No Love For The Fifty -Poll

CountryBoy wrote in post #7885789
Very true Ed, even my zooms are sharper then the Nifty, wide open.
My 150mm is very sharp wide open. I would say tack sharp. The Nifty is not even close. Even stopped down to 2.8 , the nifty doesn't catch up to it.
I know the 150mm cost more, but tack sharp is tack sharp. Something I find hard to believe about the nifty.

Having to stop the fifty down, makes it a slower lens. More like like a 2.8 lens.

Reality check: just about every lens less than $2000 and 85mm that is not a macro is soft wide open. Go look at Digital Picture or SLRGear or DPReview. The Canon 50/1.4 isn't any better than the 50/1.8 until nearly f/2.8. The Sigma 50 and 50L aren't stellar, either.

There is no use comparing a macro to a non-macro. The 100/2.8 is sharper than the 100/2 at f/2.8. So? If you need f/2, you need f/2. If you want to photograph something that moves, you generally don't bring a macro.

And is it really news that a lens has to be stopped down before it sharpens up?


I had two copies of the 50/1.8, one refurbished and one used. Both gave me phenomenal resolution for < $80. Both rarely misfocused even in low light so long as I used the center AF point and didn't point it at a black hole. I would still have one if the bokeh were better.

I'd call it tack sharp.

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

My nifty is pretty sharp. I use it quite a bit.

can we vote for more than one option? I voted for three... all demeaning.

I think it is a good lens, sure the build quality lacks but a bit that's why it is cheap.

Ok I read through the thread and I give up trying to guess WHICH 50

Whichever it is I vote it's a great lens because they all are

- each 50 is briliant in its own right, the nifty because of its price, the 1.4 because of its AF and all round performance and the L because it's a great piece of jewellry

toxic wrote in post #7886082
Reality check: just about every lens less than $2000 and 85mm that is not a macro is soft wide open. Go look at Digital Picture or SLRGear or DPReview. The Canon 50/1.4 isn't any better than the 50/1.8 until nearly f/2.8. The Sigma 50 and 50L aren't stellar, either.

There is no use comparing a macro to a non-macro. The 100/2.8 is sharper than the 100/2 at f/2.8. So? If you need f/2, you need f/2. If you want to photograph something that moves, you generally don't bring a macro.

And is it really news that a lens has to be stopped down before it sharpens up?

I had two copies of the 50/1.8, one refurbished and one used. Both gave me phenomenal resolution for < $80. Both rarely misfocused even in low light so long as I used the center AF point and didn't point it at a black hole. I would still have one if the bokeh were better.

Really I don't need to go to those sites, since I was comparing it to lens I have or have used.

I was comparing it my macro, because the macro is "tack" sharp. Something the nifty is far from. Also my macro does focus faster and more accurate then the nifty. So I would use it for something that moved, before I used the nifty.

No it is not news, that a lens sharpens up when stopped down. But a number of lens are sharp wide open. My 85mm is sharp wide open and very usable @ 1.8, and is very sharp @ 2.8. With none of the focusing problems the nifty has.
Since I feel the nifty needs to be stopped down to 2.8 to get good results, I might as well use my 50mm macro or 50-150mm lens, both will produce better IQ @ 50mm.

For me , as a low light, fast prime the nifty has failed.

CountryBoy wrote in post #7887884
Really I don't need to go to those sites, since I was comparing it to lens I have or have used.

I was comparing it my macro, because the macro is "tack" sharp. Something the nifty is far from. Also my macro does focus faster and more accurate then the nifty. So I would use it for something that moved, before I used the nifty.

No it is not news, that a lens sharpens up when stopped down. But a number of lens are sharp wide open. My 85mm is sharp wide open and very usable @ 1.8, and is very sharp @ 2.8. With none of the focusing problems the nifty has.
Since I feel the nifty needs to be stopped down to 2.8 to get good results, I might as well use my 50mm macro or 50-150mm lens, both will produce better IQ @ 50mm.

For me , as a low light, fast prime the nifty has failed.

You missed something very important in my post: "just about every lens less than $2000 and 85mm that is not a macro is soft wide open." Why is this? Because fast, normal, and especially wide-angle lenses have more difficulty countering optical aberrations. You keep insisting on comparing it to a 150mm macro and an 85mm f/1.8. Compare it to a 50/1.4, Sigma or Canon (I've owned all of these). Then a 35/2. A 28/1.8. A 35L. The only exception to this rule among all the fast and wide Canon primes is the 24L II.

Anyways, there are more qualities to a lens then simply sharpness. The 50 lacks microcontrast and great color or bokeh...but then again, it's not like the 50/1.4 is a big improvement.

Life is funny sometimes. I'm sitting here reading this thread, and the doorbell rings. It's my mailman, asking me to sign for a package - and lo and behold, it's the Nifty Fifty I ordered on Wednesday!

Opening the package momentarily

toxic wrote in post #7888565
You missed something very important in my post: "just about every lens less than $2000 and 85mm that is not a macro is soft wide open." Why is this? Because fast, normal, and especially wide-angle lenses have more difficulty countering optical aberrations. You keep insisting on comparing it to a 150mm macro and an 85mm f/1.8. Compare it to a 50/1.4, Sigma or Canon (I've owned all of these). Then a 35/2. A 28/1.8. A 35L. The only exception to this rule among all the fast and wide Canon primes is the 24L II.

Anyways, there are more qualities to a lens then simply sharpness. The 50 lacks microcontrast and great color or bokeh...but then again, it's not like the 50/1.4 is a big improvement.

You are missing the whole point and your not reading what I wrote.
Tack Sharp is Tack Sharp, no matter if it is a macro or not and focal lenght is not all that important in this disscussion. When someone claims a lens is "tack sharp", I expect it be to be at least as sharp as my macros or even the 135L It's a term that's used to often around here. There are degrees of sharpness.

I haven't tried the Sigma 50mm 1.4, so I can't compare it. A good copy of the Sigma 30mm 1.4 is said to be very sharp wide open. The same has been said of the Canon 1.4. But I'll let people who have used them, comment on them.

But your right the nifty does lack a good bokeh, color, contrast , when compared to other lens.

The whole thing is sorta silly.

Nifty has good side (sharp at most apertures, very nice IQ when it gets the AF) and bad side (the only cheap Canon lens that is indeed cheaply built, AF is relatively slow, noisy and lousy in low light). At it's price, it's a great value, and if you nail the AF, it's capable of producing fantastic portraits. If it was $400, i'd consider it a bad value.

toxic wrote in post #7888565
You missed something very important in my post: "just about every lens less than $2000 and 85mm that is not a macro is soft wide open."

My 60 f/2.8 macro is very sharp wide open. My 17-55 f/2.8 is every bit as sharp wide open except in the left upper corner.

Both of them sharpen up at f/5.6, but in the center you'd be hard pressed to see the difference.

These remarks are not from someone else's review, they're from my own testing.

As for the original question: who needs a 50 on a crop camera? It's not a very useful focal length. IMO, of course.

-js

Well, it's out of the box now - I and shot about 80 pictures this afternoon on a nice walk with the wife. For $100, I'm pleased as punch. About 30 of the photos were slightly OOF, and I had the AF mode set to "One Shot" (center AF point only). Noisy little lens, but so far I like the results.

Here's a couple:

I prefer the earlier metal mount version. But the mark II is excellent value for money. I'll admit the build quality is crap and and it's a noisy little bugger but it's quite capable of some astounding results. At the price it is there's no argument.