm f/1.4 to be plenty acceptable wide-open. No problems here... other than I find myself using the 35m f/2 (which is razor sharp wide-open) more because I shoot wide.

I had a 50 1.4 that was pretty sharp wide open heres one pic i found at 1.4

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

I find my 50/1.4 sufficiently sharp at 1.4. I tend to stop down a bit (1.8 or 2.0) to improve sharpness and most importantly increase DOF.

Here are 2 examples at f/1.4

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

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

AlanU,
There are over 120 pages of those that have been happy with there 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.4 in the Lens Sample Photo ArchiveCanon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM @ f/1.4

John_B,

I think my copy of this lens is actually decent. I think the 5D's shallow dof makes shooting f/1.4 more challenging. Keeper rate is tough when I chase my 2yr old. Heres a great example of landing a shot at f/1.4. This reduced size photo doesn't give this photo justice. Untouched the eyelash detail is actually excellent...better than useable/good.

I bought one at a great price from a member here about 1 month ago or so, and i'm truly undecided on the lens, although besides the image quality, it is DEAD SEXA on my 40D IMO. So at least it has that going for it...

Let me look around for some 1.4 picks, I don't think its good at all at 1.4, I use it at 2.0 pretty much all the time.

While I shot primarily wide open and did well with the 50 / 1.4 on the 5D:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/5014_on_a_5d

the reality is that the 50 / 1.4 was more hit and miss below f/2 than I would have liked. But, when it hit, it was usually quite good (in terms of sharpness):

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/on_a_good_day

I found the 50 / 1.2L worth the price, however, for wide open shooting. But, if you shot mainly at f/2 and above, it would be hard to justify the size, weight, and expense. However, the Sigma 50 / 1.4 may be the way to go if the 50 / 1.4 does not satisfy.

I usually use this lens by stopping it down to f/2 or f/2.8. I avoid going below f/2 because of personal preference with the bokeh, decrease in sharpness and lower keeping rate; it might be me being the problem though.

Yet, when you need it at f/1.4, it does a reasonably good job. I seriously can't complaint much with the price of this lens (as compared to 50L)...

Here's one wide-open.

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

I love my 50 1.4. Its acceptable at f1.4 and gets sharper when stopped down.

I also found my friends 50mm 1.4 a little bit soft @ 1.4. It is usable, but I found my self rather using something around 1.8 or 2.0 for better sharpness.

I've discovered a back focus issue at aprox 3- 5 feet (wideopen). This may be the reason for the hit and miss sharpness I was getting. Only when I am extremely close (in my daughters face) did I get accurate focus for the max sharpness at wideopen.

I borrowed my friends copyt of the 50 f/1.4 and its significantly sharper wideopen and doing some extensive testing last night I got an extremely high rate of keepers at f/1.4. My copy I found that when I focussed on my daughters right eye I would get focus on her left (right eye is closer in the focus plane.) I also took photos of a keyboard and test shows incorrect focus aswell producing focussed key behind the "target subject".

I guess this is the reason I tend to purchase new locally. Testing lenses certainly is alot of snapping!! Back to the store it goes. I hope I get a copy as good as my friends. His copy is an example of a steller lens I was looking for (for the price)

I find the 50mm at f/1.4 to be soft on my 40D, and noticeably sharper on the 5D. I assume this is due to two things: much lower pixel density on the 5D, and also a lighter AA filter on the 5D.

On my 40D, I get acceptably sharp (to me) results at f/2.5.

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/recep-bg/

take a look at 50 1.4 at 1.4 from camera
u don't need to pixel peep, it's darn sharp when u stopped down too


this guy even used a softer lens EF-S 17-85

ed rader wrote in post #7487158
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

Amen. I would love a mid-range 50, but my choices are very limited if I'm particular about wide-open IQ.

A 50mm/1.4 with the build quality and ring USM of the 85/1.8 would sell like crazy, I would think.

You can use it. You cannot use a 50/1.8 at f/1.4
Yeah, it soft, but usable IMO.
In the circumstances you're going to *need* f/1.4 you probably have other things to worry about then absolute sharpness and pixel peeping IMO.

Link

It does that (depending on your definition of "Reasonable")

I do agree however that it's an old design, bokeh could be better, as well as sharpness, and an update is due.

I'd take better bokeh over absolute sharpness any day of the week, and twice in the weekend... Same for build quality (at least, if we're comparing to the 50/1.8 Mk2 which is too fragile for my use)

ed rader wrote in post #7487118
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 have one, and it's okay. Better then the 50/1.4 for sure.
85/1.8 has the same performance I'd say.

Brett Michael wrote in post #7502463
I would love a mid-range 50, but my choices are very limited if I'm particular about wide-open IQ.

Sigma is better then Canon.
Quite a few options in MF lenses.